On January 2, 2020, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order for the POR. 1 In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), between January 22, 2020, and January 31, 2020, Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings Ltd., Pyla HK Limited, and Maria Yee, Inc. (collectively, Maria Yee);  2 Kimball International, Inc., Kimball Furniture Group, Inc., and Kimball Hospitality Inc. (collectively, Kimball);  3 and the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), 4 requested a review of the Order with respect to a number of companies. On March 10, 2020, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce initiated an administrative review of the Order with respect to the companies named by the requesting parties. 5 Between May 8, 2020 and May 11, 2020, Maria Yee, Kimball, and the petitioners timely withdrew their review requests for all companies. 6

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested reviews. The requesting parties withdrew all of their requests for review within the 90-day deadline. Because Commerce received no other requests for review, we are rescinding the administrative review of the AD order on wooden bedroom furniture from China covering the POR January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, in its entirety, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 7

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China during the period January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at rates equal to the cash deposit rates for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 8

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

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On August 26, 2020, Commerce published antidumping duty orders on wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam. 1 In the Orders, Commerce inadvertently stated that the provisional measures expired on August 12, 2020. 2 Commerce is correcting the Orders to clarify that August 11, 2020 is the date on which the provisional measures expired.

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we have instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 12, 2020, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the U.S. International Trade Commission's final injury determination in the Federal Register ( i.e., August 24, 2020). 3 In addition we have instructed CBP to resume the suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits beginning August 25, 2020, the date the ITC Final Injury Determination published in the Federal Register .

We are hereby correcting the Orders to include the correct date on which provisional measures expired, as stated above. This notice serves as a correction and is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act.

On July 22, 2020, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review. 1 Interested parties were invited to comment on the Preliminary Results within 30 days of publication. 2 We received no comments.

The merchandise covered by the Order is OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish ( e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the Order also covers OCTG coupling stock.

Excluded from the scope of the Order are: Casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.

The merchandise subject to the Order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.

The merchandise subject to the Order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.

The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

In the Preliminary Results, we found that Jindal SAW, Ltd. (JSL), the sole company for which a review was requested, made no shipments of OCTG from India during the POR. We also stated in the Preliminary Results that consistent with Commerce's practice, it was not appropriate to preliminarily rescind the review, but rather to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) based on the final results. 4

We received no information that contradicted our findings in the Preliminary Results, and no interested party commented on the Preliminary Results. Therefore, for these final results, we continue to find that JSL made no shipments of OCTG from India during the POR.

Commerce determines, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review. 5 Consistent with Commerce's clarification to its assessment practice, because we determined that JSL had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by JSL, for which this company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any entries at the all-others rate ( i.e., zero percent)  6 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 7

We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for JSL will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to them in the most recently completed segment for the company;  8 (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be zero percent, the all-others cash deposit rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 9 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On November 1, 2019, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order for the POR. 1 In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), on November 27, 2019, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. and SKC, Inc. (collectively, petitioners) timely requested a review of the Order with respect to four companies. 2 On January 17, 2020, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce initiated an administrative review of the Order with respect to the four companies named by the petitioners. 3 On February 10, 2020, the petitioners timely withdrew their November 27, 2019 review request for all four companies. 4

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioners withdrew their requests for review within the 90-day deadline. Because Commerce received no other requests for review, we are rescinding the administrative review of the Order on PET film from China covering the November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2019 POR, in full, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess AD duties on all appropriate entries of PET film from China during the period November 1, 2018, through October 31, 2019, at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated AD duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

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

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On February 18, 2015, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD and CVD orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China and the AD order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan. 1 On January 2, 2020, the ITC instituted and Commerce initiated the first sunset reviews of the Orders pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 Commerce conducted these sunset reviews on an expedited basis, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) because it received timely and adequate notices of intent to participate in the sunset reviews and substantive responses from domestic interested parties, 3 but no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) and (c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and dumping, as applicable. Commerce also notified the ITC of the magnitude of the subsidy rates and dumping margins likely to prevail should the Orders be revoked. 4 On September 4, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 5

The merchandise covered by these Orders is crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China and Taiwan. Merchandise covered by the Orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.60.15, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, 8541.40.60.35 and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive. 6

As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and dumping, as applicable, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the AD and CVD orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China and the AD order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next sunset review of the Orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and this notice is published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 24, 2020. 1 On June 10, 2020, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation to August 28, 2020. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The products covered by this investigation are mattresses from the People's Republic of China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, 3 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 4 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. 5 Commerce intends to issue its preliminary decision regarding comments concerning the scope of the antidumping duty (AD) and CVD investigations in the preliminary determinations of the concurrent AD investigations.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 6

Commerce notes that, in making these findings, it relied on facts available and, because it finds that necessary information was missing from the record and because respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce's request for information, it drew adverse inferences in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), and based on the petitioner's request, we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the concurrent AD investigations of mattresses from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, the Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 7 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determinations, which are currently scheduled to be issued no later than January 11, 2021, unless postponed.

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, if the individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis, or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated subsidy rate for all other producers or exporters. In this investigation, all rates are based entirely on facts available, pursuant to section 776 of the Act. Accordingly, we find under “any reasonable method” to rely on a simple average of the total AFA rates computed for the non-responsive companies as the all-others rate in this preliminary determination. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

Normally, Commerce discloses its calculations performed in connection with the preliminary determination to interested parties within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied total AFA rates in the calculation of the benefit for the non-responsive companies, and the applied AFA rates are based on rates calculated in prior proceedings, there are no calculations to disclose.

Because the examined respondents in this investigation did not provide information requested by Commerce and Commerce preliminarily determines each of the examined respondents to have been uncooperative, it will not conduct verification.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 50 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. 8 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, and time of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

On October 1, 2019, notice was published in the Federal Register (84 FR 52072) that a request for a permit to import five beluga whales for scientific research had been submitted by the above-named applicant. A public hearing on this action was held on November 18, 2019 (84 FR 58694). The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The permit authorizes the importation of five captive-born beluga whales from Marineland of Canada (Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada) to Mystic Aquarium (Mystic, Connecticut, United States).

The beluga whales were born at Marineland of Canada and NMFS considers one of the beluga whales to be a member of the depleted Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock, because both parents are likely from the depleted stock. Four of the whales have mixed-stock parentage ( i.e., one parent likely from the depleted stock and the other from a stock that has not been designated as depleted). For purposes of this permit application, NMFS has treated all five whales as depleted.

The purpose of the research is to contribute knowledge and inform management and recovery of beluga whale populations in the wild including the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale distinct population segment and the depleted Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River beluga whale stock. Research authorized includes the following Studies: (1) Neuroimmunological response to environmental and anthropogenic stressors; (2) Development of novel non-invasive techniques to assess health in free-ranging, stranded and endangered beluga whales; (3) Hearing and physiological response to anthropogenic sound; (4) Photogrammetry body condition studies; (5) Diving physiology; (6) Microbiome; and (8) Testing of prototype telemetry and imaging devices before deployment on wild beluga whales. The permit does not authorize Study 7 (Behavioral and reproduction studies) including breeding of any of the imported beluga whales but includes reproductive monitoring as part of husbandry activities. Mystic Aquarium must submit a plan to provide safe and effective contraception or other means to prevent breeding of the five subject beluga whales, for approval by the Office Director prior to importation.

Consistent with other research permits authorizing captive maintenance, the permit is conditioned to require approval by the Office Director for any transfer or transport of the imported whales, including any transport to the Georgia Aquarium, and disposition of the whales at the termination of research. Consistent with NMFS' regulations, public display is authorized incidental to the research. This incidental public display must not interfere with the research and must occur as part of an educational program describing the status of the species and its endangered and depleted stocks. The animals may not be used in public interactive programs or be trained for performance. Public demonstrations in which the whales perform trained husbandry, medical, research-related, and natural behaviors are authorized. The permit is valid through August 31, 2025.

An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ).

Based on the analyses in the EA, NMFS determined that issuance of the permit would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and that preparation of an environmental impact statement was not required. That determination is documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed on August 27, 2020.

Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state of Delaware has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. For the evaluation of the Illinois Coastal Management Program, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The applicant requests a five-year permit for takes of bearded ( Erignathus barbatus ), harbor ( Phoca vitulina ), ribbon ( Histriophoca fasciata ), ringed ( Phoca hispida ), and spotted seals ( Phoca largha ) in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, Arctic Ocean, and coastal regions of Alaska. The purposes of the research are to investigate the foraging ecology, population abundance and trends, population structure, habitat requirements, health, vital rates, and effects of natural and anthropogenic factors on these species. Annually, up to 150 of each ice-associated seal species (bearded, ribbon, ringed, and spotted) and up to 250 harbor seals may be captured, handled, and released for measurement of body condition, collection of tissue samples, deployment of telemetry devices, and other procedures as described in the application. An additional 3,000 of each ice associated seal species and 5,500 harbor seals may be incidentally harassed annually during capture activities or collection of feces and other samples from haul-out substrate. Annual takes by harassment during aerial surveys (manned and unmanned) include 3,200 bearded, 6,000 harbor, 1,750 ribbon, 6,700 ringed, and 4,500 spotted seals. Authorization is requested for up to 15 unintentional mortalities of each species over the life of the permit, not to exceed 5 annually. Up to 500 Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ) of the Eastern Distinct Population Segment may be taken annually by incidental harassment during harbor seal aerial surveys.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Title and OMB Number: Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy Technologies, Occupational Safety, and Drug-free Workplace—DoD FAR Supplement Part 223; OMB Control Number 0704-0272.

Type of Request: Extension.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Respondents: 4,527.

Annual Responses: 70,346.

Estimated Hours: 581,165 hours. (48,525 reporting hours and 532,640 recordkeeping hours).

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requires that an offeror or contractor submit information to DoD in response to DFARS solicitation four contract clauses relating to occupational safety and drug-free work force program. DoD contracting officers use this information to—

○ Verify compliance with requirements for labeling of hazardous materials;

○ Ensure contractor compliance and monitor subcontractor compliance with DoD 4145.26-M, DoD Contractors' Safety Manual for Ammunition and Explosives, and minimize risk of mishaps;

○ Identify the place of performance of all ammunition and explosives work; and

○ Ensure contractor compliance and monitor subcontractor compliance with DoD 5100.76-M, Physical Security of Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives.

○ Ensure compliance with the clause program requirements with regard to programs for achieving the objective of a drug-free work force; requires contractor recordkeeping.

This information collection addresses the following requirements:

○ DFARS 252.223-7001, Hazard Warning Labels. Paragraph (c) requires all offerors to list which hazardous materials will be labeled in accordance with certain statutory requirements instead of the Hazard Communication Standard. Paragraph (d) requires only the apparently successful offeror to submit, before award, a copy of the hazard warning label for all hazardous materials not listed in paragraph (c) of the clause.

○ DFARS 252.223-7002, Safety Precautions for Ammunition and Explosives. Paragraph (c)(2) requires the contractor, within 30 days of notification of noncompliance with DoD 4145.26-M, to notify the contracting officer of actions taken to correct the noncompliance. Paragraph (d)(1) requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer immediately of any mishaps involving ammunition or explosives. Paragraph (d)(3) requires the contractor to submit a written report of the investigation of the mishap to the contracting officer. Paragraph (g)(4) requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer before placing a subcontract for ammunition or explosives.

○ DFARS 252.223-7003, Changes in Place of Performance—Ammunition and Explosives. Paragraph (a) requires the offeror to identify, in the Place of Performance provision of the solicitation, the place of performance of all ammunition and explosives work covered by the Safety Precautions for Ammunition and Explosives clause of the solicitation. Paragraphs (b) and (c) require the offeror or contractor to obtain written permission from the contracting officer before changing the place of performance after the date set for receipt of offers or after contract award.

○ DFARS 252.223-7007, Safeguarding Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives. Paragraph (e) requires the contractor to notify the cognizant Defense Security Service field office within 10 days after award of any subcontract involving sensitive conventional arms, ammunition, and explosives within the scope of DoD 5100.76-M.

○ DFARS 252.223-7004, Drug-Free Work Force. The clause requires that certain contractors maintain records necessary to demonstrate reasonable efforts to eliminate the unlawful use by contractor employees of controlled substances. DoD does not regularly collect any information with regard to this clause.

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Appendix F, Material Inspection and Receiving Report; OMB Control Number 0704-0248.

Type of Request: Extension.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Respondents: 148,885.

Responses per Respondent: 19.5, approximately.

Annual Responses: 2,900,000.

Hours per response: 0.05.

Estimated Hours: 145,000.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary to process shipping and receipt documentation for contractor-provided goods and services and permit payment under DoD contracts. This information collection includes the requirements of DFARS Appendix F, Material Inspection and Receiving Report. Appendix F contains procedures and instructions for submission of contractor payment requests and receiving reports using Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF). 10 U.S.C. 2227(c) requires electronic submission and processing of claims for contract payments under DoD contracts. DoD has designated WAWF as the designated platform for contractors to submit payment requests and supporting documentation, including receiving reports. WAWF supports the preparation and distribution of electronic equivalents for the DD Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, and DD Form 250 series equivalents for repair of Government property and energy-related overland or waterborne shipments.

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Part 251, Use of Government Sources by Contractors, and an associated clause at DFARS 252.251-7000, Ordering from Government Supply Sources; OMB Control Number 0704-0252.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Type of Request: Revision and extension.

Number of Respondents: 1,414.

Responses per Respondent: 7.8.

Annual Responses: 11,058.

Hours per Response: 0.5.

Annual Burden Hours: 5,529.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Needs and Uses: This information collection permits contractors to place orders from Government supply sources, including Federal Supply Schedules, requirements contracts, and Government stock. Contractors are required to provide a copy of their written authorization to use Government supply sources with their order. The authorization is used by the Government source of supply to verify that a contractor is authorized to place such orders and under what conditions. The clause at DFARS 252.251-7000, Ordering from Government Supply Sources, requires a contractor to provide a copy of the authorization when placing an order under a Federal Supply Schedule, a Personal Property Rehabilitation Price Schedule, or an Enterprise Software Agreement.

Title and OMB Number: Transportation, and related clauses—DoD FAR Supplement Part 247, OMB Control Number 0704-0245.

Type of Request: Revision and extension.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Respondents: 18,298.

Responses per Respondent: 6.47.

Annual Responses: 118,326.

Hours per Response: .57.

Estimated Hours: 67,101.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Needs and Uses: DoD contracting officers use this information to verify that prospective contractors have adequate insurance prior to award of stevedoring contracts; to provide appropriate price adjustments to stevedoring contracts; to assist the Maritime Administration in monitoring compliance with requirements for use of U.S.-flag vessels in accordance with the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 (10 U.S.C. 2631); and to provide appropriate and timely shipping documentation and instructions to contractors.

The clause at DFARS 252.247-7000, Hardship Conditions, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270-4(a) for use in all solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of stevedoring services. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer of unusual conditions associated with loading or unloading a particular cargo, for potential adjustment of contract labor rates; and to submit any associated request for price adjustment to the contracting officer within 10 working days of the vessel sailing time.

The clause at DFARS 252.247-7002, Revision of Prices, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270-4(b) for use in solicitations and contracts when using negotiation to acquire stevedoring services. Paragraph (c) of the clause provides that, at any time, either the contracting officer or the contractor may deliver to the other a written demand that the parties negotiate to revise the prices under the contract. Paragraph (d) of the clause requires that, if either party makes such a demand, the contractor must submit relevant data upon which to base negotiations.

The clause at DFARS 252.247-7007, Liability and Insurance, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270-4(c) for use in all solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of stevedoring services. Paragraph (f) of the clause requires the contractor to furnish the contracting officer with satisfactory evidence of insurance.

The provision at DFARS 252.247-7022, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(a) for use in all solicitations except those for direct purchase of ocean transportation services or those with an anticipated value at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. Paragraph (b) of the provision requires the offeror to represent whether or not it anticipates that supplies will be transported by sea in the performance of any contract or subcontract resulting from the solicitation.

The clause at DFARS 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(b) for use in all solicitations and contracts except those for direct purchase of ocean transportation services. Paragraph (d) of the clause requires the contractor to submit any requests for use of other than U.S.-flag vessels in writing to the contracting officer. Paragraph (e) of the clause requires the contractor to submit one copy of the rated on board vessel operating carrier's ocean bill of landing. Paragraph (f) of the clause, if the contract exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, requires the contractor to represent, with its final invoice, that: (1) No ocean transportation was used in the performance of the contract; (2) only U.S.-flag vessels were used for all ocean shipments under the contract; (3) the contractor had the written consent of the contracting officer for all non-U.S.-flag ocean transportation; or (4) shipments were made on non-U.S.-flag vessels without the written consent of the contracting officer. Contractors must flow down these requirements to noncommercial subcontracts and certain types of commercial subcontracts. Subcontracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (f) stated above. Paragraph (h) of the clause, requires the contractor, after award, to notify the contracting officer if the contractor learns that supplies will be transported by sea and the contractor indicated, in the solicitation, that the contractor did not anticipate transporting any supplies by sea.

The clause at DFARS 252.247-7026, Evaluation Preference for Use of Domestic Shipyards — Applicable to Acquisition of Carriage by Vessel for DoD Cargo in the Coastwise or Noncontiguous Trade, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(d) in solicitations that require a covered vessel for carriage of cargo for DoD. Paragraph (c) of the clause requires the offeror to provide information with its offer, addressing all covered vessels for which overhaul, repair, and maintenance work has been performed during the period covering the current calendar year, up to the date of proposal submission, and the preceding four calendar years.

The clause at DFARS 252.247.7028, Application for U.S. Government Shipping Documentation/Instructions, is prescribed at DFARS 247.207(2) for inclusion in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, when shipping under Bills of Lading and Domestic Route Order under FOB origin contract, Export Traffic Release regardless of FOB terms, or foreign military sales shipments. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires contractors to complete DD Form 1659, Application for U.S. Government Shipping Documentation/Instructions to request shipping instructions, unless an automated system is available (paragraph (b) of the clause).

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

Title of Collection: State Lead Agency Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0682.

Type of Review: An Extension of an Existing Information Collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,268.

Abstract: This collection has been created to reflect the requirements under Part C of IDEA and the Part C regulations that require State lead agencies (LAs) to collect and maintain information or data and, in some cases, report information or data to other public agencies or to the public. However, such information or data are not required to be reported to the Secretary. These required collections are consolidated into 1820-0682.

Purpose: In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act (Sunshine Act), Public Law 94-409, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552b), the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) will conduct a virtual roundtable discussion on the challenges election administrators and individuals face regarding voter registration during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss how state and local election offices are responding to those challenges.

Agenda: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) will hold a roundtable discussion on the impact that COVID-19 has had on voter registration efforts. The roundtable will be moderated by the EAC Commissioners who will ask speakers to address the importance of registering and updating voter registration early, the impact of other external factors such as limited hours and closures at state and local departments of motor vehicle offices, as well as what participants have done to combat other voter registration challenges that have developed because of COVID-19.

The full agenda will be posted in advance on the EAC website: https://www.eac.gov.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility (CORF) Certification and Survey Forms; Use: The form CMS-359 is an application for health care providers that seek to participate in the Medicare program as a Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility (CORF). The form initiates the process for facilities to become certified as a CORF and it provides the CMS Location and State Survey Agency (SA) staff identifying information regarding the applicant that is stored in the Automated Survey Processing Environment (ASPEN) system.

The form CMS-360 is a survey tool used by the SAs to record information in order to determine a provider's compliance with the CORF Conditions of Participation (COPs) and to report this information to the Federal government. The form includes basic information on the COP requirements, check boxes to indicate the level of compliance, and a section for recording notes. CMS has the responsibility and authority for certification decisions which are based on provider compliance with the COPs and this form supports this process. Form Number: CMS-359/360 (OMB control number: 0938-0267); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 49 Number of Responses: 8; Total Annual Hours: 74. (For questions regarding this collection contact Caroline Gallaher (410)786-8705.)

2. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Generic Clearance for the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality IT Product and Support Teams; Use: The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act is part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009. As noted in the HITECH Act, CMS is responsible for defining “meaningful use” of certified electronic health record (EHR) technology and developing incentive payment programs for Medicare and Medicaid providers. CMS is continually implementing and updating information systems as legislation and requirements change. To support this initiative, CCSQ IT Product and Support Teams (CIPST) must have the capacity for engagement with users in an ongoing variety of research, discovery, and validation activities to create and refine systems that do not place an undue burden on users and instead are efficient, usable, and desirable.

The Center for Clinical Standards and Quality (CCSQ) is responsible for administering appropriate information systems so that the public can submit healthcare-related information. While beneficiaries ultimately benefit, the primary users of (CIPST) are healthcare facility employees and contractors. They are responsible for the collection and submission of appropriate beneficiary data to CMS to receive merit-based compensation.

The generic clearance will allow a rapid response to inform CMS initiatives using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative consumer research strategies (including formative research studies and methodological tests) to improve information systems that serve CMS audiences. CMS implements human-centered methods and activities for the improvement of policies, services, and products. As information systems and technologies are developed or improved upon, they can be tested and evaluated for end-user feedback regarding utility, usability, and desirability. The overall goal is to apply a human-centered engagement model to maximize the extent to which CMS CIPST product teams can gather ongoing feedback from consumers. Feedback helps engineers and designers arrive at better solutions, therefore minimizing the burden on consumers and meeting their needs and goals.

The activities under this clearance involve voluntary engagement with target CIPST users to receive design and research feedback. Voluntary end-users from samples of self-selected customers, as well as convenience samples, with respondents selected either to cover a broad range of customers or to include specific characteristics related to certain products or services. All collection of information under this clearance is for use in both quantitative and qualitative groups collecting data related to human-computer interactions with information system development. We will use the findings to create the highest possible public benefit. Form Number: CMS-10706 (OMB control number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Individuals and Private Sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 11,476; Total Annual Responses: 11,476; Total Annual Hours: 4,957. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Stephanie Ray at 410-786-0971).

3. Type of Information Collection Request: New information collection; Title of Information Collection: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency; Use: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) (collectively, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)) were signed into law in 2010. The PPACA established competitive private health insurance markets, called Marketplaces or Exchanges, which give millions of Americans and small businesses access to qualified health plans (QHPs), including stand-alone dental plans (SADPs)—private health and dental insurance plans that are certified as meeting certain standards. The PPACA added section 1150A of the Social Security Act, which requires pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to report prescription benefit information to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). PBMs are third-party administrators of prescription programs for a variety of types of health plans, including QHPs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) files this information collection request (ICR) in connection with the prescription benefit information that PBMs must provide to HHS under section 1150A. The burden estimate for this ICR reflects the time and effort for PBMs to submit the information regarding PBMs and prescription drugs. Form Number: CMS-10725 (OMB control number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector (business or other for-profits), Number of Respondents: 40; Number of Responses: 275. Total Annual Hours: 1,400. For questions regarding this collection contact Ken Buerger at 410-786-1190.

4. Type of Information Collection Request: New Collection; Title of Information Collection: Value in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Demonstration; Use: Value in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (Value in Treatment) is a 4-year demonstration program authorized under section 1866F of the Social Security Act (Act), which was added by section 6042 of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act). The purpose of Value in Treatment, as stated in the statute, is to “increase access of applicable beneficiaries to opioid use disorder treatment services, improve physical and mental health outcomes for such beneficiaries, and to the extent possible, reduce Medicare program expenditures.” As required by statute, Value in Treatment will be implemented no later than January 1, 2021.

Section 1866F(c)(1)(A)(ii) specifies that individuals and entities must apply for and be selected to participate in the Value in Treatment demonstration pursuant to an application and selection process established by the Secretary. Section 1866F(c)(2)(B)(iii) specifies that in order to receive CMF and performance-based incentive payments under the Value in Treatment program, each participant shall report data necessary to: Monitor and evaluate the Value in Treatment program; determine if criteria are met; and determine the performance-based incentive payment. Form Number: CMS-10728 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Individuals and Households; Number of Respondents: 12,096; Total Annual Responses: 12,096; Total Annual Hours: 1,285. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Rebecca VanAmburg at 410-786-0524.)

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

FDA has approved for marketing the medical device EVERSENSE CGM SYSTEM. EVERSENSE CGM SYSTEM is indicated for continually measuring glucose levels in adults (18 years or older) with diabetes for up to 90 days. The system is intended to: (1) Provide real-time glucose readings; (2) provide glucose trend information; and (3) provide alerts for the detection and prediction of episodes of low blood glucose (hypoglycemia) and high blood glucose (hyperglycemia). The system is a prescription device. Historical data from the system can be interpreted to aid in providing therapy adjustments. These adjustments should be based on patterns seen over time. The system is indicated for use as an adjunctive device to complement, not replace, information obtained from standard home blood glucose monitoring devices. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for EVERSENSE CGM SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 6,400,974) from Senseonics, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 29, 2019, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of EVERSENSE CGM SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for EVERSENSE CGM SYSTEM is 3,727 days. Of this time, 3,123 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 604 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective: April 9, 2008. The applicant claims that the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section 520(g) of the FD&C Act for human tests to begin became effective on September 25, 2008. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on April 9, 2008, which represents the IDE effective date.

2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): October 26, 2016. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application (PMA) for EVERSENSE CGM SYSTEM (PMA P160048) was initially submitted October 26, 2016.

3. The date the application was approved: June 21, 2018. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P160048 was approved on June 21, 2018.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES ). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES ), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (1) A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or title 50, United States Code, of attack with (i) a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or (ii) an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to U.S. military forces;  1 (3) a determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or (4) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6b) sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad.

Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of each authorization, and each termination or revocation of an authorization, and an explanation of the reasons for the action. Section 564 of the FD&C Act permits FDA to authorize the introduction into interstate commerce of a drug, device, or biological product intended for use when the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use. Products appropriate for emergency use may include products and uses that are not approved, cleared, or licensed under sections 505, 510(k), 512, or 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360(k), 360b, and 360e) or section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or conditionally approved under section 571 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ccc). FDA may issue an EUA only if, after consultation with the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances), FDA  2 concludes: (1) That an agent referred to in a declaration of emergency or threat can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; (2) that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that: (A) The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing (i) such disease or condition; or (ii) a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by a product authorized under section 564, approved or cleared under the FD&C Act, or licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, for diagnosing, treating, or preventing such a disease or condition caused by such an agent; and (B) the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the agent or agents identified in a declaration under section 564(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, if applicable; (3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition; (4) in the case of a determination described in section 564(b)(1)(B)(ii), that the request for emergency use is made by the Secretary of Defense; and (5) that such other criteria as may be prescribed by regulation are satisfied.

No other criteria for issuance have been prescribed by regulation under section 564(c)(4) of the FD&C Act.

The Authorizations follow the February 4, 2020, determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves a novel (new) coronavirus. The virus is now named SARS-CoV-2, which causes the illness COVID-19. Notice of the Secretary's determination was provided in the Federal Register on February 7, 2020 (85 FR 7316). On the basis of such determination, the Secretary of HHS declared on March 27, 2020, that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section. Notice of the Secretary's declaration was provided in the Federal Register on April 1, 2020 (85 FR 18250). Having concluded that the criteria for issuance of the Authorizations under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has issued four authorizations for the emergency use of drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 28, 2020, FDA issued an EUA to BARDA for oral formulations of chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate, subject to the terms of the Authorization. On April 30, 2020, FDA issued an EUA to Fresenius Medical Care for multiFiltrate PRO System and multiBic/multiPlus Solutions, subject to the terms of the Authorization. On May 1, 2020, FDA issued an EUA to Gilead Sciences, Inc. for remdesivir, subject to the terms of the Authorization. On May 8, 2020, FDA issued an EUA to Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC for Fresenius Propoven 2% Emulsion, subject to the terms of the Authorization. The Authorizations in their entirety (not including the authorized versions of the fact sheets and other written materials) follow, below section VI Electronic Access, and provide an explanation of the reasons for issuance, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.

Under section 564(g)(2) of the FD&C Act, the Secretary of HHS may revoke an EUA if, among other things, the criteria for issuance are no longer met. On June 15, 2020, FDA revoked the EUA for BARDA for oral formulations of chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate because the criteria for issuance were no longer met. Under section 564(c)(2) of the FD&C Act, an EUA may be issued only if FDA concludes that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that: (1) The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing such disease or condition and (2) the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. Based on a review of new information and a reevaluation of information available at the time the EUA was issued, FDA now concludes it is no longer reasonable to believe that (1) oral formulations of chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the uses authorized in the EUA, or (2) the known and potential benefits of these products outweigh their known and potential risks for those uses. Accordingly, FDA revokes the EUA for emergency use of chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate to treat COVID-19, pursuant to section 564(g)(2) of the FD&C Act.

Having concluded that the criteria for revocation of the Authorization under section 564(g) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has revoked the EUA for BARDA's oral formulations of chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate. The revocation in its entirety follows, below section VI. Electronic Access, and provides an explanation of the reasons for revocation, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.

An electronic version of this document and the full text of the Authorizations and revocation are available on the internet at https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Evaluation of Cohort 1 of the Moving to Work Demonstration Program Expansion.

OMB Approval Number: Pending.

Type of Request: New collection.

Form Number: NA.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is proposing the collection of information for the Evaluation of Cohort 1 of the Moving to Work Demonstration Program Expansion.

Moving to Work (MTW) is a demonstration program that encourages public housing agencies (PHAs) to test ways to achieve three specific objectives: (1) Increase the cost effectiveness of federal housing programs, (2) increase housing choice for low-income families, and/or (3) encourage greater self-sufficiency of households receiving housing assistance. MTW designation gives PHAs relief from many of the regulations and statutory provisions that apply to the public housing and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) programs. MTW agencies can also merge their public housing and HCV funds into a single block grant and use these funds (if desired) for local activities outside of the typical public housing and HCV programs, such as providing supportive services or developing housing for populations with special needs. In 2016, Congress authorized HUD to expand the MTW program by 100 high performing PHAs.

The MTW expansion statute emphasizes evaluating the MTW program, directing HUD to expand the program in cohorts that would allow for “one specific policy change to be implemented. . . .” and rigorously evaluated. The first cohort of the expansion will test the impact of MTW designation on small PHAs, defined for these purposes as PHAs administering no more than 1,000 housing units across their HCV and public housing programs. In Cohort 1, PHAs are free to implement any program and policy changes permissible under the MTW program. Under contract with HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research, Abt Associates Inc. will conduct an evaluation of Cohort 1 that includes a study of how PHAs use their MTW flexibility to meet the MTW program's goals and a study of the impact of MTW designation on cost effectiveness, self-sufficiency, and housing choice.

The Evaluation of Cohort 1 of the Moving to Work Demonstration Program Expansion will be implemented as a randomized control trial. To carry out the study, HUD randomly assigned the 43 eligible PHAs that submitted a Letter of Interest to HUD for Cohort 1 into one of two groups: A treatment group (33 PHAs) that is invited to complete the application for MTW designation and a control group (10 PHAs) that is not invited to complete the application for MTW designation and therefore is not permitted to receive MTW designation under Cohort 1.

The evaluation will compare the outcomes of the treatment group PHAs to the outcomes of the control group PHAs over a five-year period. To the extent possible, this evaluation will rely on analysis of secondary data that PHAs already prepare and submit to HUD, however, some primary data collection will be required.

This Federal Register Notice provides an opportunity to comment on the information collection for the evaluation. The evaluation will use the data described in this information collection request to clarify and expand on information provided in the existing data sources and to capture qualitative information about the experiences of study PHAs implementing activities related to cost effectiveness, self-sufficiency, or housing choice without MTW flexibility. The proposed information collection consists of: (1) Interviews with MTW (treatment group) PHAs; (2) online surveys to non-MTW (control group) PHAs; and (3) interviews with non-MTW (control group) PHAs.

Respondents: PHA Executive Directors and staff.

Estimated Number of Respondents: This information collection will affect approximately 129 PHA Executive Directors and Staff annually. HUD expects to collect data from approximately three staff at each the 33 treatment group PHAs each year, and approximately two staff at each of the ten control group PHAs every other year.

Estimated Time per Response: The interviews with PHA Executive Directors and staff in the treatment group agencies are expected to take up to 2 hours to complete. The interviews with PHA Executive Directors and staff in the control group agencies are expected to take up to 1.5 hours to complete. Finally, the online surveys with control group PHAs are expected to take 0.5 hours to complete.

Frequency of Response: Interviews with the treatment group PHAs are expected to take place once a year for each of five years. Interviews with the control group PHAs, and the online survey with control group PHAs, will take place every other year (year 1, year 3, and year 5 of data collection).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: Data collection during years 1, 3, and 5 will require up to 233 hours in combined time for all interviews and survey responses. Data collection during years 2 and 4, when data is not collected form the control group PHAs, will require only 198 hours in combined time for all interviews and survey responses.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: The total estimated annual cost for this information collection during years 1, 3, and 5 is $12,148.62. The total estimated annual cost is calculated by multiplying the total number of respondent hours (233) by $52.14. $52.14 was the average hourly compensation (wages and benefits) for state and local government workers in December 2019 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf ). The total estimated annual cost for this information collection during years 2 and 4, when data is not collected form the control group PHAs, is $10,232.72. The total estimated annual cost is calculated by multiplying the total number of respondent hours (198) by $52.14. $52.14 was the average hourly compensation (wages and benefits) for state and local government workers in December 2019 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: The survey is conducted under Title 12, United States Code, Section 1701z and Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44, U.S.C., 35, as amended.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, Seth D. Appleton, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to submitter, Nacheshia Foxx, who is the Federal Register Liaison for HUD, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register.

The lands surveyed are:

A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the State Director for the BLM in Alaska. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. You must file the notice of protest before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. The BLM will not consider any notice of protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing. A notice of protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the State Director for the BLM in Alaska during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director for the BLM in Alaska within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed.

If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask the BLM to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Antrim, Charlevoix, Chippewa, Ionia, Leelanau, and Mecosta Counties, MI.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Michigan State University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; and two non-federally recognized Indian groups, the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes and Groups”).

An invitation to consult was extended to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma); Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Wyandotte Nation, hereafter referred to as “The Invited Tribes.”

On August 29, 1928, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Antrim Creek site, which is located along Old Dixie Highway and by Grand Traverse Bay, in Antrim County, MI. The human remains (6839.1, 6839.2, 6839.3, 6839.4, 6839.5, 6839.6, 6839.7) were discovered by local resident Norton Pearl. On January 4, 1989, Mr. Pearl's descendant, Betty Beeby, donated the human remains to the Michigan State University Museum. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

On July 27, 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Zimmer site (20AN64), Antrim County, MI. The human remains (2590) and associated funerary objects were disturbed during the construction of a house foundation. The property owner, Martha Zimmer, contacted Michigan State University, which excavated the human remains and cultural items. No known individual was identified. The two associated funerary objects are chert flakes (2590).

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Beaver Island, Charlevoix County, MI. The human remains (2004.46.72) were acquired by Kalamazoo resident Donald Boudeman, who collected Southwest Native American material culture in the first half of the twentieth century. In July of 1961, years after her husband's death, Donna Boudeman donated the human remains and parts of Mr. Boudeman's collection to Michigan State University Museum. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1976 and 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Fort Brady (20CH51), Chippewa County, MI. The human remains (4513.105.04.03 F1, 4513.109.04.04.02 F2, 4513.099.04.02.02 F4, 4513.105.04.02 F4 & 5, 4513.109.04.03 F4, 4513.099.04.02.02 F4, 4513.109.04.04 F9) were excavated by Michigan State University while doing field work for the Sault Ste. Marie Archaeological Project. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Muir site in West Muir, Ionia County, MI. On March 4, 1958, the Central Michigan Chapter of the Michigan Archeological Society donated the human remains (3350.1) to the Michigan State University Museum. No known individual was identified. The eight associated funerary objects are two celts (3350.2, 3350.3), one gorget (3350.4), two drifts (bone/antler pressure flakers) (3350.9, 3350.10), and three projectile points (3350.5, 3350.6, 3350.8). (One additional funerary object, a pipe (3350.7), is missing from the collection.)

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Ionia site, Ionia County, MI. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1890, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed a few miles south of Portland on the Grand River, Ionia County, MI. The human remains (1031) were removed from a mound near Shimnecon, a former Native American village, by local resident Henry Clay Newman. On May 8, 1959, Mrs. David Baldwin and Henry Clay Newman donated the human remains to the Michigan State University Museum. The donors thought the human remains belonged to Chief Okemos. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Leland, Leelanau County, MI. The Leelanau County Sheriff's Department, which was alerted to the discovery of the human remains (Compl. #1923), assigned the human remains a case number (2056-68) and transferred them to Michigan State University's Anthropology Forensic Laboratory. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from an “Indian mound” near Rodney, Mecosta County, MI. In October of 1965, R. Leverette, a local resident, donated the human remains (2877.1) to the Michigan State University Museum. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of Michigan State University have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on archeological context, biological evidence, geographic location, and museum records.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 17 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 10 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land (Ionia County) from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land (Antrim, Charlevoix, Chippewa, Leelanau, and Mecosta Counties) from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota.

• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota.

• According to other authoritative government sources, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

Representatives of any Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Judith Stoddart, Associate Provost for University Collections and Arts Initiatives, Michigan State University, 466 W Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824-1044, telephone (517) 432-2524, email stoddart@msu.edu, by October 13, 2020. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed. If joined to a request from one or more of The Tribes, the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, a non-federally recognized Indian group, may receive transfer of control of the human remains.

Michigan State University is responsible for notifying The Tribes, The Consulted Tribes and Groups, and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Arenac, Clinton, Huron, Iosco, and Midland Counties, MI.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Michigan State University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; and two non-federally recognized Indian groups, the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes and Groups”).

An invitation to consult was extended to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma); Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Wyandotte Nation, hereafter referred to as “The Invited Tribes.”

On August 14, 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the AuGres site (20AC19), AuGres Township, Arenac County, MI. The human remains (4321.1, 4321.2, 4321.3, 4321.4b, 4321.5) and associated funerary objects were encountered by a construction crew. On October 23, 1974, the human remains were transferred to the Michigan State University Museum. No known individual was identified. The 66 associated funerary objects are one lot of beads (4321), one seed bead (4321.1), one lot of a glass bottle fragments, one grommet (4321.1), one lot of kettle scrap (4321.1), one rolled piece of flat lead or pewter (4321.1), one lot of rusted iron fragments (4321.1), one lot of flakes (4321.2), one lot of sherds (4321.2), one lot of vessel fragments (4321.2), nine worked lithics (4321.2), one charcoal sample (4321.3), one retouched flake (4321.3), eight flakes (4321.3), one lot of snail shell fragments (4321.3), five lithics (4321.5), one core (4321.4a), 12 flakes (4321.4a), two retouched flakes (4321.4a), two glass bottles (4321.4a), one lot of flakes (4321.4b), 10 utilized flakes and a projectile point fragment (4321.4b), one lot of snail shell fragments (4321.4b), and two lots of soil samples (4321.4b).

In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, 17 individuals were removed from the Cutler site (20CL108), Clinton County, MI. Michigan State University graduate student Marla Buckmaster removed the human remains (3477) from a gravel pit located on property owned by Neal Cutler. No known individuals were identified. The 32 associated funerary objects are 11 lots of carbon samples (3477), one flake, 15 lots of ceramic sherds, and five ceramic sherds.

During the spring of 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from the Matthews site (20CL61), Clinton County, MI. Clyde Anderson, a resident of St. Johns, removed the human remains, as well as associated funerary objects, while exploring the area in search of an early nineteenth-century Native American village. He reburied the human remains in the summer of 1966. Later in 1966, the Upper Grand Valley Chapter of the Michigan Archaeological Society (UGVC) re-excavated the human remains. In 1970, UGVC donated the human remains and associated funerary objects to Michigan State University. No known individuals were identified. The 93 associated funerary objects are one lot of bark, one lot of beads with metal, one lot of beads and string, four lots of seed beads, one lot of spun beads, one lot of blanket twill with silver brooch impressions, two lots of fabric, one lot of fabric (weave and fiber), one lot of fabric and seed beads, one lot of felt-like fabric, three individual fabrics, four lots of fiber, one fiber, one lot of iron fragments, one lot of iron pieces, two lots of iron nails, one lot of organic matter, one lot of silver, one lot of wood fragments, three armbands, one bauble, two blankets, one box of fragmentary wood containing feathers, one brooch fragment, two brooches with diamond holes, one ear bob, one ear wheel, four gorgets, eight gunflints, one jewelry made of pewter, two knives, one knife with handle, one piece of leather, one piece of knotted leather, one lithic, one piece of woven matting, one nail, one pail fragment, one pail rim fragment, nine photos, one silk scarf, two lead shots, one spoon, three strike-a-lites, one strike-a-lite fragment, six tacks, and six tubes. (One funerary object, a pipe, is missing from the collection.)

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Kleinfeld site, Huron County, MI, and were transferred to Michigan State University's Forensic Anthropology Laboratory. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a lot of lithics.

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Pinnebog site, which is believed to be in Huron County, MI. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were removed from the Brandt site (20IS46), Oscoda Township, Iosco County, MI. The human remains (5279) were discovered by the property owner, William Brandt, during trenching construction. The site, which was turned out to be a Late Archaic burial ground cemetery, was then excavated by Ms. Barbara Mead, Assistant Archaeologist of the Michigan Bureau of History, and Michigan State University graduate student Robert Kingsley. Following excavation, the human remains were transferred to Michigan State University, where they underwent examination by Anthropology Professor Dr. Norman Sauer and graduate student David A. Barondess. On September 11, 2019, the State of Michigan transferred control of two associated funerary objects to Michigan State University. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are two side-notched projectile points (20IS46-1 and 20IS46-2).

On June 30, 2017, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from an unnamed site (20MD310), Midland County, MI. The human remains (FA 040-17-I-01, FA 040-17-I-02) were disturbed during the construction of a house foundation. Property owner Stephen Jenkins contacted the Michigan State Police, which assigned the human remains a case number (FA 040-17). On July 17, 2017, the human remains and an associated funerary object were transferred to Michigan State University's Forensic Anthropology Laboratory, where the remains were analyzed by Anthropology Professor Dr. Joseph Hefner. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a hatchet head (FA-040-17).

Officials of Michigan State University have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on archeological context, biological evidence, and geographic location.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 40 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 195 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota.

• According to other authoritative government sources, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; and the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

Representatives of any Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Judith Stoddart, Associate Provost for University Collections and Arts Initiatives, Michigan State University, 466 W Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824-1044, telephone (517) 432-2524, email stoddart@msu.edu, by October 13, 2020. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed.

Michigan State University is responsible for notifying The Tribes, The Consulted Tribes and Groups, and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Arizona.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Michigan State University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona. The Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico were invited but did not participate. Hereafter, the above Indian Tribes are referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes.”

On an unknown date, probably sometime in the 1920s or 1930s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in Arizona. On October 10, 1961, the Michigan State University Museum took custody of these human remains and an associated funerary object as part of the Boudeman Collection. The donor was Mrs. Donna Boudeman. Her husband, Donald Boudeman, had collected in Alaska, Siberia, and continental North America in the 1920s and 1930s. On May 28, 2019, the human remains were found in Michigan State University's Forensic Anthropology Laboratory, and in July of 2019, the association of a ceramic vessel with the human remains was confirmed. No known individual was identified. The one associated funerary object (2005.59.1) is a Gila crematory urn.

Officials of Michigan State University have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request Judith Stoddart, Associate Provost for University Collections and Arts Initiatives, Michigan State University, 466 W Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824-1044, telephone (517) 432-2524, email stoddart@msu.edu, by October 13, 2020. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary object to The Consulted and Invited Tribes may proceed.

Michigan State University is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

The membership of the National Science Foundation's Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is as follows:

This announcement of the membership of the National Science Foundation's Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is made in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0194, when contacting the NRC about the information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2020-0194.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0194 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

The NRC is an independent agency established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 that began operations in 1975 as a successor to the licensing and regulatory activities of the Atomic Energy Commission. The NRC's mission is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of radioactive materials to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the common defense and security and to protect the environment. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010, the NRC is required to submit its Strategic Plan to Congress the year following the start of a presidential term.

The Strategic Plan describes how the agency intends to achieve its two strategic goals: (1) Ensure the safe use of radioactive materials, and (2) ensure the secure use of radioactive materials. The plan provides an overview of the NRC's responsibilities and lays out the objectives, strategies, and key activities that will be used to achieve the agency's strategic goals. Moreover, with enactment of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (“Evidence Act”) (5 U.S.C. 312), agency strategic plans are to be supported by the inclusion of a Learning Agenda ( i.e., Evidence-Building Plan), which describes the activities agencies will undertake to answer important short-and-long term strategic and operational questions important to achieving the agency's mission. The Evidence Act also requires agencies to conduct and include in their strategic plan's a capacity assessment that will help agencies to assess their ability and infrastructure to carry out evidence building activities like foundational fact finding, performance measurement, policy analysis, and program evaluation, and identifying the data needed to answer those questions.

During the last few years, the NRC has been transforming in order to realize its vision of becoming a modern, risk-informed regulator and be in the best position to continue meeting its important safety and security mission well into the future. Transformation activities will help the NRC keep pace with the highly dynamic, interconnected environment in which it operates, and be prepared to regulate an industry that is innovative and pursuing technologies.

The NRC is interested in obtaining input from stakeholders, including professional organizations and interested individuals. The focus of this request is to gather information that will permit the NRC staff to develop the FYs 2022-2026 Strategic Plan framework.

The NRC does not intend to provide any responses to comments received during the public meeting. The public meeting will be noticed on the NRC's public meeting website at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. Members of the public should monitor the NRC's public meeting website at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.

The NRC will also post the meeting notice on the Federal Rulemaking website at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2020-0194.

The NRC is asking the public to comment on potential changes to the NRC's goals, objectives, strategies contributing activities as described in the current FYs 2018-2022 Strategic Plan, and the requirements of the Evidence Act as discussed in Section II of this document. The NRC welcomes comments from the public on any areas that they believe are relevant to these topics, and is particularly interested in receiving input on the following questions:

1. Do you have any specific recommendations or improvements to consider in the development of the FYs 2022-2026 Strategic Plan?

2. What goals, objectives, or strategies within the NRC's current strategic plan should be added, enhanced, or modified in the FYs 2022-2026 Strategic Plan?

3. What contributing activities should be considered to support the safety and security goals, strategies, and objectives?

4. What external factors, opportunities and challenges should be considered during the development of the FYs 2022-2026 Strategic Plan?

5. As part of the Evidence Act, the NRC will include a learning agenda in the FYs 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. A learning agenda is a systematic plan for identifying and addressing policy questions relevant to the NRC's programs, policies, operations, and regulations. The learning agenda will describe the plan for building evidence to address agency priority questions. What priority question(s) (short- or long-term) do you believe the NRC should be asking within the learning agenda?

6. What improvements can the NRC make in regard to evidence building ( e.g., data, analysis, evaluations) to inform strategy, policymaking, program decisions, and regulations?

The NRC staff will hold a public webinar on September 22, 2020, to receive comments on the update of the NRC's FYs 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. Additionally, the NRC will discuss the Agency's transformation activities for public input and comment on these activities and continue to seek the views of stakeholders in identifying opportunities to improve the agency's processes, procedures, and products. The webinar will be held online and will offer a telephone line for members of the public to submit comments. A court reporter will be recording all comments received during the webinar. The date and time for the webinar is as follows:

Persons interested in attending this meeting should monitor the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule website at https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg for additional information, the meeting agenda, information on how to provide verbal comments, and access information for the meeting. Participants should register in advance of the meeting by visiting https://usnrc.webex.com and using the event number provided above. A confirmation email will be generated providing additional details and a link to the meeting. Those wishing to make verbal comments at the meeting should follow instructions listed on the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule website.

The NRC may post additional materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website. The Federal Rulemaking website allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2020-0194); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0064 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2020-0064. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC-2020-0064 on this website.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession No. ML17128A343. The supporting statements are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML20178A317 and ML20178A318.

• NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0064 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS, and the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.

1. The title of the information collection: Collection of Operator Simulator Training Data.

2. OMB approval number: 3150-0234.

3. Type of submission: Extension.

4. The form number, if applicable: N/A.

5. How often the collection is required or requested: Six times per year.

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: All holders of, or applicants for, a power reactor operating license under part 50 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” except those that have certified that they have permanently ceased operations and have permanently removed all fuel from the reactor vessel.

All holders of, or applicants for, a power reactor combined license under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 32.

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 5.

9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 148 hours.

10. Abstract: This information collection request is to the holders of, or applicants for, a power reactor operating license under 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” except those that have certified that they have permanently ceased operations and have permanently removed all fuel from the reactor vessel, and the holders of, or applicants for, a power reactor combined license under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”

This information collection is for the specified licensees to use the NRC-developed Scenario Authoring, Characterization and Debriefing Application (SACADA) software for their operator simulator training. The SACADA system was developed to collect licensed operator simulator training data to inform human reliability analysis (HRA) and to facilitate operator simulator training. The SACADA software can be used to author the simulation scenarios, facilitate the post simulation debriefing on crew performance, guide performance analysis, and generate various types of reports. The information entered into the SACADA database can be used to improve simulator training effectiveness and HRA. The South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) has used the software for its operator simulator training since 2012 and highly regards the software. The NRC welcomes more licensees to partner with the NRC to use the software. The licensees' participation in the information collection is voluntary. In the partnership, the NRC provides the SACADA software license, training, and technical support to the participating licensees, and the participating licensees grant NRC access to analyze the data to improve the NRC's HRA techniques. An agreement will be developed to specify the details.

To participate in the information collection, the licensee will notify the NRC contact that it is interested in evaluating the software. Then the NRC will provide additional information including an onsite briefing. If the licensee thinks the SACADA software could be beneficial, the NRC will provide a training session, the software license, and technical support for the licensee to pilot the use of the software in its simulator training. After the pilot study, the licensee will decide whether or not to partner with the NRC on the information collection. Either party can terminate the agreement at any time.

The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0126 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2020-0126. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC-2020-0126 on this website.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The supporting statement and Non-Power Operator Licensing Email are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML20178A337 and ML20178A335.

• NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0126 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS, and the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.

1. The title of the information collection: Solicitation of Non-Power Reactor Operator Licensing Examination Data.

2. OMB approval number: 3150-0235.

3. Type of submission: Extension.

4. The form number, if applicable: N/A.

5. How often the collection is required or requested: Annually.

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: All holders of operating licenses for non-power reactors under the provision of part 50 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” except those that have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 31.

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 31.

9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 31

10. Abstract: The NRC annually request all non-power reactor licensees and applicants for an operating license to voluntarily send to the NRC: (1) Their projected number of candidates for initial operator licensing examinations and (2) the estimated dates of the examinations. This information is used to plan budgets and resources in regard to operator examination scheduling in order to meet the needs of the non-power nuclear community.

The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0124 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2020-0124. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC-2020-0124 on this website.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession Nos. ML20141L572 and ML20141L573. The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML20170A357.

• NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at https://www.regulations.gov and entered into ADAMS. Comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Part 20 Respirator Protection Exemption Request for Non-Power Reactors/RTR And Part 20 Respirator Protection Exemption Request for Power Reactors Online Forms.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on May 27, 2020, 85 FR 31816.

1. The title of the information collection: Part 20 Respirator Protection Exemption Request for Non-Power Reactors/RTR And Part 20 Respirator Protection Exemption Request for Power Reactors Online Forms.

2. OMB approval number: 3150-0014.

3. Type of submission: Extension.

4. The form number if applicable: There is no form number for the online submission forms.

5. How often the collection is required or requested: On Occasion.

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: All holders of, and certain applicants for, nuclear power plant construction permits and operating licenses under the provisions of part 50 of title of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities” who seek exemptions from the medical evaluation frequency and fit-testing frequency requirements specified in 10 CFR 20.1703(c)(5)(iii) and 10 CFR 20.1703(c)(6) as allowed by 10 CFR 20.2301 “Applications for exemptions.”

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 60.

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 60.

9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 120.

10. Abstract: The NRC requested an emergency review of this information collection in order to add this form to the previously approved information collection OMB Control Number 3150-0014 for a period of 6 months. The purpose of this information collection is to request an extension of the approval of the Part 20 Respirator Protection Exemption Request for Non-Power Reactors/RTR and the Part 20 Respirator Protection Exemption Request for Power Reactors Online Forms. These forms simplify the filing the exemption requests because the existing system may be burdensome for licensees under current conditions. Under the existing collection under OMB Control No. 3150-0014, licensees are already able to seek exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” This information collection only addresses the incremental burden change to this existing clearance due to the form and not the total burden for the clearance.

10 CFR part 20 contains specific requirements for respiratory protection. Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), the NRC will also consider exemption requests for the medical evaluation frequency and fit-testing frequency requirements specified in 10 CFR 20.1703(c)(5)(iii) and 10 CFR 20.1703(c)(6); these exemptions would allow delay of these requirements during the COVID-19 PHE as allowed by 10 CFR 20.2301 “Applications for exemptions.”

Regulatory Guide 5.61 was published in July 1980 to provide guidance to affected licensees in revising their physical protection plans in response to the requirements in part 73 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials” (November 28, 1979; 44 FR 68184). The RG explains the link between the performance capabilities provided in 10 CFR 73.45 and the fixed site physical protection system requirements in 10 CFR 73.46. Future applicants and licensees may use other more relevant regulatory guidance documents to meet those regulatory requirements.

The NRC is withdrawing RG 5.61, “Intent and Scope of the Physical Protection Upgrade Rule Requirements for Fixed Sites,” because the guide is no longer needed for several reasons. First, the regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 73.45 and 73.46 have not changed since 1979 and are well understood by existing licensees. Second, no new licensees that would possess and use formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material are expected in the foreseeable future. Third, the RG is predominately explanatory of the rulemaking rather than guidance on how to comply with the applicable requirements. Lastly, other guidance on developing security plans to meet the physical protection requirements in 10 CFR 73.46 are available. The basis for withdrawal of RG 5.61 is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML20225A307.

The withdrawal of RG 5.61 does not alter any prior or existing NRC licensing approvals, or the acceptability of licensee commitments made regarding the withdrawn guidance. Although RG 5.61 is withdrawn, current licensees referencing this RG may continue to do so, and withdrawal does not affect any existing licenses or agreements. However, by withdrawing RG 5.61, the NRC no longer approves use of the guidance in future requests or applications for NRC licensing actions.

On September 10, 2020, the Surface Transportation Board's (Board) Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (DSEA) in the pending rail-line abandonment proceeding, Consolidated Rail Corporation-Abandonment Exemption-in Hudson County, N.J., Docket No. AB 167 (Sub-No. 1189X), in which Conrail seeks authority to abandon the Harsimus Branch, a 1.36-mile rail line in Jersey City, N.J. Following the issuance of a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2009, the Board stayed the abandonment proceeding for several years while the parties litigated jurisdictional issues in court. The DSEA updates and addresses changed circumstances and new information since the issuance of the Draft EA, responds to comments on the Draft EA, and provides further opportunity for public comment on environmental issues under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (historic issues are being considered in a separate process). Comments on the DSEA may be submitted electronically through the Board's website and are due on October 19, 2020.

Following receipt of comments on this DSEA, OEA will prepare and issue a Final EA. The issuance of the Final EA will conclude the NEPA review process for this abandonment proceeding. Once OEA completes both the Section 106 process and the NEPA review, the Board will consider the recommendations from OEA concerning the effects of the proposed abandonment on the environment and historic resources, will balance that information with the transportation merits of the proceeding, and will issue a final decision approving, denying, or approving with the imposition of conditions a grant of abandonment authority to Conrail.

I. Background

The DAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), in accordance with Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C. App. 2) to provide the FAA with advice on key UAS integration issues by helping to identify challenges and prioritize improvements.

At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:

Additional details will be posted on the DAC internet website address listed in the ADDRESSES section at least 15 days in advance of the meeting.

The meeting will be open to the public and livestreamed. Members of the public who wish to observe the virtual meeting can access the livestream from either of the following FAA social media platforms on the day of the event, https://www.facebook.com/FAA or https://www.youtube.com/FAAnews. The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by October 8, 2020.

The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to time constraints. Written statements submitted by the deadline will be provided to the DAC members before the meeting. Any member of the public may submit a written statement to the committee at any time.

The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically, FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1).

FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.

The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:

Title: Railroad Operating Rules.

OMB Control Number: 2130-0035.

Abstract: The collection of information associated with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 217 and 218, Railroad Operating Rules and Practices, require railroads to file with FRA copies of their operating rules, timetables, timetable special instructions, and subsequent amendments. The regulations also require railroads to retain copies of these documents at their systems headquarters and make these documents available to FRA upon request. Additionally, 49 CFR 220.21(b) prescribes the collection of information by requiring railroads to retain one copy of their current operating rules with respect to radio communications and one copy of each subsequent amendment. Through these rules, FRA learns the condition of operating rules and practices of trains and instructions railroads provide their employees on operating practices.

Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses.

Form(s): N/A.

Respondent Universe: 765 railroads.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Reporting Burden:

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 9,257,138.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 772,010 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $59,445,553.

Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Notice is hereby given that FRA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing certain licenses, permits and approvals relating to the Project. The actions on the Project, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Project documentation issued to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Interested parties may visit the Project website at http://longbridgeproject.com/ or the FRA website at https://railroads.dot.gov/.

The Project involves construction of new two-track railroad bridges over the Potomac River and the George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP) between the existing railroad bridge and the Metrorail Bridge. The Project includes expansion of the Long Bridge Corridor, a 1.8-mile railroad corridor between RO Interlocking in Arlington, Virginia, and L'Enfant Interlocking near 10th Street SW in the District of Columbia, from two to four tracks and all necessary infrastructure improvements.

On September 3, 2020, FRA issued the Long Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision (Final EIS/ROD). In the Final EIS/ROD, FRA selected Action Alternative A, which would construct the Long Bridge Project as described above, and would retain the existing Long Bridge over the Potomac River and the railroad bridge over the GWMP. FRA determined that the Selected Alternative is the best option for the Project and that FRA's approval of the Selected Alternative is in the best interest of the public. FRA has further determined that all practicable measures to minimize environmental harm have been incorporated into Selected Alternative and that appropriate commitments are outlined in the FEIS/ROD.

This notice applies to all actions on the Project as of the issuance date of this notice. FRA's action, related actions taken by other agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken are described further in the Final EIS/ROD. Such actions, include, but are not limited to, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) and the Council on Environmental Quality Implementing Regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508); Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545); Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking (23 U.S.C. 139); Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303); Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. 306108); the Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 7401); the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251); the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451); and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

Electronic Availability

The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website ( www.treasury.gov/ofac ).

On September 8, 2020, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.

Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 38 U.S.C. 5103, and 38 U.S.C. 5101(a).

Title: Lay/Witness Statement (VA Form 21-10210).

OMB Control Number: 2900-0881.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: VA Form 21-10210 is used by the claimant to gather lay or witness statements that support an existing claim for benefits or services. Without this information, VA may not be able to efficiently and successfully process claims that may require additional statements associated with a claim for benefits or services.

Affected Public: Individuals and households.

Estimated Annual Burden: 16,667 hours.

Estimated Average Burden per Respondent: 10 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100,000.