Background: The Committee was established in the U.S. Department of Agriculture pursuant to section 14008 of the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246, 122 Stat. 1651, 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2279).

The Committee works in the interest of the public to ensure socially disadvantaged farmers have equal access to USDA programs. The Committee advises the Secretary on the implementation of section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990; methods of maximizing the participation of minority farmers and ranchers in U.S. Department of Agriculture programs; and civil rights activities within the Department, as such activities relate to participants in such programs.

I. Abstract

The Census Bureau plans to revise the Annual Survey of State Tax Collections (F-5). This survey is collected as part of the larger State and Local Government Finance Collections, and Public Employment and Payroll Collections. We plan to add the collection of cannabis sales and license taxes, and sports betting sales taxes to the Annual Survey of State Tax Collections. Sports betting will include pari-mutuels, which were previously shown separately. This will modernize the survey's content to maintain the relevancy and sustainability of these data. Additionally, cognitive testing showed the addition and removal of questions did not impact overall response time.

The data are released as part of the State and Local Government Finance and Public Employment & Payroll statistical series. The collections also produce individual data products that focus on state governments, local governments, and public pensions in greater detail than the combined financial and employment series as a by-product of their collections for the combined data series. The Census Bureau provides these data to the Bureau of Economic Analysis to develop the public sector components of the National Income and Product Accounts and for constructing the functional payrolls in the public sector of the Gross Domestic Product, payroll being the single largest component of current operations. The Census Bureau also provides these data to the Federal Reserve Board for use in the Flow of Funds Accounts. Other Federal agencies that make use of the data include the Council of Economic Advisers, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Government Accountability Office, and the Department of Justice. State and local governments and related organizations, public policy groups, public interest groups, private research organizations, and private sector businesses also use these data.

These surveys use multiple modes for data collection including internet collection with a mailed invitation, telephone, and central collection. Other methods used to collect data and maximize response include collecting state and local government data through submitted financial audits, state financial reports, and comprehensive financial reports and via electronic or mailed files and/or records.

The Census Bureau developed central collection agreements with state and large local government officials to collect the data from their dependent agencies and report to the Census Bureau as a central respondent. These arrangements eliminate the need for a mail invitation for approximately 5,500 governmental units, approximately 3,716 state agencies and 158 school systems in a sample year and 36,000 during the year of the Census of Governments. The arrangements reduce burden by greatly decreasing the number of respondents who must complete an on-line form as the data are acquired from a centralized source instead of multiple sources. Currently, the Census Bureau has central collection arrangements to collect local government data with 27 states, four local school district governments and state government data from all 50 states. The Census Bureau continues to expand the conversion of paper submissions into electronic formats by collaborating with state and local governments regarding electronic reporting of central collection data and encouraging electronic responses from individual governments.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0585.

Form Number(s): F-5, F-11, F-12, F-13, F-28, F-29, F-32, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-10.

Type of Review: Regular submission, Request for a Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

Affected Public: State and local governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: For F-forms: 13,440, For E-forms: 16,872/sample year; For F-forms 59,259 For E-forms: 99,402/census year; Total: 30,312/sample year, 158,661/census year.

Estimated Time per Response: For F-forms: 3.03, For E-forms: .84 hours/sample year; For F-forms 3.00, For E-forms: .82 hours/census year; Total: 3.87 hours/sample year, 3.82 hours/census year.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: For F-forms: 40,755, For E-forms: 14,164 hours/sample year; For F-forms: 177,826 hours, For E-forms: 81,299 hours/census year; Total: 54,919/sample year, 258,585/census year.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. (This is not the cost of respondents' time, but the indirect costs respondents may incur for such things as purchases of specialized software or hardware needed to report, or expenditures for accounting or records maintenance services required specifically by the collection.)

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 161 and 182.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include, or summarize, each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

Background

On November 12, 2019, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the CVD order on HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey. 1 On April 24, 2020, Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days. 2 On June 26, 2020, Commerce further extended the deadline for the preliminary results to November 18, 2020. 3 On July 21, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by an additional 60 days. 4 Accordingly, the deadline for the preliminary results in this administrative review was postponed to January 19, 2021. 5

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 6 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix 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. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The merchandise covered by the order is HWR pipes and tubes. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 7 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following countervailable subsidy rate exists for Ozdemir for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018:

Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the assessment rate calculated in the final results is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries without regard to countervailing duties. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated for Ozdemir with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review, except, where the rate calculated in the final results is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results. 8 Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 9 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 10

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system. 11 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 will inform parties of the scheduled date of the hearing which will be held at a time and date to be determined. 12 Issues addressed during the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs. 13 Parties should confirm the date and time of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Parties are reminded that all briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 14

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Correction

On January 6, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Determinations on passenger tires from Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. 1 Due to a typographical error, the revised scope in Appendix I included a misspelling. Specifically, in Appendix I of the Preliminary Determinations, at paragraph (5)(a) of the exclusion language, it reads: “The tires have a 265/70R17, 255/80R17, 265/70R16, 245/70R17, 245/75R17, 265/70R18, or 265/70R18 size designation.” The paragraph should have read: “The tires have a 265/70R17, 255/80R17, 265/70R16, 245/70R17, 245/75R17, 245/70R18, or 265/70R18 size designation” (emphasis added). 2 We are hereby correcting the Preliminary Determinations to include the correct scope as described above and included in the Appendix to this notice.

This notice serves as a correction to the Preliminary Determinations and is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Background

On April 2, 2020, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 1 On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days. 2 On July 21, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by an additional 60 days. 3 Commerce extended the deadline for the final results further by 60 days on November 9, 2020. 4 The deadline for the final results of this review is now January 19, 2021. For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5

The products covered by this order are certain uncoated paper products from Brazil. For a full description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we made the following changes to the Preliminary Results:

• We adjusted the programming language for Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A. (Suzano) using a corrected manufacturer code. 6

• We included certain sales by International Paper do Brasil Ltda./International Paper Exportadora Ltda. (collectively, International Paper) to a downstream customer located in a free trade zone in the margin calculation. 7

• We adjusted the programming language for International Paper to eliminate the double counting of certain taxes deducted from home market gross unit price. 8

Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period of March 1, 2018 through February 28, 2019:

On October 10, 2019, Commerce initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether imports of certain uncoated paper rolls that are further processed into uncoated paper sheets in the United States  1 are circumventing the Order on certain uncoated paper from Australia. 2 Commerce issued a questionnaire soliciting data on the quantity and value (Q&V) of exports of uncoated paper rolls to Australian Paper Pty. Ltd. (Australian Paper) and received a timely response, in which Australian Paper notified Commerce that it had no shipments of inquiry merchandise during the period under consideration. Thereafter, Commerce selected Australian Paper as the sole mandatory respondent in this inquiry in order to examine its no shipment claim, and we issued an initial questionnaire and two supplemental questionnaires to this company. Australian Paper submitted timely responses to these questionnaires. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this inquiry, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3

The merchandise subject to this Order includes uncoated paper in sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per square meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; that either is a white paper with a GE brightness level  4 of 85 or higher or is a colored paper; whether or not surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, perforated, or punched; irrespective of the smoothness of the surface; and irrespective of dimensions (Certain Uncoated Paper). For a full description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

This anti-circumvention inquiry covers certain uncoated paper rolls that are commonly, but not exclusively, known as “sheeter rolls,” from Australia that are further processed in the United States into individual sheets of uncoated paper that would otherwise be subject to the Order ( i.e., paper that weighs at least 40 grams per square meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; and that either is a white paper with a GE brightness level of 83 +/−1% or higher or is a colored paper (as defined the “Scope” section of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum)), except as noted below. The uncoated paper rolls covered by this inquiry are able to be converted into sheets of uncoated paper using specialized cutting machinery prior to printing, and are typically, but not exclusively, between 52 and 103 inches wide and 50 inches in diameter. For clarity, we herein refer to “subject-paper rolls” when referencing the certain uncoated paper rolls that may be converted into subject merchandise. Subject-paper rolls are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code 4802.55.

Commerce has made this preliminary negative circumvention determination in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(g). For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached at the Appendix to this notice.

As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine there is no record evidence indicating that Australian subject-paper rolls are being completed by conversion into sheets of uncoated paper that would otherwise be subject to the Order in the United States. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that exports to the United States of subject-paper rolls from Australia are not circumventing the Order.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties will be notified of the timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs. 5 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, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date of the hearing.

Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 6

This notice is published in accordance with sections 781(a) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(g).

On October 17, 1984, Commerce issued the Order on barium chloride from China. 1 On October 1, 2020, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the five-year sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 On October 6, 2020, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate in this review from Chemical Products Corporation (CPC) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 3 CPC claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a manufacturer of a domestic like product in the United States. On October 30, 2020, CPC provided a complete substantive response for this review within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 4 We received no substantive responses from any other interested parties, nor was a hearing requested. On November 20, 2020, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties. 5 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order.

The merchandise covered by the order is barium chloride, a chemical compound having the formulas BaCl2 or BaCl2-2H2O, currently classifiable under subheading 2827.39.4500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 6 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

All issues raised in this review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Order were revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 7 A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail is up to 155.50 percent. 8

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

On April 2, 2020, Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pipes and tubes from Thailand. 1 The review covers 30 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise, including Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co., Ltd., also known as Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co., Ltd. (Saha Thai), which Commerce selected for individual examination. Further, Commerce found that K Line Logistics had no shipments during the POR. For a discussion of events since the Preliminary Results were published, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2

The products covered by this review are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. For a full description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4 A list of issues raised, and to which we responded, in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Commerce preliminarily found that K Line Logistics (K Line) had no shipments during the POR. 5 We received no further comments or information that refute this finding since the Preliminary Results. Thus, Commerce continues to find that K Line had no shipments during the POR.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we have made changes to the weighted-average dumping margins applied to Saha Thai and the remaining non-selected respondents. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period March 1, 2018 through February 28, 2019:

On October 18, 2019, Commerce initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether imports of certain uncoated paper rolls that are further processed into uncoated paper sheets in the United States  1 are circumventing the Order on certain uncoated paper from Brazil. 2 Commerce issued questionnaires soliciting data on the quantity and value (Q&V) of exports of uncoated paper rolls to various companies. We received responses to these questionnaires from all parties except Ahlstrom. One company, Carvajal Pulpa y Papel S.A. (Carvajal), a Colombian producer of paper rolls, reported no shipments of uncoated paper rolls produced in Brazil to the United States. 3

Subsequently, Commerce selected two companies, International Paper do Brasil Ltda (IP)/International Paper Exportadora Ltda (IPEX) (collectively, IP), 4 and Suzano S.A. (Suzano), and required them to respond to a full questionnaire relating to their export activity with respect to uncoated paper rolls. 5 We received questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses from IP and Suzano, as well as responses from three U.S. companies. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this inquiry, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 6

The merchandise subject to this Order includes uncoated paper in sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per square meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; that either is a white paper with a GE brightness level of 85 or higher or is a colored paper; whether or not surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, perforated, or punched; irrespective of the smoothness of the surface; and irrespective of dimensions (Certain Uncoated Paper). For a full description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

This anti-circumvention inquiry covers certain uncoated paper rolls that are commonly, but not exclusively, known as “sheeter rolls,” from Brazil that are further processed in the United States into individual sheets of uncoated paper that would be subject to the Order ( i.e., paper that weighs at least 40 grams per square meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; and that either is a white paper with a GE brightness level of 83 +/−1% or higher or is a colored paper (as defined in the “Scope” section of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum), except as noted below. The uncoated paper rolls covered by this inquiry are able to be converted into sheets of uncoated paper using specialized cutting machinery prior to printing, and are typically, but not exclusively, between 52 and 103 inches wide and 50 inches in diameter. For clarity, we herein refer to “subject-paper rolls” when referencing the certain uncoated paper rolls that may be converted into subject merchandise. Subject-paper rolls are classified under HTSUS category 4802.55. 7

Certain importers of the subject-paper rolls that will not be converted into subject merchandise may certify that the rolls will not be further processed into subject merchandise covered by the scope of the Order. Failure to comply with the requisite certification requirement may result in the merchandise being found subject to AD duties.

Commerce made this preliminary finding of circumvention in accordance with section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.225(g). We relied on information placed on the record by the petitioners;  8 by IP and Suzano; and by Colonial Press International, Inc., Company B, and Perez Trading Company (collectively, U.S. companies). Further, because Ahlstrom did not cooperate by failing to respond to the best of its ability to Commerce's requests for information, we have used adverse inferences when selecting from among the facts otherwise available on the record for certain aspects of this preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 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. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached at Appendix I to this notice.

Based on our analysis, as detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily find, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act, that imports from Brazil of uncoated paper rolls that meet the description of inquiry merchandise above ( i.e., subject-paper rolls) that are further processed in the United States into subject merchandise are circumventing the Order.

We also preliminarily determine that Carvajal and IP did not export subject-paper rolls from Brazil to the United States during the period of inquiry. 9

To administer this affirmative circumvention determination, Commerce is requiring that importers of certain paper rolls from Brazil that otherwise match the physical description of subject-paper rolls and will not be further processed into uncoated paper sheets subject to the Order certify that the merchandise will not be further processed into subject uncoated paper sheets. Importers of such merchandise will be required to certify and maintain their certifications and supporting documentation to provide to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or Commerce upon request. 10 Properly certified entries are not subject to AD duties under the Order. Exemption from AD duties under the Order is permitted only if the certification and documentation requirements specified in Appendices II and III are met.

Entries of subject-paper rolls produced and/or exported by Ahlstrom are not eligible for certification.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), for entries of subject-paper rolls that were produced and/or exported by Ahlstrom ( i.e., the non-responsive company), Commerce will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of subject-paper rolls (as defined in the “Merchandise Subject to the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry” section above) from Brazil that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 18, 2019, the date of publication of the initiation of this anti-circumvention inquiry in the Federal Register . 11 For all other entries of subject-paper rolls, Commerce will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of the subject-paper rolls from Brazil that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. 12

CBP shall require cash deposits in accordance with those rates prevailing at the time of entry, unless the importer can certify to CBP that the subject-paper rolls will not be further processed into uncoated paper sheets subject to the Order in the United States. 13 In that latter instance, no cash deposit will be required. Subject-paper rolls meeting the physical characteristics described above, which are produced and/or exported by Ahlstrom, are not eligible for certification.

Interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 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. 14 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed electronically via ACCESS. 15

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. 16 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, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. 17

Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 18

Consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, Commerce is notifying the ITC of this affirmative preliminary determination to include the merchandise subject to this inquiry within the AD Order on uncoated paper from Brazil. Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Act, the ITC may request consultations concerning Commerce's proposed inclusion in the Order of the inquiry merchandise. These consultations must be concluded within 15 days after the date of the request. If, after consultations, the ITC believes that a significant injury issue is presented by the proposed inclusion, it will have 60 days to provide written advice to Commerce.

This notice is published in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(g).

Commerce published the notice of initiation of this administrative review on November 12, 2019. 1 Commerce extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review until September 29, 2020. 2 On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days. 3 On July 21, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by an additional 60 days. 4 Therefore, the deadline for the preliminary results of this review is January 19, 2021. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5

The products covered by the order are narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 6

Commerce is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, 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. 7

For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, including our reliance, in part, on adverse facts available pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 8 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. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/prc/prc-fr.htm. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rate exists:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed in connection with the preliminary results to interested parties within five days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 9

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results of review. 10 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline for filing case briefs. 11 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this administrative review are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 12 Case and rebuttal briefs must be filed using ACCESS. 13 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. 14 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information. 15

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must do so within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system. 16 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, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing. 17

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results of this administrative review.

Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above for Yama, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of publication of the final results of review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On October 18, 2019, Commerce initiated anti-circumvention inquiries to determine whether imports of certain uncoated paper rolls that are further processed into uncoated paper sheets in the United States  2 are circumventing the Orders   3 on certain uncoated paper from Indonesia. Commerce issued questionnaires soliciting data on the quantity and value of exports of uncoated paper rolls to various companies. We received responses to these questionnaires from all parties except Midwest Converting and Mohawk Fine Papers Inc.

Subsequently, Commerce selected three Indonesian companies/company groups as mandatory respondents—APRIL Fine Paper Macao Offshore Limited/APRIL International Enterprise Pte. Ltd./A P Fine Paper Trading (Hong Kong) Limited/PT Anugrah Kertas Utama,/PT Riau Andalan Kertas (collectively, APRIL); Great Champ Trading Limited (Great Champ); and PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk/PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk/Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper (collectively, APP Indonesian Mills)—and required them to respond to a full questionnaire relating to their export activity with respect to uncoated paper rolls. 4 We additionally determined to examine merchandise imported by three U.S. companies and to obtain information related to their paper conversion operations from nine additional U.S. companies. 5 We received full questionnaire, supplemental questionnaire, and conversion questionnaire responses, as applicable from six of these companies and a partial response from a seventh company, CellMark Paper, Inc. (CellMark). Five companies ( i.e., Advanced Paper Enterprises, Inc.; Alliance Converting LLC; Case Paper Company Inc.; LinkMax; and Northwoods Paper Converting) failed to respond. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of these inquiries, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

The merchandise subject to the Orders includes uncoated paper in sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per square meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; that either is a white paper with a GE brightness level of 85 or higher or is a colored paper; whether or not surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, perforated, or punched; irrespective of the smoothness of the surface; and irrespective of dimensions (Certain Uncoated Paper). For a full description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 6

Background

On April 2, 2020, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 1 On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days. 2 On July 21, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by an additional 60 days. 3 Commerce extended the deadline for the final results further by 60 days on October 23, 2020. 4 The deadline for the final results of this review is now January 19, 2021. For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5

The products covered by this order are certain uncoated paper products from Portugal. For a full description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we made the following changes to the Preliminary Results:

• We recalculated the amount of certain post-sale price adjustments reported for The Navigator Company, S.A.'s (Navigator's) home market sales. 6

• We also recalculated certain adjustments to Navigator's costs. 7

Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2018 through February 28, 2019:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.

Because Navigator's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), Commerce has calculated importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates. We calculated importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales of each importer and dividing each of these amounts by the total sales value associated with those sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

For entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Navigator for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 8

Consistent with its recent notice, 9 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

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 Navigator will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative 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 of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 7.80 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

The Bureau is publishing this Special Edition of Supervisory Highlights to inform the public of observations in its prioritized assessment (PA) supervisory work conducted last year after the sudden onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. PAs focused on assessing risks to consumers resulting from the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic had immediate and broad implications for Bureau-supervised entities. In a very short period of time, entities needed to adapt to a number of operational challenges, which included State stay-at-home orders, staffing shortages, transition to partial or total remote work, and business closures.

COVID-19 also deeply impacted consumers. Within three months of the pandemic's start, the unemployment rate jumped to over 11 percent  1 and a significant number of consumers sought unemployment benefits. With large income losses, many households struggled to meet their credit obligations. In the early days of the pandemic, consumer requests for accommodations skyrocketed.

On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act), 2 which included a temporary small business lending program known as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). It also amended certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and established protections for consumers including homeowners and student loan borrowers. Institutions had to quickly implement the applicable CARES Act provisions.

The Bureau recognized the challenges posed by the pandemic and encouraged supervised entities to focus on assisting consumers. The Bureau issued a number of statements that provided entities with temporary regulatory relief. The Bureau also announced that, in certain instances, the Bureau would take a flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during the pandemic. For more information about these statements please visit the Bureau's website at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/supervisory-guidance/.

In May of 2020, the Bureau rescheduled about half of its planned examination work and instead conducted PAs in response to the pandemic. PAs were higher-level inquiries than traditional examinations. They were designed to obtain real-time information from a broad group of supervised entities that operate in markets posing elevated risk of consumer harm due to pandemic-related issues.

The Bureau, through its supervision program, analyzed pandemic-related market developments to determine where issues were most likely to pose risk to consumers. The Bureau also prioritized markets where Congress provided special provisions in the CARES Act to help consumers.

The Bureau sent targeted information requests to a significant number of entities to obtain information necessary to assess risk of consumer harm and violation of Federal consumer financial law. Each targeted information request was specific to the product market, that market's attendant risks to consumers, and the institution. The targeted information requests focused on a short period of time, generally from early May 2020 through September 2020.

Typically, targeted information requests sought, as applicable:

• Information on how the institution was assisting consumers;

• challenges the institution was facing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

• changes the institution made to its compliance management system (CMS) in response to the pandemic;

• information about the institution's relevant communications with consumers;

• basic data regarding the institution's response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and

• information about service providers.

PAs were not designed to identify violations of Federal consumer financial law, but rather to spot and assess risks and communicate these risks to supervised entities so that they could be addressed to prevent consumer harm. The Bureau sent close-out letters to entities that detailed any observed risks and contained supervisory recommendations, if applicable. The Bureau will be following up on risks identified while conducting PAs in the normal course of the Bureau's supervisory work.

Many entities offered accommodations to consumers that experienced pandemic-related hardships. The CARES Act mandated forbearance options on federally backed mortgages and placed most student loans owned by the Department of Education into forbearance, and mandated zero interest accrual for all federally owned student loans. Even where not legally required, many entities also offered accommodations, including expanded payment assistance programs and fee waivers. For example, many auto servicers offered six-month payment deferrals to any consumer with a COVID-19 hardship, and many credit card issuers also offered deferrals that ranged from one to six months.

Some Bureau-supervised entities struggled to adjust to the rapid changes brought on by the pandemic. Many institutions experienced increased call volumes from consumers requesting relief or disputing charges, with corresponding increases in hold times for many consumers. For some entities, the combination of rapid program implementation and operational challenges resulted in elevated risk of consumer harm. For example, several entities experienced a backlog of accommodation requests or provided inaccurate information to consumers about the accommodations they offered.

Other risks observed by Bureau examiners ranged from inaccurate credit reporting to failure to send out timely disclosures. In many cases, staffing shortages or inaccurate training materials led to these issues.

Many institutions created COVID-19 response teams to identify and address consumer and industry challenges caused by the pandemic. Many entities engaged in robust monitoring of key processes, leading them to self-identify issues and implement corrective actions where needed. Other entities made changes in response to risks that Bureau examiners observed. Commonly seen changes made by institutions included:

• Providing consumer remediation;

• reversing fees;

• updating scripts to provide accurate information to consumers;

• transitioning from manual to automated processes;

• correcting inaccurate credit reporting; and

• correcting account histories.

Some entities also increased staffing to clear backlogs and to address increased demand for accommodations.

Specific PA observations are described in this report in the areas of mortgage, auto and student loan servicing, credit card account management, consumer reporting- furnishing, debt collection, deposits, prepaid cards, and small business lending. 3

The CARES Act established certain protections for homeowners. For example, for borrowers with federally backed mortgages, borrowers have the right to request and obtain forbearance for up to 180 days and to request and obtain an extension for another 180 days (for a total of 360 days). Since March 2020, millions of borrowers have sought payment relief options and enrolled in CARES Act forbearances. 4

Servicers faced a number of significant challenges. Beginning in March 2020, they had to quickly implement the CARES Act and make other operational changes in light of evolving investor guidance. Servicers reported taking a variety of steps to address issues related to the pandemic and enroll borrowers into CARES Act forbearances. Many servicers reported operational constraints, resource burdens, and service interruptions. Many servicers also moved employees from other duties to respond to forbearance requests. Some servicers reported disruptions to normal CMS and monitoring processes.

Examiners' review of mortgage servicers' PA responses indicated several issues that raise the risk of consumer harm. Some categories of issues are described below.

Several servicers provided incomplete or inaccurate information to consumers regarding CARES Act forbearances. These issues present a range of potential risks of consumer harm, such as dissuading borrowers from requesting a forbearance and causing borrowers to pursue other options that may be less favorable to them than forbearance. Examiners observed instances of the following:

• Customer service representatives provided inaccurate information regarding forbearances, including the available period for CARES Act forbearances and the interest accrued or amounts owed. Servicers told some borrowers that “lump sum” payment of all missed monthly payments would be required at the end of the forbearance period, when in fact that was not correct.

• Representatives indicated that only delinquent borrowers could qualify for a forbearance, contrary to the CARES Act. 5 As a result, representatives instructed some current borrowers to call back to request forbearance only after they had failed to make an on-time monthly payment.

• Written materials, such as forbearance approval letters and customer service websites, included inaccurate or potentially misleading information regarding CARES Act forbearance. For example, one servicer suggested that consumers had to pay a fee to receive a forbearance and another provided incorrect due dates for the borrower's next payment.

• A servicer sent borrowers requesting CARES Act forbearances written agreements purporting to require a signature as a condition of enrollment and stating that payments would be due later that month, when in fact they would not be due for 90 or 180 days. The CARES Act requires only that borrowers request a forbearance and attest to a financial hardship due to the pandemic to qualify.

Several servicers took actions on borrowers' accounts that were erroneous or inconsistent with the fact that borrowers were enrolled in CARES Act forbearances. These issues present risks of direct financial harm and significant confusion for borrowers who were enrolled in forbearances. For example, some servicers sent automated collection notices to borrowers in CARES Act forbearances indicating that their accounts were past due, and that negative reporting and late fees could result. While collection notices may be required for FHA loans by regulation under some circumstances, they are not required for other loans and may result in confusion for consumers enrolled in CARES Act forbearances. In other cases, system issues resulted in erroneous late fees and default notices for borrowers enrolled in forbearances. Examiners also identified one servicer that erroneously initiated foreclosure actions in violation of the CARES Act's moratorium on foreclosures and assessed related fees on borrowers in the early weeks of the pandemic. 6

Several servicers provided inaccurate information or took actions concerning borrowers' preauthorized electronic funds transfers without their knowledge or consent. These issues can result in inadvertent missed payments and other negative consequences for consumers.

Due to manual data entry errors, representatives at one servicer cancelled borrowers' preauthorized electronic funds transfers when they inquired about forbearance options over the phone. In addition, at other servicers, representatives provided inaccurate information to borrowers by stating that they did not need to take steps to cancel their preauthorized electronic fund transfers when they enrolled in forbearance, when in fact they did.

Many servicers experienced delays in processing forbearance requests in the early months of the pandemic. These delays were generally brief. However, a few servicers experienced more serious delays or failed to process forbearance requests. As a result, this issue presents a risk to consumers who do not timely receive the benefit of a requested forbearance and experience negative consequences, such as missed payments and negative credit reporting. For example, representatives processing borrower requests for forbearance incorrectly used a code indicating only that the borrowers inquired about forbearance, and no forbearance was processed.

Many servicers enrolled borrowers in automatic or unwanted forbearances. Examiners observed the following:

• Certain servicers did not effectively communicate to borrowers that they were applying for a forbearance. In some cases, borrowers believed that they were simply reviewing information regarding forbearance on the servicers' website or discussing a financial hardship with representatives on the phone. Those borrowers did not understand that they had applied for, or that the servicer would process, a forbearance.

• Certain representatives used incorrect system codes that placed borrowers' accounts into forbearances that they did not request.

• Certain servicers automatically placed borrowers' accounts into forbearance without their knowledge or approval. When borrowers with multiple loan accounts applied for forbearance on one account, some servicers automatically applied the forbearance to some or all of the borrowers' other accounts. One servicer automatically converted in-process loan modification applications into forbearances without borrowers' consent. 7

• Several servicers acknowledged that, when accounts were placed in forbearance without borrowers' request or approval, the servicers then furnished information to consumer reporting companies (CRCs)  8 indicating that the accounts had been placed in forbearance.

Some servicers did not take appropriate steps relating to loss mitigation for borrowers in CARES Act forbearances. The risks to consumers from these issues include missed opportunities to pursue and enroll in appropriate repayment options or plans. Issues observed include:

• One servicer enrolled borrowers who submitted incomplete loss mitigation applications in CARES Act forbearances and appropriately sent acknowledgement letters to these borrowers but failed to include a statement that the consumer will be evaluated for all options upon submitting a completed loss mitigation application, as required by Regulation X.

• One servicer had no process in place to evaluate whether borrowers who submitted complete loss mitigation applications qualified for CARES Act forbearances because they were experiencing a pandemic-related hardship. Some borrowers were instead enrolled in forbearances that lacked CARES Act protections—such as a term up to 360 days and credit reporting protections. The servicer received complaints from borrowers who missed payments while in a loss mitigation process, when they likely could have been offered the protections of the CARES Act.

Auto servicers reported large numbers of pandemic-related payment assistance requests beginning in early March 2020. Many servicers expanded existing payment assistance programs to help borrowers who were having trouble making payments. The changes included waiving late fees, permitting non-delinquent as well as delinquent borrower enrollments, and providing longer payment deferrals.

The payment assistance programs generally offered loan payment deferment on a case-by-case basis, with most borrowers receiving a payment deferral period of three or more months. In the majority of cases, the payment deferments extended the loan term by the same number of months. Most servicers continued to charge interest during the deferral period.

Servicers generally suspended repossessions between mid-March and early-May 2020, because State stay-at-home orders halted repossession efforts. While some states may have imposed repossession moratoria, there was no Federal moratorium.

Examiners' review of auto loan servicers' PA responses indicated several issues that present risk of consumer harm, including the following:

Many servicers provided information to consumers about the impact of interest accrual during deferment periods on the final loan payment amount that might not have been sufficiently precise for consumers to understand how much their payments would increase. For example, consumers who would face final payments that were more than double their regular payments may not have reasonably anticipated this result when servicers described the final payment as “substantially larger than your regular monthly payment.” More specific information about the final payment may allow consumers to budget and plan for future large payments and mitigate the risks that consumer could not make that payment. Servicers have various options to better disclose the long-term payment obligations, such as estimating final payment amounts.

Some servicers continued to withdraw funds for monthly payments after servicers had agreed to deferments. And some servicers failed to process certain payment assistance requests.

One servicer sent borrowers notices warning them of possible repossession when, in fact, the servicers had suspended repossession operations during the relevant time period. This practice likely affected whether some borrowers, threatened by repossession, spent discretionary money on their car payments instead of other financial necessities during the pandemic.

The CARES Act provided certain student loan borrowers with a range of protections. It temporarily reduced interest rates to zero for all federal loans owned by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and suspended monthly payments for most of these loans. To facilitate the suspension, servicers placed most loans in repayment status into an administrative forbearance. In addition, the suspended monthly payments are considered eligible payments toward the total number of qualifying payments necessary for forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and various income-driven repayment plans. Servicers reported that between March and May 2020 the number of delinquent accounts in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct loans) decreased from 1.9 million to fewer than 150 accounts.

Many loan holders of commercial Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans directed servicers to use the natural disaster forbearance provisions to provide payment relief for consumers impacted by the pandemic. These provisions did not provide the forgiveness or interest rate features of the CARES Act relief afforded to borrowers with Direct loans and ED-held FFELP loans.

Private student loan holders and lenders managed the early response to the pandemic with a variety of different payment relief options. Certain private student loan holders relied on options provided in the terms of the original note like economic hardship or natural disaster forbearances. Still others created new short-term payment relief options for consumers. Private loan forbearance options and implementation of FFELP disaster forbearance programs often evolved as the extent of the economic impacts from the pandemic became more apparent. In general, servicers did not require any documentation to enroll borrowers into COVID-19 related forbearances. Between March and May 2020, servicers reported that the number of delinquent commercial FFELP and private student loans across all servicers reviewed fell from 270,000 to 146,000.

Servicers faced a number of significant challenges. In March and April 2020, they quickly implemented the CARES Act for federally owned loans, identified and made available a variety of private and commercial FFELP payment relief options, and complied with local shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders. Many servicers reported operational constraints and service interruptions, consistent with other servicing sectors. Finally, examiners observed that a large percentage of calls from commercial FFELP and private student loan borrowers related to the CARES Act even though they were not eligible for the benefits. For example, consumers often expressed confusion and frustration after receiving bills when they believed their loans should have been automatically placed into CARES Act forbearances. Other consumers inquired about how to enroll in the forbearances they heard about in the news.

Examiners' review of student loan servicers' PA responses, which related to federal and private student loans, indicated several issues that raise the risk of consumer harm, described below.

One servicer provided incorrect or incomplete information about available payment relief options in written communications to numerous consumers. For example, some borrowers received inaccurate notices indicating that interest would capitalize at the conclusion of the natural disaster forbearances when, in fact, it would not. In another instance, private student loan borrowers received notices suggesting that they were eligible for natural disaster forbearances with certain terms when, in fact, the borrowers receiving these notices were ineligible. In both of these situations the servicer sent written communications informing affected borrowers of the error.

Multiple servicers failed to routinely discuss all available repayment options with borrowers requesting payment assistance. While borrowers were eligible to enroll in various forbearances in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have other options as well. For example, commercial FFELP borrowers are eligible for income-based repayment, which may be a better option for many borrowers. Additionally, private loan borrowers may also be eligible for non-standard repayment plans that can provide long-term payment relief. In these cases, consumers were never informed about alternative repayment options when they requested payment assistance.

Operational challenges resulted in one servicer failing to maintain regular call center hours. While operational disruptions were common across the industry, during this period most call centers stayed open at least part of the time. The complete or partial closure of call centers created a range of problems for consumers who were unable to talk with representatives, particularly in connection with payment relief-specific guidance.

One private loan holder was not responding to consumers' forbearance extension requests. Many loan holders authorize servicers to grant initial forbearances for consumers that call to request payment assistance. However, some loan holders require that servicers seek their approval for any forbearance extension. Examiners observed that thousands of extension requests were delayed and ultimately denied because the loan holder never responded. This challenge needlessly hinders consumers' abilities to make broader financial decisions and may cause certain consumers to believe the loan holder will evaluate the applications and that extensions are likely.

One servicer provided inaccurate information related to the number of payments eligible for repayment, rehabilitation, or forgiveness programs. Unlike under most forbearances, months that federally owned loans are enrolled in the forbearance authorized by the CARES Act are considered eligible under a variety of programs. However, when providing information to consumers about the total number of eligible payments, one servicer failed to include these months in the count.

Examiners observed some payment allocation errors when servicers applied voluntary payments to accounts enrolled in CARES Act forbearances. The servicers allow consumers to direct payments to individual loans within their accounts through individual instructions or standing orders. Many consumers use standing orders to establish a payment methodology that directs payments to loans with the highest interest rates. When consumers do not provide allocation instructions, servicers use their own default methodologies. Some servicers' default methodologies allocate payments based on the interest rates of the loans. The CARES Act stopped all interest accrual on loans owned by ED, and in these loans, some servicers failed to comply with allocation methodologies or instructions that relied on loan-level interest rates. In one situation, a servicer did not comply with consumers' standing payment instructions to allocate payments towards the highest interest rate loan first. Rather, representatives incorrectly used the CARES Act temporary interest rates and split payments evenly across the consumers' loans despite underlying differences in interest rates. While the error was not systematic in that case, if uncorrected, consumers' highest interest rate loans will not be paid down as much as they would be if servicers applied payments based on the permanent interest rate, so when payments and interest accrual resume, these borrowers would end up paying more over time.

Some servicers failed to prevent preauthorized electronic funds transfers following forbearance approval for loans that are not federally owned. For example, due to manual errors, one servicer failed to timely enroll consumers in forbearances that they approved over phone calls and failed to cancel the relevant preauthorized fund transfers as well. In other examples, servicers failed to cancel preauthorized electronic funds transfers when consumers requested and were granted forbearances that halted all required payments.

One servicer provided inaccurate information to consumers regarding the information required to evaluate forbearance applications for loans that are not federally owned. The servicer advised consumers that providing the date range related to the COVID-19 impact was acceptable. In fact, the servicer denied forbearance requests for consumers who provided date ranges rather than precise dates of COVID-19 impact.

Certain servicers allow commercial FFELP consumers to enroll in natural disaster forbearances through their websites or automated phone systems. Examiners observed that one servicer failed to prevent certain ineligible borrowers in technical default (more than 270 days delinquent) from enrolling in forbearances. This resulted in the servicer confirming enrollment in forbearances that were not actually provided to consumers. Consumers may have believed that they did not need to take any actions until the forbearance periods ended. However, these consumers in fact needed to make payments or, at a minimum, talk with representatives to resolve the issues.

Credit card issuers generally provided some form of relief to consumers experiencing hardships as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common relief was allowing consumers to skip a payment or to defer payments for one to six months. While some issuers waived interest along with payment deferrals, interest continued to accrue on accounts at most issuers. Other relief options included lowered interest rates, waivers of annual and other fees, and extended deferred interest periods for credit card accounts that already had deferred interest on certain purchases. A few issuers made changes to manage credit risk. Some issuers tightened underwriting standards, stopped proactive score-based credit limit increases, reduced credit limits, or closed some accounts. Some issuers also halted marketing campaigns to acquire new accounts and paused direct marketing campaigns due to uncertainty in the market.

Issuers generally experienced some operational challenges as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as increased call volume. The compliance-related challenges included:

• Difficulty in meeting written disclosure timing requirements; or obtaining necessary consumer consent for electronic disclosures ( e.g., for change-in-terms letters and statement messaging);

• Meeting regulatory requirements to address customer disputes, sometimes resulting from business partner and merchant closures; and

• Adjustments in regular monitoring and testing schedules for credit card operations.

In responding to challenges, some issuers deployed their existing disaster preparedness and business continuity management plans to address some of the operational challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, several issuers had to modify existing programs and business line processes, and revise policies and procedures to respond to the unique operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Examiners' review of issuers' PA responses indicated several issues that raise the risk of consumer harm. These issues are described below.

Certain issuers reported problems implementing relief programs, and these problems may have caused consumer harm. These issuers relied on manual processes to handle high volumes of requests for relief and did not provide adequate employee training about relief programs.

Some issuers that used manual processes to handle the high volumes of requests for relief reported significant backlogs in processing such requests. Due to these backlogs, accounts became delinquent between the time of consumers' requests for relief and the actual processing of requests, exposing consumers' accounts to potential negative credit reporting, charge-offs, or account closures.

In some instances, consumers who requested relief were erroneously told that they would receive immediate relief as of the date of their request. In fact, these consumers would not receive relief until the consumer's request was manually entered into the issuer's system, which occurred days, or even weeks, later. In some cases, consumers were never manually enrolled in relief programs. Consequently, fees and interest that were supposed to be waived, along with the payment deferrals, were not waived.

Some issuers also reported that employees provided inaccurate information to consumers in order to collect payments from them. For instance, representatives told consumers that they had to pay their past due amount to enroll in the payment deferment program when in fact, paying the past due amount was not a requirement for enrollment.

Several issuers advised consumers who requested to skip or defer credit card payments pursuant to a pandemic relief program that they must adjust or separately cancel any preauthorized credit card payments (including preauthorized transfers from an external financial institution) that were set up to make their periodic credit card payments. Examiners observed that the instructions given to consumers in certain cases, including going through additional steps to cancel or defer payments after completing the pandemic relief request process, posed a risk of consumer harm.

Some issuers did not immediately suspend preauthorized transfers upon enrolling consumers in pandemic relief programs, despite making representations to consumers that payments would be suspended as of the date the consumer enrolled. Rather, the issuers' systems were programmed to suspend preauthorized transfers as of the date that the consumer's request for relief was manually processed by the issuer. Because of processing backlogs, suspension of transfers did not occur until several days or weeks after the consumer's oral request. Due to these processing backlogs, examiners observed that several consumers' accounts were debited in error.

At several issuers, some consumers who had not previously opted to receive electronic disclosures requested COVID-19 relief telephonically. For these consumers, the issuers had no practical way to provide written disclosures without delaying relief or obtaining the consumer's consent to electronic disclosure. Rather than delay relief, the issuers provided immediate relief to cardholders and delivered written disclosures by letter or statement notice. 9

Some issuers reported that they failed to resolve billing disputes by the regulatory deadline. This failure was attributed to the increased volume of error notices and merchant closures which increased the amount of time to investigate and resolve such errors.

Consumer reporting plays a critical role in consumers' financial lives. CRCs assemble or evaluate consumer information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties. Such consumer reports can determine a consumer's eligibility for credit cards, car loans, and home mortgage loans—and they often affect how much a consumer is going to pay for that loan. Furnishers of information provide information to CRCs and thus play a crucial role in the accuracy and integrity of consumer reports. Inaccurate information on consumer reports can lead to market harm. For example, inaccurate information on a consumer report can impact a consumer's ability to obtain credit or open a new deposit or savings account. Moreover, furnishers have an important role when consumers dispute the accuracy of information in their consumer reports. Consumers may dispute information that appears on their consumer report directly with furnishers (“direct disputes”) or indirectly through CRCs (“indirect disputes”). When CRCs and furnishers receive disputes, they are required to investigate the disputes to verify the accuracy of the information furnished. 10 A timely and responsive reply to a consumer dispute may reduce the impact that inaccurate negative information in a consumer report may have on the consumer.

The CARES Act amended Section 623(a)(1) of the FCRA (CARES Act FCRA amendment). This amendment applies if a furnisher makes an accommodation with respect to one or more payments on a credit obligation or account of a consumer, and the consumer makes the payments or is not required to make one or more payments pursuant to the accommodation. For accounts where the CARES Act FCRA amendment applies, if the credit obligation or account was current before the accommodation, during the accommodation the furnisher must continue to report the credit obligation or account as current. If the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the accommodation, during the accommodation the furnisher cannot advance the delinquent status. 11 For more examples regarding the applicability of the CARES Act FCRA amendment, the Bureau has published detailed FAQs. 12

Furnishers and CRCs faced challenges in responding to the pandemic and the new requirements of the CARES Act FCRA amendment. Several furnishers and CRCs reported temporary staffing challenges that affected the entities' ability to complete reasonable dispute investigations within the time periods specified in the FCRA and Regulation V. Many furnishers also adapted to consumer need by offering new or expanded payment accommodations to consumers, which required changes in staffing to handle request volume. In light of the new statutory requirements for furnishing under the CARES Act FCRA amendment, these new or expanded accommodations also required that furnishers make changes in procedures to appropriately code accounts so that they would be furnished correctly according to the statute's new requirements. Notwithstanding these challenges, most CRCs and furnishers provided information indicating that they have adapted to meet their FCRA and Regulation V obligations. This is consistent with the findings of the CFPB's Office of Research that, in several credit markets including mortgage loans, auto loans, and student loans, the reported rate of new delinquencies, as well as the reported share of existing delinquencies that became more delinquent, decreased between March and June 2020. 13

Examiners' review of furnishers' and CRCs' PA responses indicated several issues that present risk of consumer harm.

Some entities furnished new and/or advancing delinquency information to CRCs after making an accommodation. As noted above, if a furnisher makes an accommodation, the furnisher must under certain conditions report the credit obligation or account as current, or if the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the accommodation, not advance the delinquent status during the period of the accommodation. 14 Certain furnishers made accommodations, and communicated to the consumer that the accommodation had been made immediately after the consumer submitted the application. These furnishers then delayed processing accommodations due to backlogs created by the volume of accommodation requests. This resulted in: (i) Reporting some consumers who were current as delinquent, and then improperly advancing and reporting their incorrect delinquency status, or (ii) improperly advancing the delinquency status of other consumers who were delinquent at the time of the accommodation.

Examiners observed that insufficient furnishing policies and procedures caused an entity to furnish inaccurate account information to CRCs related to the practice of home pickups of leased vehicles.

Furnishers are required to “establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers that it furnishes to a consumer reporting agency. The policies and procedures must be appropriate to the nature, size, complexity, and scope of each furnisher's activities.”  15

An auto furnisher failed to update furnishing policies and procedures to address the furnisher's changed leased vehicle return practices. This caused the furnisher to erroneously report consumers as delinquent for leased vehicles that had, in fact, been returned. As a result of the pandemic, many auto dealerships were closed, so vehicles were picked up from consumers' homes. This created delays or errors in the processing of lease termination, causing auto furnishers to report accounts as delinquent even though consumers had returned their vehicles on time.

After making changes to accommodation programs offered to consumers during the pandemic, a number of furnishers did not update their written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information related to consumers that they furnish to CRCs. Accommodation programs offered by furnishers may affect how the furnishers report information about its accounts to CRCs. Accordingly, there is a risk of furnishing inconsistent with the CARES Act FCRA Amendment if furnishers have made changes to accommodation programs without updating related furnishing policies and procedures.

CRCs and furnishers are required to conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information, review all relevant information provided by the consumers with the dispute, and respond with the results of the dispute investigation. 16

In the second quarter of 2020, staffing challenges due to the pandemic impacted dispute investigation capacity at one or more furnishers and CRCs. As a result of these staffing challenges, some furnishers and CRCs were unable to timely conduct investigations of disputed tradelines in the months of April and May. However, examiners observed data indicating that, by the end of June 2020, the average time to resolve disputes by furnishers had returned to the average time from prior years.

Some CRCs and furnishers that experienced this problem in the Spring of 2020 took steps to reduce the risk of inaccurate consumer information caused by these staffing challenges. Specifically, these CRCs and furnishers continued to investigate the disputes and subsequently furnished updated or corrected information about such disputed items after completing their dispute investigations. CFPB Supervision is continuing to monitor dispute timeliness at CRCs and furnishers.

During the review period, some participants in the debt collection industry reported an increase in consumer contacts and payments, which several attributed to more consumers being at home, reduced spending, and the resources provided by pandemic assistance programs.

Debt collectors altered their work practices in response to the pandemic to comply with State orders and reduce their employees' risk of infection. In general, collectors responding to the PAs indicated that they transitioned partially or entirely to remote work during the review period. Other workplace changes were reported, including the implementation of remote call-monitoring tools and modifications to telework policies.

Some states instituted pandemic measures that impacted the debt collection industry and consumers. These measures include prohibitions on new wage garnishments or bank attachments, and a requirement that consumers be offered the option to defer scheduled payments.

Examiners' review of debt collectors' PA responses indicated several issues that raise the risk of consumer harm, discussed below.

In certain instances, there were delays in processing suspensions of administrative wage garnishments (AWG), followed by attempts by collectors to rectify the effects of those delays. Several servicers of commercially owned Federal student loans voluntarily suspended AWG collections. However, some employers did not promptly suspend garnishment of consumer wages. As a result, collectors made additional efforts to contact the employers and to provide refunds for wages garnished after the suspension.

Examiners reviewed the potential for FDCPA compliance risks associated with new restrictions on wage garnishment and bank attachments. FDCPA violations can occur independent of whether State law has been violated. Nonetheless, when evaluating whether an action taken to enforce a judgment violates FDCPA section 808's prohibition of “unfair or unconscionable” debt collection practices, one fact the Bureau may consider is whether applicable law permits resort to garnishment or attachment of a consumer's assets in a particular set of circumstances. Several State laws or regulations promulgated during the review period appear to prohibit debt collectors from imposing new attachments on bank accounts or new wage garnishments on employers. Of the examined debt collectors that engage in litigation and judgment enforcement activities, several voluntarily stopped imposing new bank attachments and/or wage garnishments during the review period. Due to significant complexities and a rapidly shifting landscape of State restrictions, continued litigation and judgment enforcement during the pandemic could still pose compliance risks and, as a result, risks to consumers.

There were payment processing delays for some entities caused by the transition to remote work. Certain collectors experienced delays in processing payments that were sent by mail and received at a physical location which was temporarily inaccessible due to the pandemic. In those instances, examiners generally observed the entity retroactively posting payments effective on the date payment was delivered.

As part of the CARES Act, Congress authorized direct monetary payments, known as Economic Impact Payments (EIPs), to many consumers. The CARES Act also increased the amount of State unemployment insurance consumers might receive. Direct deposit was the primary method of distribution for EIPs. Direct deposit was and is a significant distribution method for State unemployment insurance benefits. Due to the economic hardship caused by the pandemic, consumers' ability to access these benefits was critical.

Depository institutions responded to the challenges posed by the pandemic in several ways. Many institutions closed physical branch locations to protect the health of both their staff and customers. A number of institutions transitioned staff to remote work, increased call center staffing in order to deal with the influx of customer questions, and increased ATM deposit and withdrawal limits to maintain consumers' access to their funds.

In response to the pandemic, a number of institutions activated their existing disaster relief programs. Numerous institutions made temporary changes to existing policies and procedures and documented those changes in informal documents, including job aids, playbooks, and FAQs issued to employees. A few institutions also made changes to formal policies and procedures. Whether through existing disaster relief programs, temporary changes, or formal policy and procedure updates, many institutions reported taking actions to reach out to consumers to offer assistance and provide resources in connection with pandemic-related hardships.

Examiners' review of institutions' PA responses found several issues that elevate the risk of harm to consumers. The most commonly observed risks arose from the failure of institutions to fully implement the protections states put in place to protect consumers' access to the full amount of their government benefits, specifically EIPs and unemployment insurance benefits. Some states prohibited institutions from using EIPs or unemployment insurance benefits to cover charged-off loan obligations, fees owed to the institutions, or overdrawn account balances. Other states limited actions to garnish government benefits to satisfy judgments, attachments, or levies for third-party creditors. 17 These State actions took a number of different forms, including executive orders, emergency legislation, court orders, and State attorney general guidance.

Many institutions sought to identify, analyze, and, as appropriate, ensure compliance with State measures that imposed legal obligations on the institutions. But based on the limited information obtained through the PAs, examiners could not determine that all the institutions identified and/or analyzed compliance obligations under State laws with respect to exercising setoff rights and/or garnishing government benefits. Failure to properly identify, analyze, and, as applicable, comply with State actions poses a risk that consumers might be deprived of the full use of government benefits. Such a failure could, in turn, under certain circumstances, constitute an act or practice that violates Federal consumer financial law.

For those institutions that did waive setoff rights in response to State actions discussed above or on their own initiative, other consumer risks were identified. Institutions used a variety of methods to waive setoff rights. These methods included refunding fees that contributed to a consumer's account being overdrawn, permanently forgiving overdrawn account balances, and issuing checks to consumers with overdrawn accounts for the full amount of their EIPs or protected unemployment insurance benefits. Institutions most frequently waived setoff rights through the issuance of provisional credits in the amount of the overdrawn account balances. These credits would then be revoked at a later date, potentially leaving some consumers with a negative account balance.

Waiver of setoff rights allowed consumers access to the full amount of government benefits. At several institutions, examiners found risk when the institutions failed to clearly communicate to consumers how and when provisional credits would be revoked. This risk was exacerbated if the institutions lacked a clear policy preventing assessment of an overdraft fee when the revocation of provisional credit resulted in a negative account balance. Consumer complaints indicated confusion about the use and revocation of provisional credits. Examiners also observed a risk with respect to policies and procedures around the waiver or refund of account fees. In response to COVID-19, some institutions expanded existing account fee waiver or refund policies either through a blanket waiver or upon consumer request. These institutions informed consumers of the changes on their websites or via press releases. However, examiners observed a risk when the institutions failed to implement policies and procedures that clearly and consistently operationalized account fee waivers and refunds.

Pandemic-related business closures led to millions of consumers receiving State unemployment insurance benefits. For a period of time, the CARES Act enhanced the amount of unemployment insurance benefits that consumers received. Many States issue prepaid cards as a method for disbursing unemployment insurance benefits. Aside from unemployment insurance benefits, some consumers received EIPs on prepaid cards. As a result, prepaid accounts experienced an unexpected spike in demand.

This rapid growth caused issues related to transaction and maintenance fees, service availability, and continuity. The industry encountered difficulty in fully staffing call centers to quickly answer questions and resolve conflicts relating to the significant increase in volume and number of prepaid accounts. Although depository institutions issue prepaid accounts, they often contract with third-party service providers to assist in managing the accounts. The compliance infrastructure at these third parties is generally less mature, which exacerbates the potential for consumer harm caused by unforeseen changes in the prepaid marketplace.

Prepaid account issuers generally made changes to address staffing challenges and operational difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the significant rise in volume and number of accounts. Nonetheless, examiners highlighted a few key COVID-19 related risks with respect to issuers of unemployment insurance benefit prepaid accounts.

Due to surge in demand, one institution lacked sufficient supply of the required disclosures and privacy notices and, rather than delay account access, mailed the prepaid account information to consumers without the required disclosures and privacy notices. To mitigate the lack of paper written disclosure, the institution included the address of a website where consumers could review the information online. The lack of paper disclosures presented a risk of harm as these consumers did not receive disclosures that included the terms of use and privacy notices as required by law. 18 These required disclosures cover, among other things, the fee schedule and error resolution rights associated with the prepaid accounts. The institution addressed this issue by subsequently mailing the required disclosures and privacy notices to impacted consumers.

The Bureau has supervisory authority over large insured depository institutions and insured credit unions, many of which have originated PPP loans. Consistent with its authority to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Bureau conducted PAs to assess potential fair lending risks attendant to the institutions' participation in the program. Below are the supervisory observations resulting from these PAs.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a swift and dramatic impact on small businesses. Many small businesses were forced to shut down temporarily or reduce operations in response to mandatory State and local stay-at-home orders issued to reduce exposure to, and transmission of, COVID-19. Small businesses also experienced a significant drop in demand for goods and services and disruptions in their supply chains. Because of these impacts, many small businesses experienced a sharp drop in revenue and increased economic stress.

To address this problem, section 1102 of the CARES Act amended section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 636(a), to create a temporary small business lending program known as the PPP. Under the PPP, small businesses could receive loans from private lender to cover eligible payroll, costs, business mortgage payments and interest, rent, and utilities for either an 8- or 24-week period after disbursement. Each loan is fully guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA), which administers the PPP; small business borrowers do not have to make any payments during the first six months of the loan term and may receive a deferral up to one year; and small businesses may receive complete or partial forgiveness of their loans if they use their loans to cover certain expenses and meet other requirements. A wide range of financial institutions were eligible to participate as lenders in the PPP, including institutions that normally do not participate in the SBA's 7(a) lending program. 19 This includes federally insured depository institutions, credit unions, and nonbanks. 20

When the PPP opened on April 3, 2020, demand for PPP loans far exceeded the initial $349 billion of funding for PPP loans and those funds were exhausted in less than two weeks. Congress subsequently provided another $310 billion (including $60 billion specifically to be lent by smaller banks and credit unions), bringing the total funding for the PPP to $659 billion. The second round of funding became available on April 27, 2020 and was not exhausted. When the PPP closed on August 8, 2020, $133 billion remained available.

While the PPP was active, Congress made additional funds available, changed the term for new PPP loans, and revised other program requirements. The SBA also issued numerous interim final rules related to the program and lenders. PPP lenders were responsible for ensuring that their participation in the PPP complied not only with the CARES Act and SBA rules, but also with other applicable laws, including ECOA.

Examiners' review of small business lenders' PA responses identified certain issues that may pose fair lending risks.

In implementing the PPP, multiple lenders adopted a policy that restricted access to PPP loans beyond the eligibility requirements of the CARES Act and rules and orders issued by the SBA (an “overlay”). Specifically, several small business lenders restricted access by limiting eligibility for PPP loans to existing customers (an “existing customer overlay”). The Bureau's PA work in this area revealed that the existing customer overlay fell into two general categories:

(1) Restrictive policies that allowed only small businesses with a pre-existing relationship (or certain type of pre-existing relationship) with the institution the opportunity to apply for a PPP loan; and

(2) less restrictive policies that required small businesses without a pre-existing relationship to first become customers of the financial institution (usually by opening a business deposit account) and then apply for a PPP loan.

Examiners determined that an overlay restricting access to PPP loans for small businesses that do not have an existing relationship with the institution, while neutral on its face, may have a disproportionate negative impact on a prohibited basis and run a risk of violating the ECOA and Regulation B. The small business lenders provided business justifications for their use of existing customer overlays, with the majority of institutions noting that they adopted such overlays because of Know Your Customer legal requirements, the prevention of fraud, or both. Several institutions also offered other, operational reasons for adopting this overlay, including managing extreme demand and enabling the institution to process as many applications as possible before funds were depleted. Examiners noted the challenges faced by small business lenders in implementing the PPP during a nationwide emergency and found that the institutions' stated reasons for adopting their overlays reflected legitimate business needs during part or all of the review period. Examiners did not, however, conduct a full analysis of any institution's overlay, and did not make any determination about whether an institution's use of the overlay complies with ECOA or Regulation B. Examiners encouraged the small business lenders to consider the fair lending risks associated with participation in the PPP, in further implementation of the PPP, and in any new lending program and to evaluate and address any risks.

The Bureau is committed to being as transparent as possible about its supervisory findings and will continue to publish Supervisory Highlights to aid Bureau-supervised entities in their efforts to comply with Federal consumer financial law. While the Bureau's PA reviews are substantially complete, in some instances, examiners identified issues that require follow up. The Bureau will follow-up on risks identified during PAs in the course of its regular supervisory work and findings may be shared in future editions of Supervisory Highlights.

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

In 2008, Congress established CIGIE as an independent entity within the executive branch in order to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the offices of the Inspector General. CIGIE's membership is comprised of all Inspectors General whose offices are established under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app (IG Act), as well as the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, a designated official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, the Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Inspectors General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Library of Congress, Capitol Police, Government Publishing Office, Government Accountability Office, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Deputy Director for Management of OMB serves as the Executive Chairperson of CIGIE.

Section 15010 of Public Law 116-136, established the PRAC as a committee within CIGIE. The mission of the PRAC is to promote transparency and conduct and support oversight to: (1) Prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement of covered funds; and (2) mitigate major risks that cut across programs and agencies with respect to covered funds. The term “covered funds” means any funds, including but not limited to loans, that are made available in any form to any non-Federal entity, not including an individual, under: The CARES Act; the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020; the Families First Coronavirus Response Act; or any other act primarily making appropriations for the Federal Government's Coronavirus response and related activities.

The new system of records described in this notice, the PRAC Data Warehouse System (CIGIE-5), will enable CIGIE to carry out its responsibilities to promote transparency and conduct oversight of covered funds. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), CIGIE has provided a report of this new system of records to OMB and to Congress. The new system of records reads as follows:

Title: FERC-725S, Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) Reliability Standards.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0270.

Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-725S information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: The Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), added a new section 215 to the Federal Power Act (FPA). 1 FPA section 215 requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. In 2006, the Commission certified North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) as the ERO pursuant to section 215 of the FPA. FERC-725S consists of Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) Reliability Standards, EOP-004-4 (Event Reporting), EOP-005-3 (System Restoration from Blackstart Resources), EOP-006-3 (System Restoration Coordination), EOP-008-2 (Loss of Control Center Functionality), EOP-010-1 (Geomagnetic Disturbance Operations), and EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations). These Reliability Standards enhance reliability by:

(1) Providing accurate reporting of events to NERC's event analysis group to analyze the impact on the reliability of the bulk electric system (Reliability Standard EOP-004-4).

(2) delineating the roles and responsibilities of entities that support system restoration from blackstart resources which generate power without the support of the bulk electric system (Reliability Standard EOP-005-3).

(3) clarifying the procedures and coordination requirements for reliability coordinator personnel to execute system restoration processes (Reliability Standard EOP-006-3).

(4) refining the required elements of an operating plan used to continue reliable operations of the bulk electric system in the event that primary control center functionality is lost (Reliability Standard EOP-008-2).

(5) addressing the effects of operating Emergencies by ensuring each Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority has developed Operating Plan(s) to mitigate operating Emergencies, and that those plans are coordinated within a Reliability Coordinator Area (EOP-010-1).

(6) streamlining the requirements for Emergency operations of the Bulk Electric System. Attachment 1, which is incorporated into Requirements R2 and R6, provides the process and descriptions of the levels used by the Reliability Coordinator when communicating the condition of a Balancing Authority that is experiencing an Energy Emergency (EOP-011-1).

The 60-day notice was published on November 18, 2020 (85 FR 73477), and no comments were received.

Type of Respondents: Public utilities subject to the FPA.

Estimate of Annual Burden   2 and cost:   3 With the exception of adjustments due to the Commission's recent experience with this information collection, the Commission estimates there will be no changes in the annual public reporting burden for the FERC-735S, as follows:

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0645.

Title: Sections 17.4, 17.48 and 17.49, Antenna Structure Registration Requirements.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 16,050 respondents; 69,716 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .1-.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement and third-party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

Total Annual Burden: 9,889 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $59,460.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an extension of this information collection in order to obtain the full three-year approval. The Commission has adjusted its burden and cost estimates in order to update the collection burdens necessary to implement a uniform registration process as well as safe and effective lighting procedures for owners of antenna structures.

Section 17.4 includes third party disclosure requirements. Specifically, Section 17.4 requires the owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires notice of proposed construction to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to register the structure with the Commission. This includes those structures used as part of the stations licensed by the Commission for the transmission of radio energy, or to be used as part of a cable television head-end system. If a Federal Government antenna structure is to be used by a Commission licensee, the structure must be registered with the Commission. Section 17.4(f) provides that antenna structure owners shall immediately provide to all tenant licensees and permittees notification that the structure has been registered. This may be done by providing either a copy of Form 854 or a link to the FCC antenna structure registration website. This notification may be done electronically or via paper mail.

Section 17.4(g) requires antenna structure owners to display the Antenna Structure Registration Number in a conspicuous place that is readily visible near the base of the antenna. This rule specifically requires that the Antenna Structure Number be displayed so that it is conspicuously visible and legible from the publicly accessible area nearest the base of the antenna structure along the publicly accessible roadway or path. Where an antenna structure is surrounded by a perimeter fence, or where the point of access includes an access gate, the Antenna Structure Registration Number should be posted on the perimeter fence or access gate. Where multiple antenna structures having separate Antenna Structure Registration Numbers are located within a single fenced area, the Antenna Structure Registration Numbers must be posted both on the perimeter fence or access gate and near the base of each antenna structure. If the base of the antenna structure has more than one point of access, the rule requires that the Antenna Structure Registration Number be posted so that it is visible at the publicly accessible area nearest each such point of access. The registration number is issued to identify antenna structure owners in order to enforce the Congressionally mandated provisions related to the owners.

Sections 17.48 and 17.49 contain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Section 17.48(a) requires that antenna structure owners immediately report outages of top steady burning lights or flashing antenna structure lights to the FAA, if not corrected within 30 minutes. Upon receipt of the outage notification, the FAA will issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), which notifies aircraft of the outage. Consistent with FAA requirements, if a lighting outage cannot be repaired within the FAA's original NOTAM period, Section 17.48(a) further requires the antenna structure owner to notify the FAA of that fact and provide any needed updates to its estimated return-to-service date. The rule also requires antenna structure owners to continue to provide these updates to the FAA every NOTAM period until its lights are repaired.

Section 17.49 requires antenna structure owners to maintain a record of observed or otherwise known extinguishments or improper functioning of structure lights for two years and provide the records to the Commission upon request.

Purpose: The committee is charged with advising the Director, CDC, on the use of immunizing agents. In addition, under 42 U.S.C. 1396s, the committee is mandated to establish and periodically review and, as appropriate, revise the list of vaccines for administration to vaccine-eligible children through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, along with schedules regarding dosing interval, dosage, and contraindications to administration of vaccines. Further, under provisions of the Affordable Care Act, section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, immunization recommendations of the ACIP that have been approved by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and appear on CDC immunization schedules must be covered by applicable health plans.

Matters To Be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on cholera vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, influenza vaccines, zoster vaccine, orthopoxvirus vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, rabies vaccine and tickborne encephalitis vaccine. A recommendation vote on the rabies vaccine is scheduled. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. For more information on the meeting agenda visit https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/meetings-info.html.

Meeting Information: The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP website: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/index.html.

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

Written Public Comment: Written comments must be received on or before February 25, 2021. Oral Public Comment: This meeting will include time for members of the public to make an oral comment. Oral public comment will occur before any scheduled votes including all votes relevant to the ACIP's Affordable Care Act and Vaccines for Children Program roles. Priority will be given to individuals who submit a request to make an oral public comment before the meeting according to the procedures below.

Procedure for Oral Public Comment: All persons interested in making an oral public comment at the February 24, 2021 ACIP meeting must submit a request at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/ no later than 11:59 p.m., EST, February 18, 2021 according to the instructions provided.

If the number of persons requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled time, CDC will conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled public comment session. CDC staff will notify individuals regarding their request to speak by email by February 19, 2021. To accommodate the significant interest in participation in the oral public comment session of ACIP meetings, each speaker will be limited to 3 minutes, and each speaker may only speak once per meeting.

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

Purpose: The ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee is a public forum for the presentation of proposed modifications to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification and ICD-10 Procedure Coding System.

Matters To Be Considered: The tentative agenda will include discussions on ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS topics listed below. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. Please refer to the posted agenda for updates one month prior to the meeting.

Presentations for procedure code requests are conducted by both the requestor and CMS during the Coordination & Maintenance Committee meeting. Discussion from the requestor generally focuses on the clinical issues for the procedure or technology, followed by the proposed coding options from a CMS analyst. Topics presented may also include requests for new procedure codes that relate to a new technology add-on payment (NTAP) policy request.

CMS is modifying the approach for presenting the new technology add-on payment (NTAP) related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that involve the administration of a therapeutic agent for the March 9-10, 2021 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting due to the volume of NTAP applications and corresponding procedure code requests being considered for FY 2022. Consistent with the requirements of section 1886(d)(5)(K)(iii) of the Social Security Act, applicants submitted requests to create a unique procedure code to describe the administration of a therapeutic agent, such as the option to create a new code in Section X within the ICD-10-PCS procedure code classification. In order to accommodate the number of requests received for the March 9-10, 2021 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting, CMS will initially only display those meeting materials associated with the NTAP related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that involve the administration of a therapeutic agent on the CMS website in early February 2021 at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/C-and-M-Meeting-Materials.

The six NTAP related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that involve the administration of a therapeutic agent are:

These topics will not be presented during the March 9-10, 2021 meeting. CMS will solicit public comments regarding any clinical questions or coding options included for these six procedure code topics in advance of the meeting continuing through the end of the public comment period, April 9, 2021. Members of the public should send any questions or comments to the CMS mailbox at: ICDProcedureCodeRequest@cms.hhs.gov by the April 9, 2021 deadline.

CMS intends to post a question and answer document in advance of the meeting to address any clinical or coding questions that members of the public may have submitted. Following the conclusion of the meeting, CMS will post an updated question and answer document to address any additional clinical or coding questions that members of the public may have submitted during the meeting that CMS was not able to address or that were submitted after the meeting.

The NTAP related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that do not involve the administration of a therapeutic agent and all non-NTAP related procedure code requests will continue to be presented during the virtual meeting on March 9, 2021 consistent with the standard meeting process.

CMS will make all meeting materials and related documents available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/C-and-M-Meeting-Materials. Any inquiries related to the procedure code topics scheduled for the March 9-10, 2021 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting that are under consideration for October 1, 2021 implementation should be sent to the CMS mailbox at: ICDProcedureCodeRequest@cms.hhs.gov.

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

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

Title of Information Collection: Improving Customer Experience (OMB Circular A-11, Section 280 Implementation).

OMB Approval Number: Pending.

Type of Request: New.

Form Number: None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Under the 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. “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 requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, HUD is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

Whether seeking a loan, Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, or other services provided by the Federal Government, individuals and businesses expect Government customer services to be efficient and intuitive, just like services from leading private-sector organizations. Yet the 2016 American Consumer Satisfaction Index and the 2017 Forrester Federal Customer Experience Index show that, on average, Government services lag nine percentage points behind the private sector.

A modern, streamlined and responsive customer experience means: Raising government-wide customer experience to the average of the private sector service industry; developing indicators for high-impact Federal programs to monitor progress towards excellent customer experience and mature digital services; and providing the structure (including increasing transparency) and resources to ensure customer experience is a focal point for agency leadership. To support this, OMB Circular A-11 Section 280 established government-wide standards for mature customer experience organizations in government and measurement. To enable Federal programs to deliver the experience taxpayers deserve, they must undertake three general categories of activities: Conduct ongoing customer research, gather and share customer feedback, and test services and digital products.

These data collection efforts may be either qualitative or quantitative in nature or may consist of mixed methods. Additionally, data may be collected via a variety of means, including but not limited to electronic or social media, direct or indirect observation ( i.e., in person, video and audio collections), interviews, questionnaires, surveys, and focus groups. HUD will limit its inquiries to data collections that solicit strictly voluntary opinions or responses. Steps will be taken to ensure anonymity of respondents in each activity covered by this request.

The results of the data collected will be used to improve the delivery of Federal services and programs. It will include the creation of personas, customer journey maps, and reports and summaries of customer feedback data and user insights. It will also provide government-wide data on customer experience that can be displayed on performance.gov to help build transparency and accountability of Federal programs to the customers they serve.

Method of Collection: HUD will collect this information by electronic means when possible, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, technical discussions, and in-person interviews. HUD may also utilize observational techniques to collect this information.

Data:

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: New.

Affected Public: Collections will be targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future. For the purposes of this request, “customers” are individuals, businesses, and organizations that interact with a Federal Government agency or program, either directly or via a Federal contractor. This could include individuals or households; businesses or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal governments; Federal government; and Universities.

• Estimated Number of Respondents: 500,000.

• Estimated Time per Response: Varied, dependent upon the data collection method used. The possible response time to complete a questionnaire or survey may be 3 minutes or up to 2 hours to participate in an interview.

• Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25,000.

• Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

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.

Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

The Acting Customer Experience Officer, Katherine Darling, 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 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) established the National Indian Gaming Commission, which is charged with regulating gaming on Indian lands.

Commission regulations (25 CFR 514) provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates and the gaming operations are required to apply those rates to their revenues, compute the fees to be paid, report the revenues, and remit the fees to the Commission. All gaming operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission are required to self-administer the provisions of these regulations, and report and pay any fees that are due to the Commission.

Pursuant to 25 CFR 514, the Commission must also review annually the costs involved in processing fingerprint cards and set a fee based on fees charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and costs incurred by the Commission. Commission costs include Commission personnel, supplies, equipment costs, and postage to submit the results to the requesting tribe.

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Wilson Electronics LLC on January 21, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain cellular signal boosters, repeaters, bi-directional amplifiers, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Cellphone-Mate, Inc. d/b/a SureCall of Fremont, CA; and Shenzhen SureCall Communication Technology Co. Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. Any written submissions on other issues must also be filed by no later than the close of business, eight calendar days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Complainant may file replies to any written submissions no later than three calendar days after the date on which any initial submissions were due. Any submissions and replies filed in response to this Notice are limited to five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3527”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. ( See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures  1 ). Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https://edis.usitc.gov. ) No in-person paper-based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice. Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary at EDIS3Help@usitc.gov.

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, 2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. 3

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2020).

Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on January 19, 2021, ordered that —

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 9-12 and 17 of the '935 patent; claims 12 and 15 of the '943 patent; claims 9 and 12 of the '711 patent; claims 1-8 of the '271 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “UMTS and LTE cellular communication modules of Thales (Gemalto/Cinterion), Telit and Quectel, and machine to machine (M2M) cellular communication devices ( i.e., gateways, routers, trackers, monitors, readers, controllers, and M2M cellular connected sensor products) that incorporate such UMTS and LTE cellular communication modules of Thales (Gemalto/Cinterion), Telit and Quectel;”

(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 201.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of facts and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), and (g)(1);

(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a) The complainants are:

(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainants of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

I. Background

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) awards funds to State agencies in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, hereinafter referred to as the “States”) in order to jointly conduct BLS/State Labor Market Information and Occupational Safety and Health Statistics cooperative statistical programs, which themselves have been approved by OMB separately, as follows:

To ensure the timely flow of information and to be able to evaluate and improve the BLS/State cooperative programs' management and operations, it is necessary to conduct ongoing communications between the BLS and its State partners. Whether information requests deal with program deliverables, program enhancements, operations, or administrative issues, questions and dialogue are crucial to the successful implementation of these programs.

Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for an extension of General Inquiries to State Agency Contacts. Information collected under this clearance is used to support the administrative and programmatic needs of jointly conducted BLS/State Labor Market Information and Occupational Safety and Health Statistics cooperative statistical programs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Title of Collection: General Inquiries to State Agency Contacts.

OMB Number: 1220-0168.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Total Respondents: 54.

Frequency: As needed.

Total Responses: 23,890.

Average Time per Response: 40 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 15,927 hours.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.

In accordance with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, MSPB proposes to establish a new system of records titled “Surveys for Special Studies of the Civil Service.” This system of records is being established in order to develop and administer the Merit Principles Survey (MPS), along with other surveys for special studies of the civil service and to evaluate and distribute the results of such surveys. This system of records contains information that MSPB collects, maintains, and uses regarding individuals who are potential or actual survey respondents.

MSPB was instituted under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and administers surveys under its general authorities to conduct studies and research on matters relevant to the MSPs and Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPPs). The statute (5 U.S.C. 1204(a)(3)) also authorizes a “special studies” function, under which MSPB has the authority to conduct studies when it deems appropriate on the topics it deems appropriate, so long as the studies relate to “the civil service and to other merit systems in the executive branch[.]” This function enables MSPB to independently conduct research and present the subsequent findings to the President, Congress, and other Federal human capital stakeholders so that they can have access to information to aid in their decision-making processes.

MSPB established the MPS in support of its statutory responsibility to assess the health of Federal merit systems. MSPB has conducted the MPS since 1983 as part of its statutory oversight responsibilities (5 U.S.C. 1204(a)(3) and 5 U.S.C. 1204(e)(3)). The survey tracks a variety of Federal workforce issues related to the MSPs and PPPs, with results reported to the President and Congress and shared with Federal policy-makers and decision-makers. This survey differs from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in several respects, such as: A focus on MSPs and PPPs and human resources policy and practice; administration every few years instead of annually; and a smaller sample, and use of non-recurring questions to delve into discrete topics of interest. MSPB conducted Government-wide MPS administrations as part of its program of survey research in 1983, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2016. In addition, MSPB has administered and collected data from other surveys, such as the 2007 Career Advancement Survey, 2009 MSPB Federal Telework Survey, and the 2011 Fair and Open Competition Survey.

The MPS and other surveys conducted by MSPB are tools that measure Federal employees' perceptions of whether, and to what extent, MSPs are being protected and PPPs are being prevented in Federal agencies. MSPB surveys ask participants to share their attitudes, behaviors, and thoughts on topic areas related to the MSPs, PPPs, and other human capital management topics relevant to the MSPs. Demographic questions are also included to evaluate differences among subgroups in the way responses were distributed.

In order to administer an MSPB survey, information about Federal employees is routinely collected from the OPM Enterprise Human Resource Integration (EHRI) system and other Federal Government entities associated with the administration of the surveys. This data is used to (1) identify current Federal employees, (2) determine survey eligibility, (3) collect contact information where necessary and available, (4) perform statistical weighting procedures using select demographic information, and (5) support research and reporting functions. All survey administrations, data cleaning, and statistical weighting procedures are executed by MSPB. At the end of the survey cycle, selected summary results and a technical report may be published, and a public version of the data file is released.

While individual employee participation in our surveys is voluntary, agency participation in our surveys is mandatory for agencies selected by MSPB (5 U.S.C. 1204(e)(3)).

The records concerning the potential and actual survey respondents will be maintained in this system of records, pursuant to the Privacy Act, which will be included in MSPB's inventory. The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to records about individuals that are maintained in a “system of records.” A system of records is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act defines an individual as a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. Individuals may request access to their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of MSPB by complying with MSPB Privacy Act regulations at 5 CFR part 1205, and following the procedures outlined in the Records Access, Contesting Record, and Notification Procedures sections of this notice. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal Register a description denoting the existence and character of each system of records that the agency maintains and the routine uses of each system. The new Surveys for Special Studies of the Civil Service System of Records Notice is published in its entirety below. In accordance with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), and OMB Circular A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act” (Dec. 2016), MSPB has submitted a report of a new system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and Congress.

The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of September 10, 2019, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

Literature Fellowships (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: February 17, 2021; 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

South Arts Leadership (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: February 17, 2021; 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Overview of This Information Collection

Type of Review: Revision of an existing information collection.

Title of Information Collection: Generic Clearance Authority for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Abstract: The National Endowment for the Humanities is seeking to renew its generic clearance authority. The generic clearance authority includes all NEH information collections, except one-time evaluations, questionnaires, and surveys.

The proposed revision adjusts the overall burden estimate from 88,815 to 296,433 hours. This estimate reflects the anticipated change in the number of respondents from 7,815 to 6,767 and the updated estimated time per response that more accurately reflects the hours required to complete a grant application. Previously, NEH estimated fifteen hours were needed to complete a grant application. Further study has increased the estimate to sixty hours per proposal. The burden estimate for associated forms and reporting requirements has not changed.

OMB Number: 3136-0134.

Affected Public: Applicants to NEH grant programs, reviewers of NEH grant applications, and NEH award recipients.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Respondents: 6,767.

Total Responses: 6,767.

Estimated Time per Response: Varies according to type of information collection.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 296,433.

NEH will make comments submitted in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, a matter of public record. NEH will summarize the contents and include them in the request for OMB approval. We are requesting comments on all aspects of this clearance request, including (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0031 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-2021-0031.

• 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 (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The application for indirect transfer of the licenses dated December 2, 2020, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML20337A344.

• Attention: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of public documents, is currently closed. You may submit your request to the PDR via email at pdr.resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking Website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2021-0031 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 submissions into ADAMS.

The NRC is considering the issuance of an order under § 50.80 and § 72.50 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), approving the indirect transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74 for Palo Verde, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and the general license for the Palo Verde ISFSI. PNM currently owns a 10.2 percent tenant-in-common interest and holds possession-only rights in the NRC licenses. The proposed indirect license transfer would result from Avangrid acquiring PNM and its parent holding company as its subsidiaries, thereby owning 100 percent of the shares in PNM.

According to the application, Avangrid is a New York corporation, and its shares are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Approximately 18.5 percent of the shares are widely held, with the vast majority of these shares held by institutional investors. Approximately 81.5 percent of the shares are owned by Iberdrola, S.A. (Iberdrola), a Sociedad Anónima organized under the laws of the Kingdom of Spain. Iberdrola's shares are widely held and publicly traded on the Madrid Stock Exchange. It is one of the largest energy companies in the world with a market capitalization of $85 billion. Iberdrola is based in Spain. The only known government-controlled entities with interests in Iberdrola are the Qatar Investment Authority, which owns approximately 8.69 percent of Iberdrola, and Norges Bank (the central bank of Norway), which owns approximately 3.43 percent of Iberdrola. Neither the Qatar Investment Authority nor Norges Bank has control over Iberdrola or Avangrid or is represented on their boards. Iberdrola has ownership interests in six operating nuclear reactors in Spain, one of which it operates.

With respect to Palo Verde, APS owns a 29.1 percent tenant-in-common interest and holds both operating and possession rights in the NRC licenses. Further, APS operates each of the Palo Verde units and the ISFSI pursuant to the operating rights granted to it under the license of each Palo Verde unit. The remaining tenant-in-common co-owners that hold possession-only rights in the NRC licenses are: Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (17.49 percent); Southern California Edison Company (15.8 percent); IIF US Holding 2 LP (15.8 percent); Southern California Public Power Authority (5.91 percent); and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (5.7 percent). The proposed transaction would not involve or implicate any change in PNM's rights and obligations under any of the NRC licenses, nor would it implicate APS's or any other possession-only co-owners' rights and obligations under any of the NRC licenses.

According to the application, the proposed indirect license transfer is acceptable because: (1) PNM will continue to have the requisite managerial, technical, and financial qualifications to continue its role as a Palo Verde licensee; (2) PNM will continue to provide reasonable assurance of funding for decommissioning Palo Verde; (3) the terms of the Palo Verde licenses will not be affected; and (4) PNM has committed to adopting a Negation Action Plan in order to assure that the proposed indirect license transfer will not result in any impermissible foreign ownership, control, or domination.

No physical changes or operational changes are being proposed in the application.

The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50 state that no license for a utilization facility or ISFSI, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the indirect transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transaction will not affect the qualifications of the licensee to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.

Within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions that the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

Petitions must be filed no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

If a petition is submitted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click “cancel” when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing docket where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held, and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.

For further details with respect to this application, see the application dated December 2, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20337A344).

The text of the Order is attached.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, or the applicant) is the current holder of Construction Permit (CP) Nos. CPPR-122 and CPPR-123, which the Atomic Energy Commission (now the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)) issued on December 24, 1974 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML090680334), for construction of the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN), Units 1 and 2, respectively. The CPs for CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 expire on October 1, 2020, and October 1, 2014, respectively.

These facilities, currently in deferred plant status as described in the Commission Policy Statement on Deferred Plants, published in Volume 52 of the Federal Register (FR), page 38077 (52 FR 38077), on October 14, 1987, are at the applicant's site in Jackson County, AL, located on a peninsula at Tennessee River Mile 392 on the west shore of Guntersville Reservoir, about 6 miles east-northeast of Scottsboro, AL.

TVA filed a request on June 10, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14168A489), as supplemented on March 31, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17090A388), under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.55(b) for the extension of the latest date for the completion of construction as stated in CPPR-123 for BLN Unit 2. TVA also filed a request on August 28, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20244A305), under 10 CFR 50.55(b) for the extension of the latest date for the completion of construction as stated in CPPR-122 for BLN Unit 1.

In its letter dated June 14, 2014, TVA requested the NRC to extend the latest construction completion date for BLN Unit 2 from October 1, 2014, to October 1, 2017. Later, in a letter dated March 31, 2017, TVA stated that it had sold the Bellefonte property at auction and proposed that the NRC leave the extension request for BLN Unit 2 as an open item until the NRC is able to obtain construction completion information based on the purchaser's plans.

In its letter dated August 28, 2020, TVA requested the NRC to extend the latest construction completion date for BLN Unit 1 from October 1, 2020 to October 1, 2021. TVA stated that the sale of BLN Units 1 and 2 did not close in November 2018, and that the purchaser, Nuclear Development, LLC, filed a lawsuit against TVA for breach of contract. TVA stated that an extension for BLN Unit 1 is needed to allow the parties additional time to obtain a decision in the lawsuit.

The NRC reviewed TVA's requests in the letters dated June 10, 2014; March 31, 2017; and August 28, 2020. As discussed more fully in the staff's related safety evaluation, the NRC staff finds that good cause exists for extending the completion date to October 1, 2021, for BLN Units 1 and 2. The staff also finds that the requested extensions involve no significant hazards consideration.

The NRC staff prepared an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact and published it in the Federal Register on January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5280). Under 10 CFR 51.32, “Finding of no significant impact,” the Commission has determined that extending the construction completion date will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. The scope of this order extending the construction completion dates and any proceeding hereunder is limited to direct challenges to the CP holder's asserted reasons that show good cause for the extension. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click “cancel” when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

The attorney for the permit holder is Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902.

It is hereby ordered that the latest dates for the completion of construction for CP Nos. CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 are extended to October 1, 2021.

Sections 4041 and 4042 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 1301-1461, govern the termination of single-employer defined benefit pension plans that are subject to Title IV of ERISA. A plan administrator may initiate a distress termination pursuant to section 4041(c), and PBGC may itself initiate proceedings to terminate a pension plan under section 4042 if PBGC determines that certain conditions are present. Section 506 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 amended sections 4041 and 4042 of ERISA. These amendments require that, upon a request by an affected party, a plan administrator must disclose information it has submitted to PBGC in connection with a distress termination filing, and that a plan administrator or plan sponsor must disclose information it has submitted to PBGC in connection with a PBGC-initiated termination. The provisions also require PBGC to disclose the administrative record relating to a PBGC-initiated termination upon request by an affected party.

The collection of information has been approved by OMB under control number 1212-0065 (expires March 31, 2021). On November 16, 2020, PBGC published in the Federal Register (at 85 FR 73090) a notice informing the public of its intent to request an extension of this collection of information without modification. PBGC did not receive any comments in response. PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for another three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

PBGC estimates that approximately 70 plans will terminate as distress or PBGC-initiated terminations each year. PBGC further estimates that two participants or other affected parties of every nine distress terminations or PBGC-initiated terminations filed will annually make requests for termination information, or 2/9 of 70 (approximately 16 plans per year). PBGC estimates that the hour burden for each request will be about 20 hours. The total annual hour burden is estimated to be 320 hours (16 plans × 20 hours). PBGC expects that the staff of plan administrators and sponsors will perform the work in-house and that no work will be contracted to third parties. Therefore, the annual cost burden is estimated to be $0.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Oklahoma, dated 12/21/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/12/2021, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

The Interest Rates are:

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 168488 and for economic injury is 168490.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of New Jersey, dated 12/11/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Alabama, dated 12/10/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Louisiana, dated 09/05/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Alabama, dated 10/09/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of North Carolina, dated 10/14/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/15/2021, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

The Interest Rates are:

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 16850 5 and for economic injury is 16851 0.