List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [3/13/2021 through 3/19/2021] Firm name Firm address Date

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.

On November 23, 2020, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the 2018-2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from Malaysia. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. This review covers two mandatory respondents: Inmax and Region. 2 The producers/exporters not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Administrative Review” section of this notice. For a complete description of the events that followed the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3 Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the scope of the order are certain steel nails from Malaysia. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics included in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included in the 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 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/.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce determined that Astrotech Steels Private Limited (Astrotech), Trinity Steel Private Limited (Trinity), and Jinhai Hardware Co. Ltd. (Jinhai) made no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. No parties commented on this determination. Therefore, for the final results of review, we continue to find that these companies made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Consistent with our practice, we will issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) based on our final results.

Based on a review of the record and our analysis of the comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain changes to the preliminary margin calculations for Inmax. For a complete discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually examined, excluding any margins that are zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.''

For these final results, we have calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Inmax and Region that are zero or de minimis, and we have not calculated any margins which are not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, we have assigned to the companies not individually examined a margin of zero percent.

Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist during the POR:

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

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Because we calculated margins for Inmax and Region which are zero or de minimis in the final results of this review, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Further, because we find in these final results that Astrotech, Trinity, and Jinhai had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, we will instruct CBP to liquidate such unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transactions. 6

Commerce's “reseller policy” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, 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. 7

Consistent with its recent notice, 8 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 upon publication of the notice of these final results 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) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents (or non-selected companies) noted above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 2.66 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 9 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective 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 return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

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

Exceptional Circumstances: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstances of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which contains $3 billion in funding for the Department of Commerce for economic adjustment assistance and requires that 25 percent of those funds be for “assistance to States and communities that have suffered economic injury as a result of job and gross domestic product losses in the travel, tourism, or outdoor recreation sectors.” To allocate the funds expeditiously and in a manner that would best achieve the goals of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce needs prompt advice from the Board on how these funds should be distributed.

Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. Any member of the public requesting to join the meeting is asked to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to fill. There will be fifteen (15) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Members of the public wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, March 29, 2021, for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to the members of the Board.

In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Board's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Jennifer Aguinaga at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, March 29, 2021, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be transmitted to the Board but may not be considered during the meeting. Copies of Board meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

On November 27, 2020, NMFS proposed to designate critical habitat for seven Indo-Pacific corals listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within U.S. waters in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), American Samoa, and the Pacific Remote Island Area (PRIA). The seven species are Acropora globiceps, A. jacquelineae, A. retusa, A. speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata. Proposed coral critical habitat consists of substrate and water column habitat characteristics essential for the reproduction, recruitment, growth, and maturation of the listed corals.

Proposed critical habitat consists of 17 separate units, each of which contains all ESA-listed corals that occur there: There are four units in American Samoa (Tutuila, Ofu-Olosega, Ta`u, Rose Atoll); seven in CNMI (Rota, Aguijan, Tinian, Saipan, Anatahan, Pagan, and Maug Islands); five in the PRIA (Howland, Palmyra, Kingman, Johnston, and Jarvis Islands); and one unit encompassing all proposed designations in Guam. Between one and six listed corals occur in each unit. The following areas are either ineligible for proposed critical habitat, or excluded because of national security impacts: A complex of overlapping Navy Surface Danger Zones off of Ritidian Point in Guam, other parts of Guam, parts of Tinian, a group of six Navy anchorage berths on Garapan Bank in Saipan, all of Farallon de Medinilla, and all of Wake Atoll.

Critical habitat protections apply only to Federal actions under Section 7 of the ESA; activities that are not funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency are not subject to these protections. The proposed rule and other materials prepared in support of this action, including maps showing the proposed critical habitat, are available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals.

The original public comment period for this proposed rule was scheduled to close on January 26, 2021. In response to public input, we extended the public comment period by 30 days to February 25, 2021, and held two online public hearings on January 19 and January 21, 2021. At the public hearings, we received several requests to again extend the public comment period, to allow the public to adequately review the extensive supporting materials for the proposed rule in order to formulate public comments. Similarly, on January 26, 2021, we received a letter from the Governors of CNMI, Guam, and American Samoa requesting extension of the public comment period for the same reason. In response, we extended the public comment period by another 30 days to March 27, 2021.

On March 12, 2021, we received a letter from the Directors of the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Department of Lands and Natural Resources, and Guam Department of Agriculture requesting additional time for public comments to provide the Territories and NMFS time to gather the best available scientific information on the listed corals to inform the final coral critical habitat rule. In response, we are extending the public comment period by another 60 days, and are accepting public comments for the proposed rule through May 26, 2021. Public comments can be submitted as described under ADDRESSES .

This notice announces our review of the Banggai cardinalfish ( Pterapogon kauderni ) listed as threatened under the ESA. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. This will be the first review of this species since it was listed in 2016 (81 FR 3023, January 20, 2016). The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing species currently under active review. On the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether any species should be delisted or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)(B)). As described by the regulations in 50 CFR 424.11(e), the Secretary shall delist a species if the Secretary finds that, after conducting a status review based on the best scientific and commercial data available: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; and/or (3) the listed entity does not meet the statutory definition of a species. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process.

Background information on the species is available on the NMFS website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/banggai-cardinalfish.

To ensure that the 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new information from the public, governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of Pterapogon kauderni. Categories of requested information include: (1) Species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and important features for conservation; (3) status and trends of threats to the species and its habitats; (4) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species, including monitoring data demonstrating effectiveness of such measures; and (5) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes and improved analytical methods for evaluating extinction risk.

If you wish to provide information for the review, you may submit your information and materials electronically. We request that all information be accompanied by supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications. We also would appreciate the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents; however, anonymous submissions will also be accepted.

The WPSAR steering committee consists of the Council's Executive Director, the Director of the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, and the Regional Administrator of the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office. You may read more about WPSAR at https://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/peer_reviews/wpsar/index.php.

The public will have an opportunity to comment during the meeting. The agenda order may change. The meeting will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

1. Introductions.

2. Stock assessment prioritization results.

3. Discuss and update 5-year stock assessment review schedule, including any changes to the scheduling of reviews for stock assessments already on the calendar, and any new additions to the schedule.

4. Discuss and update review levels, i.e., whether the stock assessments on the calendar will be reviewed as benchmark assessments (new assessments) or assessment updates (updates of existing models with recent data).

5. Review the upcoming schedule and nominate additional products for review by the Center for Independent Experts, if necessary.

6. Other business.

7. Public comment.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Make direct requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids to Kitty Simonds at (808) 522-8220, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial authorization, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time 1 year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical, activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of the initial IHA Federal Register notice (85 FR 21198, April 10, 2020), provided all of the following conditions are met:

• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA).

• The request for renewal must include the following:

(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor ( e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).

(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.

Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-harassment-authorization-renewals. Any comments received on the potential renewal, along with relevant comments on the initial IHA, have been considered in the development of this proposed IHA renewal, and a summary of agency responses to applicable comments is included in this notice. NMFS will consider any additional public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested renewal, and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must evaluate our proposed action ( i.e., issuance of incidental harassment authorization) and alternatives with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed action qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

Information in Atlantic Shores' application and this notice collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed issuance of these regulations and subsequent incidental take authorization for public review and comment. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the request for incidental take authorization.

On April 10, 2020, NMFS issued an IHA to Atlantic Shores to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys off the coast of New York and New Jersey (85 FR 21198), effective from April 20, 2020 through April 19, 2021. On February 3, 2021, NMFS received a request from Atlantic Shores for the renewal of that initial IHA so that Atlantic Shores can continue its survey activities beyond April 19, 2021. As described in the request for the renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested are identical to those covered in the initial authorization. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report (available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization ) which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted.

Atlantic Shores proposes to conduct a second year of marine site characterization surveys, consisting of high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and geotechnical surveys, within the 183,353-acre Lease Area, located approximately 18 nautical miles southeast of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and proposed Export Cable Route (ECRs) corridors from the Lease Area to shore landing locations along the coast of New Jersey and New York. The purpose of the HRG and geotechnical surveys is to support site characterization, siting, and engineering design of offshore Project facilities including wind turbine generators (WTGs), offshore substation(s), and submarine cables within the Lease Area and proposed ECR Areas. Atlantic Shores requested renewal of the initial IHA that was issued by NMFS in April 2020 on the basis that (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical, activities as described in the Specified Activities section of the initial IHA is planned and, (2) the activities as described in the Specified Activities section of the initial IHA would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of the initial IHA.

In their 2020 IHA application, Atlantic Shores estimated it would conduct surveys for 350 days at a rate of 85 kilometers (km) per day for a total of 29,750 km. However, in 2020, Atlantic Shores completed only 16,893 km of geophysical surveys; therefore, approximately 12,857 km remain to be surveyed. Atlantic Shores also recognized they were able to survey approximately 55 km per day versus the predicted rate of 85 km per day considered in the initial IHA. Therefore, Atlantic Shores predicts the 12,857 km of survey planned in 2021 under the renewal IHA will occur over 234 days (12,857 km/55 km per day). The renewal IHA would authorize harassment to marine mammals for this remaining survey distance using survey methods identical to those described in the initial IHA application, hence the anticipated effects on marine mammals remain the same as well. All active acoustic sources and mitigation and monitoring measures would remain as described in the initial IHA. The amount of take requested for the renewal IHA reflects the amount of remaining work in consideration of marine mammal monitoring data from the 2020 survey season resulting in equal or less take than that authorized in the initial IHA.

A detailed description of the survey activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the Federal Register notices of the proposed IHA (85 FR 7926, February 12, 2020) and issued IHA (85 FR 21198, April 10, 2020) for the initial authorization. As described above, Atlantic Shores is not able to complete the survey activities analyzed in the initial IHA by the date the IHA is set to expire (April 19, 2021). As such, the surveys Atlantic Shores proposes to conduct under this renewal would be a continuation of the surveys as described in the initial IHA. The location and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notices. Because part of the work has already been completed, the duration of the surveys conducted under the renewal IHA will occur over less time than that described for the initial IHA (234 days versus 350 days); however, Atlantic Shores will continue to operate 24 hours per day to complete the work. Atlantic Shores proposes to continue its activities on April 20, 2021, after the initial IHA expires on April 19. The proposed renewal would be effective for a period of one year from the date of issuance.

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (85 FR 7926, February 12, 2020). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA.

A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (85 FR 7926, February 12, 2020). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

A detailed description of the methods used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Federal Register notices of the proposed and final IHA for the initial authorization. The acoustic source types, as well as source levels and marine mammal density and occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the initial IHA. Similarly, the stocks taken, methods of take, and type of take ( i.e., Level B harassment only) remain unchanged from the initial IHA.

In the initial IHA application submitted in 2019 for the 2020 HRG survey activities, Atlantic Shores used the following parameters to estimate the potential for take: (1) Maximum number of days of survey that could occur over a 12-month period in each of the identified survey areas; (2) maximum distance each vessel could travel per 24-hour period in each of the identified survey areas; (3) maximum ensonified area (zone of influence (ZOI)); and (4) maximum marine mammal densities for any given season that a survey could occur. The calculated radial distances to the Level B harassment threshold (160 decibel (dB) root mean square (rms)) from a survey vessel are included in Table 1.

The equation for estimating take for all species remains the same as the initial IHA:

In the original 2019 IHA application, Atlantic Shores calculated a conservative ZOI by applying the maximum radial distance for any category and type of HRG survey equipment considered in its assessment to the mobile source ZOI calculation. This maximum calculated distance to the Level B harassment threshold for the sparker of 372 m was also used to calculate the ZOI for the requested extension. The resulting ZOI is 41.36 square kilometers (km 2 ).

This methodology of calculating take in the initial IHA applies to the proposed renewal IHA for all species, with the only difference being the fewer amount of days ( i.e., 234 versus 350). The result is that the amount of take is reduced proportionally to the reduction in the number of days of work remaining. As was done in the initial IHA, in some cases, Atlantic Shores has requested a deviation from the calculated take for some species given it does not account for group size. In other cases, the requested amount of proposed take deviates from the calculated take based on observations during the 2020 surveys. Other than in the instances described below, NMFS agrees with Atlantic Shores' request for take and we propose to authorize the same amount of take as described in their request.

As described in the renewal IHA request, large groups of common dolphins commonly approached the HRG survey vessels to bow ride during the 2020 surveys. Despite completing approximately 56.7 percent of the planned survey distance, Atlantic Shores reported using 67.3 percent of total take authorized in the initial IHA for this species. In 2019, the IHA application used seasonal density data to calculate requested take for 544 common dolphins. However, 2020 survey activities resulted in 366 takes accumulated for this species, which involved 58 common dolphin detection events where the mean pod size reported was 6.79. For the 2021 surveys, Atlantic Shores is requesting 406 common dolphin takes based on an encounter rate similar to that observed in 2020 (58 detection events × 7 animals/group). However, NMFS proposes to authorize the same amount of take of common dolphins as authorized in the initial IHA (544). Recently, NMFS has modified or proposed to modify other HRG IHAs in the same geographic region due to underestimates of take for bowriding dolphins ( e.g., 86 FR 13695, March 10, 2021; 85 FR 55415, September 8, 2020). Because of these experiences, we have determined this approach is necessary to ensure take is not exceeded.

In the initial IHA application, Atlantic Shores also adjusted calculated take (per the equation above) to consider group size for Risso's dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphins, and long-finned pilot whales. As described in Atlantic Shores' interim monitoring report, they did not observe any of these species during the 2020 surveys. Therefore, we have carried over the same amount of take as proposed in the initial IHA. Atlantic Shores is also requesting the same amount of sei whale take as authorized in the previous IHA based on an encounter during 2020 survey operations where a single sei whale surfaced inside the Level B exposure zone resulting in a take.

Finally, during consideration of this renewal request, an error in the application information supporting the harbor porpoise take estimate was identified. Specifically, the density for harbor porpoise was accurate; however, the calculated take for each lease area was incorrectly reported which led to an inaccurate total take amount. The amount of take authorized in the 2020 IHA was 115 when it should have been 847 based on the method used. The correct take estimate for the remaining survey lines covered under the renewal, using that same method, would be 266 takes of harbor porpoise. However, zero harbor porpoises were detected during the 2020 surveys, suggesting that the corrected estimate would likely be an overestimate and the number of takes authorized in the initial IHA is sufficient, and therefore NMFS proposes to authorize the same number of harbor porpoise take included in the initial IHA (115).

The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 21198, April 10, 2020), and the discussion of how we reached a least practicable adverse impact determination included in that document remains applicable. All mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures in the initial IHA are carried over to this proposed renewal IHA and summarized here:

• Ramp-up: A ramp-up procedure would be used for geophysical survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the start or re-start of survey activities.

• Protected Species Observers: A minimum of one NMFS-approved Protected Species Observer (PSO) must be on duty and conducting visual observations at all times during daylight hours ( i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 minutes following sunset) and 30 minutes prior to and during nighttime ramp-ups of HRG equipment.

• Exclusion Zones (EZ): Marine mammal EZ would be established around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by PSO during HRG surveys as follows: A 500-m EZ would be required for North Atlantic right whales and a 100-m EZ would be required for all other marine mammals.

• Pre-Operation Clearance Protocols: Prior to initiating HRG survey activities, Atlantic Shores would implement a 30-minute pre-operation clearance period. Ramp-up of the survey equipment would not begin until the relevant EZs have been cleared by the PSOs, as described above. HRG equipment would be initiated at their lowest power output and would be incrementally increased to full power. If any marine mammals are detected within the EZs prior to or during ramp-up, the HRG equipment would be shut down (as described below).

• Shutdown of HRG Equipment: If an HRG source is active and a marine mammal is observed within or entering a relevant EZ (as described above) an immediate shutdown of the HRG survey equipment would be required. Note this shutdown requirement would be waived for certain genera of small delphinids.

• Vessel strike avoidance measures: Separation distances for large whales (500 m NAWRD, 100 m other large whales; 50 m other cetaceans and pinnipeds); restricted vessel speeds and operational maneuvers.

• Reporting: Atlantic Shores will submit a marine mammal report within 90 days following completion of the surveys.

As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (85 FR 7926, February 12, 2020) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for marine site characterization surveys and on the potential for a renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met.

All public comments were addressed in the notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 21198; April 10, 2020). Below, we describe how we have addressed, with updated information where appropriate, any comments received that specifically pertain to the Renewal of the 2020 IHA.

The Marine Mammal Commission (the Commission) was concerned that the renewal process is inconsistent with the statutory requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. As such, the Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from issuing renewals for any authorization and instead use its abbreviated Federal Register notice process.

The notice of the proposed initial IHA expressly notified and invited comment from the public on the possibility that under certain, limited conditions the applicant could seek a renewal IHA for an additional year. The notice described the conditions under which such a renewal request could be considered and expressly sought public comment in the event such a renewal were sought. Further, since issuance of the initial IHA NMFS has modified the renewal process to provide notice through the Federal Register and an additional 15-day public comment period at the time the renewal IHA is requested. NMFS also will provide direct notice of the proposed renewal to those who commented on the initial IHA, to provide an opportunity to submit any additional comments. Therefore, the renewal process is consistent with section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA and NMFS will continue to utilize this effective and efficient process provided the renewal criteria are met.

The Commission was also concerned that NMFS had not explicitly identified that a 1 year renewal IHA was a one-time opportunity in our Federal Register notices nor on our website. NMFS has since identified in Federal Register notices and on our website that a renewal IHA is one time opportunity.

The survey activities proposed by Atlantic Shores are identical to (and a subset of) those analyzed in the initial IHA, as are the method of taking and the effects of the action. The mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting requirements as described above are also identical to the initial IHA. The planned number of days of activity will be reduced given the completion of a small portion of the originally planned work. Therefore, the amount of take proposed is equal to or less than that authorized in the initial IHA. The potential effect of Atlantic Shores' activities remains limited to Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disturbance. In analyzing the effects of the activities in the initial IHA, NMFS determined that Atlantic Shores' activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks and that the authorized take numbers of each species or stock were small relative to the relevant stocks ( e.g., less than one-third of the abundance of all stocks).

NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) Atlantic Shore's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this case with the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

The NMFS Office of Protected Resources is proposing to authorize the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA: The North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whale. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers consulted with NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Office (GARFO) under section 7 of the ESA on commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas. The resulting Biological Opinion, issued on April 10, 2013, concluded the proposed action may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the four aforementioned species.

On April 13, 2020, GARFO determined that the 2013 Biological Opinion remained valid for issuance of Atlantic Shores' initial IHA and that the proposed MMPA authorization provides no new information about the effects of the action, nor does it change the extent of effects of the action, or any other basis to require reinitiation of the Opinion. Similarly, on March 3, 2021, GARFO concluded the same for issuance of the Renewal IHA to Atlantic Shores. Therefore, the 2013 Biological Opinion meets the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402 for our proposed action to issue an IHA under the MMPA, and no further consultation is required.

The 2013 Biological Opinion and amended ITS can be found at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a renewal IHA to Atlantic Shores for conducting marine site characterization surveys off New York and New Jersey, effective from April 20, 2021 through April 19, 2022, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed and initial IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. We request comment on our analyses, the proposed Renewal IHA, and any other aspect of this Notice. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.

The United States is a Contracting Party to NAFO. NAFO is an intergovernmental fisheries science and management body whose convention applies to most fishery resources in international waters of the Northwest Atlantic, except salmon, tunas/marlins, whales, and sedentary species such as shellfish.

As a Contracting Party within NAFO, the United States may be allocated catch quotas or effort allocations for certain species in specific areas within the NAFO Regulatory Area and may participate in fisheries for other species for which we have not received a specific quota. For most stocks for which the United States does not receive a specific allocation, an open allocation, known as the “Others” allocation under the Convention, is shared access between all NAFO Contracting Parties.

Additional information on NAFO can be found online at https://www.nafo.int/About-us. The NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures (CEM) that specify the fishery regulations, total allowable catches (TAC, quotas), and other information about the fishery program is available online at: https://www.nafo.int/Fisheries/Conservation. NAFO updates the CEM annually.

This notice announces the fishing opportunity available to U.S. vessels in NAFO regulatory waters specific to shrimp in Division 3M. This notice also outlines the application process and other requirements for U.S. vessels that wish to participate in the 3M shrimp fishery. Allocation of all other U.S. fishing opportunities were finalized in 2020, as described in the previous notice of fishing opportunities (85 FR 45198; July 27, 2020). Additional information is available in that notice and is not repeated here.

Shrimp in Division 3M was made available for fishing at the 2019 Annual Meeting after a multi-year moratorium on fishing. (additional information is available online at https://www.nafo.int/Library/Commission/Meeting-Proceedings-of-the-Commission. ) Prior to the moratorium, fishing was conducted using a days-at-sea system that allocated a certain number of days to Contracting Parties, rather than the now-standard quota (in weight) approach. NAFO was in discussions to shift the allocation scheme to a quota system when the moratorium became necessary to protect the stock. This effort was suspended because of the moratorium and is currently being renewed.

At the 2019 Annual Meeting of NAFO, the Commission decided to open the fishery using the previous days-at-sea program while pursuing a new quota-based management system. Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, no progress was made in 2020 on this issue.

In our prior announcement, we explained that we would allocate 3M shrimp for only 2020 while the Commission considered a new management approach. Because no progress has been made to date, we are announcing the opportunity for this stock for 2021 through 2024, or until a new management scheme is adopted by the Commission. As such, applicants should note that the Commission might adopt a new allocation scheme before 2024, and that if it does, NOAA may terminate this potential permit before 2024 and publicly re-solicit interest through 2024. The holder of the rescinded permit would be invited to re-apply.

Authorization to fish for NAFO species will include permit-related conditions or restrictions, including but not limited to, minimum size requirements, bycatch-related measures, and catch limits. Any such conditions or restrictions will be designed to ensure the optimum utilization, long-term sustainability, and rational management and conservation of fishery resources in the NAFO Regulatory Area, consistent with the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries as well as the Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, which has been adopted by all NAFO Contracting Parties.

Expressions of interest to fish for the 2021-2024 U.S. fishing opportunity for 3M shrimp, described above, will be considered from all U.S. fishing interests ( e.g., vessel owners, processors, agents, others). Applicants are urged to carefully review and thoroughly address the application requirements and selection criteria as detailed below. Expressions of interest should be directed in writing to Regional Administrator Michael Pentony (see ADDRESSES ).

Expressions of interest should include a detailed description of anticipated fishing operations for the full five years. Descriptions should include, at a minimum:

• Intended target species;

• Proposed dates of fishing operations;

• Vessel(s) to be used to harvest fish, including the name, registration, and home port of the intended harvesting vessel(s);

• The number of fishing personnel and their nationality involved in vessel operations;

• Intended landing port or ports; including for ports outside of the United States, whether or not the product will be shipped to the United States for processing;

• Processing facilities to be used;

• Target market for harvested fish; and,

• Evidence demonstrating the ability of the applicant to successfully prosecute fishing operations in the NAFO Regulatory Area, in accordance with NAFO management measures. This may include descriptions of previously successful NAFO or domestic fisheries participation.

Note that applicant U.S. vessels must possess or be eligible to receive a valid High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permit. HSFCA permits are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. Information regarding other requirements for fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area is detailed below and is also available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (see ADDRESSES ).

U.S. applicants wishing to harvest U.S. allocations using a vessel from another NAFO Contracting Party, or hoping to enter a chartering arrangement with a vessel from another NAFO Contracting Party, should see below for details on U.S. and NAFO requirements for such activities. If you have further questions regarding what information is required in an expression of interest, please contact Patrick Moran (see ADDRESSES ).

Applicants demonstrating the greatest benefits to the United States through their intended operations will be most successful. Such benefits may include:

• The use of U.S vessels and crew to harvest fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area;

• Detailed, positive impacts on U.S. employment as a result of the fishing, transport, or processing operations;

• Use of U.S. processing facilities;

• Transport, marketing, and sales of product within the United States;

• Other ancillary, demonstrable benefits to U.S. businesses as a result of the fishing operation; and

• Documentation of the physical characteristics and economics of the fishery for future use by the U.S. fishing industry.

Other factors we may consider include but are not limited to: A documented history of successful fishing operations in NAFO or other similar fisheries; the history of compliance by the vessel with the NAFO CEM or other domestic and international regulatory requirements, including potential disqualification of an applicant with repeated compliance issues; and, for those applicants without NAFO or other international fishery history, a description of demonstrated harvest, processing, marketing, and regulatory compliance within domestic fisheries.

To ensure equitable access by U.S. fishing interests, we may provide additional guidance or procedures, or we may issue regulations designed to allocate fishing interests to one or more U.S. applicants from among qualified applicants. These regulatory changes may result in NOAA altering or amending quota the NOAA grants an applicant through this process. NOAA will, however, notify any approved applicant of NOAA's proposed regulatory changes in advance of making the changes. After reviewing all requests for allocations submitted, we may also decide not to grant any allocations if it is determined that no requests adequately meet the criteria described in this notice.

We will provide written responses to all applicants notifying them of their application status and, as needed for successful applicants, allocation awards will be made as quickly as possible so that we may notify NAFO and take other necessary actions to facilitate operations in the regulatory area by U.S. fishing interests. Successful applicants will receive additional information from us on permit conditions and applicable regulations before starting fishing operations.

In the event that an approved U.S. entity does not, is not able to, or is not expected to fish an allocation, or part thereof, awarded to them, NMFS may reallocate to other approved U.S. entities. If requested, approved U.S. entities must provide updated fishing plans and/or schedules. A U.S. entity may not consolidate or transfer allocations without prior approval from NMFS. In the event that other approved U.S. entities are unable to fish additional allocation, NMFS may solicit further interest by notice in the Federal Register .

For 3M shrimp, the United States may enter into a chartering arrangement with a vessel from any other NAFO Contracting Party. Additionally, any U.S. vessel or fishing operation may enter into a chartering arrangement with any other vessel or business from a NAFO Contracting Party. The United States and the other Contracting Party involved in a chartering arrangement must agree to the charter, and the NAFO Executive Secretary must be advised of the chartering arrangement before the commencement of any charter fishing operations. Any U.S. vessel or fishing operation interested in making use of the chartering provisions of NAFO must provide at least the following information: The name and registration number of the U.S. vessel; a copy of the charter agreement; a detailed fishing plan; a written letter of consent from the applicable NAFO Contracting Party; the date from which the vessel is authorized to commence fishing; and the duration of the charter (not to exceed six months).

Expressions of interest using another NAFO Contracting Party vessel under charter should be accompanied by a detailed description of anticipated benefits to the United States, as described above. Additional detail on chartering arrangements can be found in Article 26 of the CEM ( https://www.nafo.int/Fisheries/Conservation ).

Any vessel from another Contracting Party wishing to enter into a chartering arrangement with the United States must be in full current compliance with the requirements outlined in the NAFO Convention and CEM. These requirements include, but are not limited to, submission of the following reports to the NAFO Executive Secretary:

• Notification that the vessel is authorized by its flag state to fish within the NAFO Regulatory Area during the applicable fishing year;

• Provisional monthly catch reports for all vessels of that NAFO Contracting Party operating in the NAFO Regulatory Area;

• Daily catch reports for each day fished by the subject vessel within the Regulatory Area;

• Observer reports within 30 days following the completion of a fishing trip; and

• An annual statement of actions taken by its flag state to comply with the NAFO Convention.

The United States may also consider the vessel's previous compliance with NAFO bycatch, reporting, and other provisions, as outlined in the NAFO CEM, before authorizing the chartering arrangement.

U.S. applicant vessels must be in possession of, or obtain, a valid HSFCA permit, which is available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. All permitted vessels must comply with any conditions of this permit and all applicable provisions of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and the CEM. We reserve the right to impose additional permit conditions that ensure compliance with the NAFO Convention and the CEM, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and any other applicable law.

Further details regarding U.S. and NAFO requirements are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and can be found in the NAFO CEM on the internet ( https://www.nafo.int/Fisheries/Conservation ).

The scoping meetings will be conducted via webinar and accessible via the internet from the Council's website at https://safmc.net/safmc-meetings/public-hearings-scoping-meetings/. The scoping meetings will begin at 6 p.m. Registration for the webinars is required. Registration information, a copy of the scoping materials, an online public comment form and any additional information as needed will be posted on the Council's website at https://safmc.net/safmc-meetings/public-hearings-scoping-meetings/ as it becomes available.

The Council is considering adjusting catch levels for greater amberjack in response to the most recent stock assessment for the species in the region. The stock assessment results indicated the stock is not overfished and is not undergoing overfishing. The South Atlantic Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) has recommended new acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels based on the latest stock assessment, which incorporated updated recreational data based on NOAA Fisheries' Marine Recreational Information Program Fishing Effort Survey. Thus, the Council is considering changes to the South Atlantic greater amberjack total annual catch limit and sector allocations. The Council is also considering removal of all recreational annual catch targets for species managed under the FMP that are currently not being used in management.

During the webinar scoping meetings, Council staff will present an overview of the amendment and will be available to answer questions. Members of the public will have an opportunity to go on record to provide their comments for consideration by the Council.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) 5 days prior to the meeting.

The Socio-Economic Panel (SEP) will meet via webinar. The SEP will discuss the Council's draft Allocation Decision Tree Blueprint, which looks at incorporating biological, economic, and social information into allocation decision making, and using fishery performance reports to evaluate the efficacy of current fishery management techniques. The SEP will also review the research approach and results of the recently held Dolphin Wahoo Participatory Workshops. SEP members also will receive updates on recent Council amendments, the Council's Citizen Science Program, and a social census of Georgia's working waterfronts. The SEP will provide recommendations for SSC and Council consideration as appropriate.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) 5 days prior to the meeting.

The Habitat AP meeting is open to the public and will be available via webinar as it occurs. Registration is required. Webinar registration information and other meeting materials will be posted to the Council's website at: http://safmc.net/safmc-meetings/current-advisory-panel-meetings/ as it becomes available.

The meeting agenda includes the following: A briefing on recent actions by the Council's Habitat Committee; status of amendment development; review and comment on NOAA Fisheries South Atlantic Climate Vulnerability Assessment; review and comment on NOAA Fisheries South Atlantic Ecosystem Status Report; input on the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) II Roadmap Activities; initiate development of revisions to the Council's Beach Dredge and Fill and Large Scale Coastal Engineering Policy Statement Policy Statement; overview and discussion on how the Council's Habitat and Ecosystem web pages/Fishery Ecosystem Plan II Dashboard is being utilized; and updates on Habitat and Ecosystem Digital Dashboard and Web Services and discussion on use. The AP will also receive updates on: Executive Order on Climate; development of a SAFMC Habitat Blueprint; on the Endangered Species Act—Biological Opinion for beach, sand placement and dredging; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 2021 Activities, the Kitty Hawk Wind and South Carolina Wind Call Areas; the Council Coordinating Committee Habitat Workgroup Activities; and Southeast Connectivity and Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) and Regional Conservation Blueprint.

The AP will develop recommendations as necessary for consideration by the Council's Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) 3 days prior to the meeting.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Federal Post Card Application (FPCA); SF 76; OMB Control Number 0704-0503.

Needs and Uses: The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), 52 U.S.C. 203, requires the Presidential designee (Secretary of Defense) to prescribe an official form containing an absentee voter registration and ballot request application for use by the States to permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to participate in general, special, primary and runoff elections for Federal office. The FPCA is completed in hardcopy or via the Federal Voting Assistance Program's (FVAP) online assistant ( fvap.gov ), and then submitted by the voter to an Election Official through mail, email, or fax (depending on State instructions).

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 300,000.

Number of Respondents: 1,200,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 1,200,000.

Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

The respondents are absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters. The collected information will be retained by election officials to provide election materials, including absentee ballots, to the uniformed services, their eligible family members and overseas voters during the form's eligibility period provided by State law.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB); SF 186; OMB Control Number 0704-0502.

Needs and Uses: The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), 52 U.S.C. 203, requires the Presidential designee (Secretary of Defense) to prescribe an official backup ballot for use by the States to permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to participate in general, special, primary and runoff elections for Federal office. The collected information will be used by State and local election officials to process uniformed service members, spouses and overseas citizens who submit their information to register to vote or receive an absentee ballot.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 300,000.

Number of Respondents: 1,200,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 1,200,000.

Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

The respondents are absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters. The collected information will be retained by election officials to provide election materials, including absentee ballots, to the uniformed services, their eligible family members and overseas voters during the form's eligibility period provided by State law.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Industrial Capabilities Questionnaire; DD Form 2737; OMB Control Number 0704-0377.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide the adequate industrial capability analyses to indicate a diverse, healthy, and competitive industrial base capable of meeting Department demands. Additionally, the information is required to perform the industrial assessments required by Chapter 148, section 2502 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code; and to support development of a defense industrial base information system as required by Section 722 of the 1992 Defense Production Act, as amended, and Section 802 of Executive Order 12919. Respondents are companies/facilities specifically identified as being of interest to the Department of Defense. Industrial Capabilities Questionnaire DD Form 2737 records pertinent information needed to conduct industrial base analysis for senior DoD leadership to ensure a robust defense industrial base to support the warfighter.

Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Annual Burden Hours: 153,600.

Number of Respondents: 12,800.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 12,800.

Average Burden per Response: 12 hours.

Frequency: On occasion.

Purpose of Program: The SAIHE program supports IHEs that the Secretary determines, after allocating funds under section 314(a) of the CRRSAA, have unmet needs related to coronavirus.

Background: On December 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA), division M of), Public Law 116-260, was signed into law. Section 314(a)(3) of CRRSAA provides 0.5 percent, or approximately $113.5 million, of a portion of the Education Stabilization Fund for part B of title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended, for public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education that the Secretary determines have, after allocating other funds available under CRRSAA HEERF, the greatest unmet needs related to coronavirus, including institutions with large populations of graduate students and institutions that did not otherwise receive an allocation under CRRSAA. We note that, while proprietary institutions were eligible for grants under CARES Act section 18004(a)(1), they are not considered an eligible institution under this program as eligibility is limited under CRRSAA section 314(a)(3) to those institutions that are eligible under part B of title VII of the HEA.

Therefore, to determine the types of institutions that would be funded under the statutory focus of “greatest unmet needs related to coronavirus,” the Department published a notice on February 25, 2021, 1 that announced the Department's proposed institutional eligibility criteria for the SAIHE program and invited public comment.

The Department accepted public comments from February 25, 2021 through March 8, 2021. The Department received comments from fourteen entities representing institutions of higher education and trade organizations. Of the comments received, many of the comments supported funding for Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), especially those IHEs not included in the MSI, Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) allocation tables. Additionally, while there was a positive response with the criteria included in the notice, many of the commentors further noted the importance of including institutions serving low-income and diverse populations. Also, some of the commenters requested funding to support institutions serving high graduate populations. The Department also received comments that requested funding for institutions that serve high populations of students with financial needs, including institutions in rural areas, citing the limited resources and economic challenges for students. There was also a comment to place emphasis on trade schools, apprenticeships, and training programs.

Therefore, after reviewing the comments received and discussions with several organizations representing institutions of higher education, the Department believes that the types of IHEs highlighted under each absolute priority capture the intent of CRRSAA 314 (a)(3). The groups of IHEs that the Department has categorized as meeting the statutory focus of having additional needs related to institutional and student costs associated with coronavirus are described under each priority. This notice establishes the eligibility requirements an institution must meet to be funded under one of the seven absolute priorities.

Under Absolute Priority 1, the Department will provide funding to institutions that were not designated as eligible under the HEA, as amended, title III and V programs at the time that the Department allocated funds under CRRSAA section 314(a)(2)—Minority Serving Institution (MSI)/Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP)—but that were subsequently designated as eligible for FY 2021.

Under Absolute Priority 2, the Department will provide funding to institutions that were eligible to receive funding under CRRSAA section 314(a)(1) (public and nonprofit IHEs participating in the title IV program) but did not receive an award because they did not report student data in the 2018/19 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection, which was the data used in calculating the formula awards for CRRSAA section 314(a)(1).

Under Absolute Priority 3, the Department will provide funding to institutions that were eligible to receive funding under section 18004(a)(1) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), but did not receive an award because the applicant did not apply by the deadline, resulting from unsuccessful attempts to apply, or because the applicant failed to submit a complete application under the correct grants.gov funding opportunity number. The Department will not accept applications from IHEs that we cannot verify have previously attempted to apply through grants.gov for a section 18004(a)(1) grant.

Under Absolute Priority 4, the Department will fund branch campuses designated as eligible under titles III and V of the HEA (according to the FY 2021 Eligibility Matrix) but were not funded through CRRSAA section 314(a)(2) either directly or through their parent institutions because the Department did not have the requisite data to calculate their allocations.

Under Absolute Priority 5, the Department seeks to fund institutions that can demonstrate that, because their institution merged after December 27, 2020 (the date CRRSAA was enacted) or had a recent change in HEA title IV Program Participation Agreement (PPA) effective date resulting in the institution being underfunded due to the formula methodology used to calculate allocations under CRRSAA section 314(a)(1).

Under Absolute Priority 6, the Department invites applications from community colleges and institutions of higher education located in rural settings that serve a high percentage of low-income students and have experienced significant enrollment declines, indicating particularly acute institutional needs. According to the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity of Higher Education, “the lowest income students in the United States face great obstacles paying for college and the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic may compound the uncertainty such students face. . .”. 2 Under this priority, the Department has set two minimum thresholds for these institutions, both of which must be met: (1) Fifty percent or more of undergraduate students enrolled in Fall 2018 were Pell Grant recipients (this will ensure that funds awarded under this priority are targeted to institutions that serve a high percent of low-income students); and (2) a 4.5 percent or more decline in student enrollment (this will help to identify the IHEs that should be considered as having unmet need). According to recent reports, 3 several IHEs are experiencing significant declines in enrollment because of the pandemic; this is especially true at rural community colleges. According to a recently published report by the Association of Community College Trustees, “Strengthening Rural Community College: Innovations and Opportunities,” the coronavirus has exacerbated some of the social and economic challenges facing many rural communities, negatively impacting rural community colleges  4 and the students they serve. Therefore, the Department is also using this priority to target rural community colleges. Through this priority, the Department seeks to make awards to IHEs that meet the criteria set forth in absolute priority 6 to get additional financial aid to students to support their continued engagement and reengagement in postsecondary education.

Finally, the Department is establishing priority 7, to provide additional support to institutions with high percentages of graduate students. Congress specified in CRRSAA section 314(a)(3) that, in allocating funds to institutions with the greatest unmet need due to the coronavirus, the Department should consider institutions with large populations of graduate students. Accordingly, under this priority, the Department is awarding funds to eligible institutions for which graduate students are 90 percent or more of their student population. This threshold of 90 percent reflects the Department's goal of targeting funds to institutions with large graduate populations since the weighting of the main CRRSSA formula toward Pell recipients meant that these institutions did not receive particularly large awards relative to the size of their student body. However, because some standalone graduate schools may have small undergraduate offerings, we have chosen 90 percent as a threshold to ensure we do not exclude a college that is primarily a graduate institution with a limited amount of non-graduate programs.

Priorities: This notice contains seven absolute priorities. We are establishing these priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2021 grant competitions and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

Absolute Priorities: These priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one of these priorities.

The Secretary intends to award grants under each of the absolute priorities. Applicants must clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed project addresses in the SAIHE Program Profile Information Form. Each applicant may submit only one application under this competition that addresses one absolute priority.

In selecting grantees across Absolute Priorities 1-7, the Department will fund each applicant according to the absolute priority for which it is applying. The allocation formula used for allocating funds will be specific to each priority. Depending on the number of applications received for each of the priorities, the Department may prioritize one priority over another and may reduce funding across all priorities to fund the maximum number of applicants.

In calculating award amounts under each priority, the Department will apply the following:

For Absolute Priorities 1 and 4, the funds will be allocated based on the formula methodology that was used to calculate CRRSAA section 314(a)(2) MSI/SIP allocations (available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerfiia2methodology.pdf ).

For Absolute Priorities 2 and 5, the funds will be allocated based on the formula methodology that was used for CRRSAA section 314(a)(1) (available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/314a1methodologyheerfii.pdf), while incorporating the data provided in the SAIHE Program Profile Information Form under these absolute priorities. In addition to the formula for Absolute Priority 5, the Department will take into account any funds already received under CRRSAA section 314(a)(1) by the institution.

For Absolute Priority 3, the funds will be allocated based on the amount an applicant would have received based on the formula methodology for CARES Act section 18004(a)(1) (available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerf90percentformulaallocationexplanation.pdf ).

For Absolute Priority 6, awards for applicants under this absolute priority will be based on the number of Pell Grant recipients the institution serves. The per Pell recipient amount will be established after the Department receives all the applications under this priority.

For Absolute Priority 7, the Department will use the number of graduate students enrolled at the institution as reported on the SAIHE Program Profile Information Form to calculate the allocation.

Note: Those institutions that are applying under absolute priority 1 or 4, should ensure that they have completed the FY 2021 eligibility process under parts A and F of title III and title V of the HEA, as published in a notice in the Federal Register on March 4, 2021 (86 FR 12665).

These priorities are:

An institution that meets the eligibility requirements in FY 2021 for HEA Title III and Title V for any of the MSI programs or SIP and did not receive any funds under CRRSAA section 314(a)(2) of the CRRSAA (ALNs 84.425J, 84.425K, 84.425L, or 84.425M) because it was not eligible in FY 2020 and have not otherwise received funding under CRRSAA section 314(a)(2). An IHE must demonstrate that it meets the eligibility requirements for FY 2021 for HEA Title III or Title V as published in a notice in the Federal Register on March 4, 2021 (86 FR 12665) by completing Section 5 of the Program Profile Information Form for this absolute priority.

An institution that did not receive funds under the CRRSAA section 314(a)(1) student aid portion or section 314(a)(1) institutional portion (HEERF II) programs (ALNs 84.425E and 84.425F) because it was not included in the IPEDS data collection that was used to allocate awards, but otherwise is eligible, Title IV-participating IHE on or after December 27, 2020 as indicated by their PPA effective date. An institution funded under this absolute priority must expend their SAIHE funds in the same manner as required under the CRRSAA (HEERF II) section 314(a)(1) program ( i.e., institutions must spend at least the amount received under the CARES Act section 18004(a)(1) student portion for financial aid grants to students, or, if not funded under the CARES Act, must spend at least 50 percent of funds on grants to students). An IHE must complete Section 5 of the Program Profile Information Form for this absolute priority.

A public or private non-profit institution that was eligible to receive funding under CARES Act (HEERF I) section 18004(a)(1) and did not receive funding under one or both of the CARES Act (HEERF I) section 18004(a)(1) student aid portion or section 18004(a)(1) institutional portion programs (ALNs 84.425E and 84.425F) due to missing the application deadline, which resulted from an unsuccessful previous attempt to apply for funding, an incomplete application, or an application submitted under an incorrect funding opportunity number. An institution funded under this category must expend the SAIHE award in the same manner as required under CARES Act (HEERF I) section 18004(a)(1) programs. An IHE must complete Section 5 of the Program Profile Information Form for this absolute priority.

An institution that is a branch campus that was designated through the FY 2021 Titles II and V Eligibility process  5 as meeting MSI or SIP criteria but did not, either independently or through the parent institution, receive CRRSAA section 314(a)(2) funding, and the parent institution did not qualify under Absolute Priority 1. An IHE must complete Section 5 of the Program Profile Information Form for this absolute priority.

An institution that received a CRRSAA section 314(a)(1) allocation that did not reflect the institution's total student enrollment or Pell recipients because of either (1) an institutional merger that was not captured in its CRRSAA section 314(a)(1) allocation or (2) had a recent change in HEA title IV Program Participation Agreement (PPA) effective date resulting in the institution being underfunded due to the formula methodology used to calculate allocations under CRRSAA section 314(a)(1). An institution funded under this priority must use at least 50 percent of SAIHE award for financial aid grants to students. An IHE must complete Section 5 of the Program Profile Information Form for this absolute priority.

Institutions that—

(a) Have—

(1) Experienced a decrease in student enrollment of 4.5 percent or more between Fall 2019 and Fall 2020; and

(2) Had a total student undergraduate enrollment in Fall 2019 of which 50 percent or more are Pell Grant recipients; and

(b) Are one or both of—

(1) A community college (as defined in this notice); or

(2) Located in a rural campus setting.

Note: The following campus settings will be considered rural: Town-Fringe, Town-Distant, Town-Remote, Rural Fringe, Rural-Distant, Rural-Remote, as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) College Navigator search tool. Applicants may look up individual campus locale settings at: https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/.

An institution funded under this priority must use the funds awarded for financial aid grants to students, including students needing financial assistance to reenroll.

In making awards under this priority, the Department will give priority to eligible applicants in the following order: Tier 1: Community colleges in rural locale settings; Tier 2: Community colleges not in rural locale settings; and Tier 3: Other public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education in rural locale settings. Depending on the funds available for this absolute priority, some applicants may not be funded based on tier rankings. An IHE must complete Section 5 of the Program Profile Information Form for this absolute priority.

A public or private non-profit institution in which graduate students make up 90 percent or more of total enrollment. An institution funded under this priority must use funds awarded for financial aid grants to graduate students with financial need associated with the coronavirus ( e.g., loss of employment, decreased wages, childcare). An IHE must complete Section 5 of the Program Profile Information Form for this absolute priority.

Definitions: For fiscal year (FY) 2021 grant competitions and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, we are establishing the definition of “community college” and “Minority Serving Institution,” in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

Community college means an institution that meets the definition in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)) or an IHE (as defined in section 101 of the HEA) that awards degrees and certificates, more than 50 percent of which are not bachelor's degrees (or an equivalent) or master's, professional, or other advanced degrees.

Minority-Serving Institution means an institution that is eligible to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and definitions. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under section 314(a)(3) of CRRSAA, and therefore qualifies for this exemption. To ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities and definitions under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA.

Program Authority: The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA), Division M of Public Law 116-260.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $113,485,680.

Estimated Range of Awards: The range of awards will depend on the absolute priority for which an institution is applying. See the Absolute Priorities section of this notice for more information. For any of the absolute priorities included in this notice, should the Department receive more applications than it has available funding under CRRSAA section 314(a)(3), the Department reserves the right to make ratable reductions for any of the allocations under any of the absolute priorities. For Absolute Priority 6, the Department may not fund all eligible applications, and will prioritized by tier.

Project Period: Up to 12 months.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

1. Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are IHEs as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001), that are public or private non-profit IHEs and meet the criteria under the absolute priority for which they are applying. With the exception of Absolute Priority 4, institutional eligibility is based on the six-digit OPEID.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

3. Subgrantees: Subgrants are not allowed under this program.

4. Uses of Funds: Unless noted otherwise in this notice, in accordance with section 314(c) of the CRRSAA, grantees may use these grant funds for their institutional costs to defray expenses associated with coronavirus (including lost revenue, reimbursement for expenses already incurred, technology costs associated with a transition to distance education, faculty and staff trainings, and payroll); carry out student support activities authorized by the HEA that address needs related to coronavirus; and make additional financial grants to students, which may be used for any component of the student's cost of attendance or for emergency costs that arise due to coronavirus, such as tuition, food, housing, health care (including mental health care), or child care.

1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003), and available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make awards in a timely manner.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. Additionally, no funds received by an IHE under this section shall be used to fund contractors for the provision of pre-enrollment recruitment activities; marketing or recruitment; endowments; capital outlays associated with facilities related to athletics, sectarian instruction, or religious worship; senior administrator or executive salaries, benefits, bonuses, contracts, incentives; stock buybacks, shareholder dividends, capital distributions, and stock options; or any other cash or other benefit for a senior administrator or executive.

4. Recommended Page Limit: There is a 10-page recommended page limit. The application for this program includes the Standard form 424, the Certificate and Agreement, and the SAIHE Program Profile. If you wish to include any additional documents, those documents should be included under the other attachments form. The project narrative form in grants.gov is where you, the applicant, will include the Certificate and Agreement for this program and the SAIHE Program Profile.

5. Program Profile: Applicants must complete the program profile and submit under the program narrative form in grants.gov .

1. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

For this competition, the Department has waived the peer review process for this program. Department staff will review eligible applications using the absolute priority criteria provided in this notice.

2. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, the individuals listed as the Authorizing Representative and Director will receive a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we will notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Reporting: Reporting requirements are specified in each program's Certification and Agreement or Supplemental Agreement.

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

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

Title of Collection: Migrant Student Information Exchange User Application Form.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0686.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 312.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 156.

Abstract: This extension request is necessary to continue the collection of the existing MSIX User Application. State educational agencies (SEAs) with MEPs will collect the information from state and local education officials who desire access to the MSIX system. The form verifies the applicant's need for MSIX data and authorizes the user's access to that data. The burden hours associated with the data collection are required to meet the statutory mandate in Sec. 1308(b) of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is to facilitate the electronic exchange by the SEAs of a set of minimum data elements to address the educational and related needs of migratory children.

Background

On February 24, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14017, “America's Supply Chains” (86 FR 11849). E.O. 14017 focuses on the need for resilient, diverse, and secure supply chains to ensure U.S. economic prosperity and national security. Such supply chains are needed to address conditions that can reduce critical manufacturing capacity and the availability and integrity of critical goods, products, and services. In relevant part, E.O. 14017 directs that within 100 days, the Secretary shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy (APEP), identifying the risks in the supply chain for high-capacity batteries, including electric vehicle batteries, and policy recommendations to address these risks.

The Department is particularly interested in information directed to the policy objectives listed in E.O. 14017 as they affect the supply chain for high-capacity batteries, including electric vehicle batteries, including but not limited to the following elements:

(i) Critical materials including battery grade nickel, cobalt and lithium, underlying the supply chain for high-capacity batteries, including electric vehicle batteries;

(ii) Manufacturing and other capabilities necessary to produce high-capacity batteries, including extraction of raw materials, refining, production of advanced cathode and anode powders, separators, electrolytes, current collectors and advanced recycling technologies for high-capacity batteries;

(iii) The availability of the key skill sets and personnel necessary to sustain a competitive U.S. high-capacity batteries ecosystem, including the domestic education and manufacturing workforce skills needed for high-capacity battery manufacturing; the skills gaps therein, and any opportunities to meet future workforce needs;

(iv) Risks or contingencies that may disrupt the high-capacity batteries supply chain (including defense, intelligence, cyber, homeland security, health, climate, environmental, natural, market, economic, geopolitical, human-rights or forced labor risks):

(a) Risks resulting from lack of or failure to develop domestic manufacturing capabilities, including emerging capabilities;

(v) The resilience and capacity of the high-capacity battery supply chain to support national and economic security and emergency preparedness, including:

(a) Manufacturing, recycling, or other needed capacities (including ability to modernize to meet future needs);

(b) Gaps in manufacturing capabilities, including nonexistent, threatened, or single-point-of-failure capabilities, or single or dual suppliers;

(c) Location of key manufacturing and production assets, and risks posed by these assets' physical location;

(d) Exclusive or dominant supply of critical or essential goods and materials by or through nations that are, or may become, unfriendly or unstable;

(e) Availability of substitutes or alternative sources for critical or essential goods and materials;

(f) Need for research and development capacity to sustain leadership in the development of goods and materials critical or essential to high-capacity battery manufacturing;

(g) Current domestic education and manufacturing workforce skills and any identified gaps, opportunities and potential best practices;

(h) Role of transportation systems in supporting the high-capacity battery supply chain and risks associated with these transportation systems;

(i) Risks posed by climate change to the availability, production, or transportation of goods and materials critical to high-capacity manufacturing;

(vi) Potential impact of the failure to sustain or develop elements of the high-capacity supply chain in the United States on other key downstream capabilities. Also, the potential impact of purchases of high-capacity batteries products by downstream customers, including volume and price, product generation and alternate inputs.

(vii) Policy recommendations or suggested executive, legislative, regulatory changes, or actions to ensure a resilient supply chain for high-capacity batteries ( e.g., reshoring, nearshoring, or developing domestic suppliers, cooperation with allies to identify or develop alternative supply chains, building redundancy into supply chains, ways to address risks due to vulnerabilities in digital products or climate change).

(viii) Any additional comments relevant to the assessment of the high-capacity batteries manufacturing and advanced packing supply chains required by E.O. 14017.

DOE encourages commenters, when addressing the elements above, to structure their comments using the same text as identifiers for the areas of inquiry to which their comments respond to assist DOE in more easily reviewing and summarizing the comments received in response to these specific comment areas. For example, a commenter submitting comments responsive to (i) critical and essential goods and materials underlying the high-capacity battery supply chain, would use that same text as a heading in the public comment followed by the commenter's specific comments in this area. The RFI (DE-FOA-0002502) is available at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/.

Confidential Business Information: Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 23, 2021, by David Howell, Acting Director, Vehicle Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

1. 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.

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

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

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

Title: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Allegations of Significant Adverse Reactions to Human Health or the Environment.

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1031.12.

OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0017.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on October 31, 2021. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: TSCA section 8(c) requires companies that manufacture, process, or distribute chemicals to maintain records of significant adverse reactions to health or the environment alleged to have been caused by such chemicals. Since section 8(c) includes no automatic reporting provision, EPA can obtain and use the information contained in company files only by inspecting those files or requiring reporting of records that relate to specific substances of concern. Therefore, under certain conditions, and using the provisions found in 40 CFR part 717, EPA may require companies to report such allegations to the Agency. EPA uses such information on a case specific basis to corroborate suspected adverse health or environmental effects of chemicals already under review by EPA. The information is also useful to identify trends of adverse effects across the industry that may not be apparent to any one chemical company. This ICR addresses the information reporting and recordkeeping requirements found in 40 CFR part 717.

Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR part 717). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8 hours per report. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are companies that manufacture, process, import, or distribute in commerce chemical substances or mixtures.

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 13,160.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.4.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 25,527 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: 1,987,487.00.

There is an increase in the total cost associated with this ICR as a result in an increase in the wage rate from $1,911,477 to $1,987,487. This change is an adjustment.

In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal agencies and departments and is based on the submission instructions established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format developed by EPA and OMB prior to 1995. EPA intends to update this Supporting Statement during the comment period to reflect the 18-question format, and has included the questions in an attachment to this Supporting Statement. In doing so, the Agency does not expect the change in format to result in substantive changes to the information collection activities or related estimated burden and costs.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: Appropriate Government surveillance of contractor performance is required to give reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls are being used for various cost-reimbursable and fixed-rate contracts. Per 48 CFR 1552.211 regulations, on a monthly basis the Agency requires contractors to provide the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) with a report detailing: (a) What was accomplished on the contract for that period, (b) expenditures for the same period of time, and (c) what is expected to be accomplished on the contract for the next month. Responses to the information collection are mandatory for contractors and are required for the contractors to receive monthly payments.

Respondents/affected entities: Private sector.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory per 48 CFR 1552.211.

Estimated number of respondents: 337 (total).

Frequency of response: Monthly.

Total estimated burden: 97,056 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $9,901,168 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in estimates: There is no change of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The loaded labor costs were adjusted upwards to account for inflation.

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Paper filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.

Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. 1

Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 2 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Rule 1.1206(b), 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

In creating the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission), Congress charged the agency with protecting the safety of life and property and promoting the national defense through wire and radio communication. Over the last decade, actions by Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Commission have repeatedly stressed and prioritized supply chain risk management and the deployment of secure and reliable networks in the United States. The Commission has worked closely with its federal partners on this critical issue and has acted decisively to secure our communications networks and the communications supply chain. Congress has also established that it is “the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public.”

Open and virtualized radio access networks have the potential to address national security and other concerns that the Commission and other federal stakeholders have raised in recent years about network integrity and supply chain reliability. New startups are entering the original equipment manufacturer marketplace, and many of these companies are located in trusted-partner countries that do not pose national security risks. Network function virtualization and tools like artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) have the potential to allow for smarter, more efficient network security monitoring. Below, we summarize recent federal actions taken to help secure the communications supply chain and communications networks, either before the emergence of Open RAN or in parallel with these efforts.

Current Standards and Specifications. We seek comment on the current state of standards and specifications development for 5G and Open RAN. During the last few years, there has been a concerted effort among some organizations to advance the Open RAN model. For example, in 2016 and 2018, respectively, several companies launched the Telecom Infra Project (TIP) and global carriers established the O-RAN Alliance to develop and promote Open RAN reference architectures and protocols that foster vendor interoperability. In May 2020, several major global companies formed the Open RAN Policy Coalition to promote government policies that advance the adoption of open and interoperable RAN technologies. In August 2020, the Open Networking Foundation (ONF), an operator-led consortium advancing innovation in network infrastructure and carrier business models, announced several new initiatives in the Open RAN domain. We seek comment on the state of Open RAN standards development generally and, specifically, on the challenges inherent in developing Open RAN standards and specifications. To what extent are these standard-setting efforts being driven by established large manufacturers, and to what extent are these efforts enabling participation by smaller equipment vendors, smaller mobile network operators, and newer entrants to the marketplace? Are specifications such as eCPRI, the Common Public Radio Interface, a sufficient alternative to Open RAN? Are there any known interoperable multivendor implementations of eCPRI? Are there substantive differences between the eCPRI and Open RAN approaches for disaggregating the network? What steps, if any, should be taken by the Commission to help resolve standard-setting challenges, bolster these efforts, and accelerate the timeline for Open RAN standards and specifications development?

Open RAN Ecosystem. We seek comment on the current state of the Open RAN ecosystem. For example, which companies are offering baseband hardware, network virtualization, packet core functionality, or other network components? How large are each of these companies, in sales or revenues, in each of these applications? How scalable is manufacturing of each of these components to allow for ramp up in production? And how many companies are competing to supply each of the components and applications? What role (if any) will systems integrators play in advancing the deployment of Open RAN systems and what systems integrators are operating in the marketplace today? Will carriers execute their own integration, as Rakuten has done, or buy hosted solutions from other providers? Commenters should identify any gaps or potential bottlenecks in the Open RAN ecosystem. What factors incentivize or disincentivize vendors from developing Open RAN solutions? What are the financial capabilities and funding sources of current or potential vendors to develop such solutions? To what extent does the development of Open RAN solutions by one firm depend on the development of Open RAN by other firms? We seek comment on the current and future opportunities that Open RAN generates for the U.S. wireless infrastructure industry. While U.S. companies do not currently offer an integrated end-to-end network at scale, several U.S. companies supply critical components of wireless networks, including semiconductors, end user devices, and core network elements. Does this suggest that U.S. companies are well positioned to compete in a modular market? More specifically, we seek comment and data on whether and, if so, how many U.S. companies or vendors can manufacture and/or supply Open RAN sub-components, including radios, at the scale necessary to compete both domestically and internationally with traditional network equipment vendors. How many U.S. companies have the knowledge and resources to begin manufacturing Open RAN components and applications in the near future? What are the projected market shares of the U.S. companies at the aggregate level in the U.S. wireless network equipment market if Open RAN were widely adopted? Are there any components or applications for which there currently are no U.S. suppliers?

Domestic Deployments. We seek comment on the current state of Open RAN deployments in the U.S. To what extent are these solutions commercially available today? While DISH has not announced a launch date, it is currently building the first nationwide cloud-native, Open RAN-based 5G broadband network. Inland Cellular, a rural mobile wireless service provider that serves more than 35,000 subscribers in Idaho and Washington, is reportedly deploying an Open RAN system that will cut per site cost by approximately 40 percent. Verizon Wireless has reportedly deployed vRAN equipment as part of its 5G network. What other U.S. companies are planning or otherwise participating in Open RAN deployments? How close is the U.S. to being ready for large-scale deployments? Has Open RAN delivered an integrated and truly interoperable end-to-end process in the United States yet? Commenters should discuss previous and current efforts to deploy Open RAN in the U.S., as well as any expected plans to deploy in the future, including information on the costs of any deployments considered. We seek comment on which mobile network operators or original equipment manufacturers are likely and not likely to adopt Open RAN. What factors are preventing, impeding, or discouraging Open RAN deployments? What steps should be taken by the Commission, other federal partners, industry, academia, or others to resolve these issues, address these concerns, and accelerate the timeline for Open RAN deployment?

International Deployments. Similarly to the United States, several countries have stressed the importance of securing their communications networks and communications supply chains. The United Kingdom has established a 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy to ensure the telecom supply chain remains resilient to future trends and threats, and French suppliers are being prioritized to help the French government reduce its dependence on Huawei. Several countries believe that Open RAN can offer a solution to security issues affecting the communications network supply chain. The German government, for example, is expected to spend 2 billion euros to reduce dependency on Huawei and to prioritize Open RAN research, development, and deployments.

In response to government policies and demand for more secure solutions, operators worldwide are developing and deploying Open RAN architectures at an increasing rate. For example, in Asia, Rakuten maintains it was one of the first companies to utilize Open RAN as part of its new fully virtualized cloud network in Japan, and Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea have been at the forefront of Open RAN deployments in India. In Europe, four major carriers—Vodafone Group Plc, Telefonica S.A., Deutsche Telekom AG, and Orange S.A.—signed a Memorandum of Understanding signaling their commitment to deploy Open RAN solutions across Europe. In Africa, Vodafone has conducted early field trials, and, in July 2020, Orange announced a multi-country program to extend their current coverage with Open RAN solutions, including to the Central African Republic. In Latin America, the TIP, Instituto Nacional de Telecomunicacoes (Inatel), and Telecom Italia Mobile (TIM) Brasil launched the Open Field program in Brazil to develop and test Open RAN solutions in the field.

As countries and operators worldwide are beginning to coalesce around the Open RAN model, we seek comment on what lessons can be learned from successful deployments, previous failed deployments, and development efforts being undertaken in other countries. What has been learned about deploying Open RAN systems using existing generations of networks and in low-income and rural environments? What challenges have these operators faced in developing and deploying Open RAN systems? Is there anything about the U.S. wireless network industry, spectrum policies ( e.g., availability of greenfield spectrum), or geographical or other factors that present unique challenges to Open RAN deployment? What steps can the Commission take to encourage timely and secure domestic deployments? What implications do international efforts like the European Memorandum of Understanding have for U.S. leadership in this area?

Increased Competition and Network Vendor Diversity. We seek comment generally on the effect of Open RAN on market entry, vendor diversity, and competition in the wireless network equipment industry. We seek comment on the current state of competition in the wireless network equipment industry generally and in the markets for various components and applications. In particular, we seek comment on whether and how the current market structure in the traditional RAN sector may impact or affect the deployment and adoption of Open RAN solutions. How many options are available to carriers in selecting equipment manufacturers? How interoperable is this RAN equipment, if at all, with other hardware and software? Is this equipment or software proprietary? What restrictions, if any, do equipment manufacturers place on wireless carriers' equipment choices or options? Similarly, do equipment manufacturers place any restrictions on their upstream suppliers in terms of dealing with Open RAN providers? What affect do such restrictions have on competition and Open RAN deployment and adoption?

What are the effects of competition in the industry, and would transitioning to Open RAN resolve, ameliorate, or worsen these issues? Specifically, would increased competition in the wireless network equipment marketplace result in lower costs for operators? Commenters advocating this position should explain why and should estimate the likely cost reductions. For instance, does Open RAN eliminate or minimize the costs associated with developing a proprietary end-to-end network or deploying and maintaining single-vendor hardware? What benefits can be gained by access to interoperable networks? On the other hand, would there be any additional costs to operators from having to use Open RAN versus alternative technologies? For example, are there any additional costs required for integrating the Open RAN system?

We also seek this information on the firms that supply various network components and applications of 5G RAN networks and their market shares in each of the segments. We seek comment on the relationships between and among firms in this industry, including but not limited to supplier relationships, equity investments, and joint ventures or partnerships. Commenters should also describe the extent to which the cost, quality, and/or capabilities of competing components and applications differ. We seek comment on vertical supply chain relationships in the telecommunications networking equipment market, and on the potential effects of current market conditions on the demand for and deployment of Open RAN solutions. Commenters should identify barriers to entry or market conditions that may affect or impede the deployment and adoption of Open RAN solutions now or in the future. Do current market conditions or barriers to entry warrant specific regulatory intervention? If so, commenters should describe what measures the Commission should take, as well as the legal basis for Commission action.

We seek comment on the current and projected demand for Open RAN and its expected market share, as a proxy for predicting the level of competition in the Open RAN supply chain. By some estimates, Open RAN currently captures 9.4% of the total 4G and 5G market. Is the current market share a reflection of actual demand, or is it the result of regulatory or other barriers that may be impeding or delaying widespread adoption and deployment? Is market share likely to change in the future? Is there a threshold for market share at which the effectiveness of diffusion of Open RAN would rapidly increase? What are the anticipated diffusion rates over the next 5 years under current market conditions? We seek comment on whether the pace of Open RAN adoption should influence policies the Commission adopts, or whether the Commission should adopt policies to accelerate the pace of adoption. We also seek comment on any adverse effects and costs of policies advocated by commenters, such as the extra burden on network operations that the policies may cause.

What factors may incentivize or disincentivize operators from adopting Open RAN technologies? How would adoption by one firm impact adoption by other firms? To what extent does Open RAN technology exhibit economies of scale, network effects, or learning curves? If the benefits of Open RAN can only be realized by economies of scale, should the Commission provide funding or incentives to operators that choose to implement such systems in their wireless networks? To what extent might government-funded incentives or other regulatory intervention ease any of the costs or barriers to adopting Open RAN? For example, the Indian government is currently drafting procurement regulations for its next generation networks and is expected to offer preference to domestic suppliers. In Japan, the government is providing tax incentives to products with open and interoperable interfaces, and the UK government announced a 28 million euro investment in 5G products, with more than one-half utilizing Open RAN. Should we adopt similar regulatory measures or incentives? Are other actions necessary to level the playing field for new Open RAN suppliers that are competing against entrenched traditional vendors with decades of experience? For instance, should we amend, forbear from applying, or eliminate any of our rules that inadvertently support a single-vendor approach, a specific technology ( e.g., closed radio access networks), or otherwise inhibit the development and adoption of Open RAN solutions? Are there any components or factors of an Open RAN system that are or could be hindered by a single or limited vendor supply? How can we facilitate a competitive marketplace where essential pieces of an Open RAN architecture are not controlled by a limited number of entities?

We seek comment on whether Open RAN is likely to create opportunities for new entrants in the original equipment manufacturer markets. Specifically, we seek comment on whether and, if so, which aspects of, the Open RAN architecture promote vendor diversity and competition. Open RAN works by disaggregating software applications from the underlying hardware infrastructure and replacing proprietary interfaces between baseband components with open, standards-based interfaces. Would the disaggregated nature of Open RAN lower the costs of entry by allowing vendors to develop distinct components of the network ( e.g., hardware, software, silicon), rather than having to build the integrated end-to-end system, which can be a costly undertaking? Does the interoperable nature of Open RAN facilitate market entry by allowing vendors to develop specific components of the network for use by multiple operators rather than creating unique one-off solutions for specific operators? What specific firms or what kind of firms would be likely entrants, and how are they likely to perform as competitors against incumbents? Which segments are they likely to enter, and what kind of products are they likely to develop? Are there likely to be international entrants in addition to domestic entrants? Commenters should discuss other aspects of the Open RAN architecture that may lower the barriers to entry and otherwise facilitate market entry.

We also seek comment on how Open RAN could encourage innovation by American companies, and how to anticipate, identify, and evaluate potential issues that might stifle innovation, manufacturing, and deployment. For example, is there a sufficient workforce in place with the training to safely and efficiently install Open RAN equipment? If not, how quickly could such workers be trained? Are there steps the Commission or other federal agencies should take to address an increase in the supply of trained workers needed to close such a gap? Under an open-source or open-interface model, will businesses be able to stay financially viable? How will access to intellectual property and patents influence the ability to innovate? Can U.S. operators continue to achieve the same level of features and performance at scale with Open RAN that customers currently enjoy with existing infrastructure? Will technological developments in Open RAN benefit innovation in other technologies? We seek comment on these questions as well as comment generally on whether the Commission or other entities could or should plan for and mitigate foreseeable roadblocks.

Affordability of Services and Products for Consumers. We seek comment on the potential costs and benefits of Open RAN on consumers in the next-generation wireless network marketplace. If Open RAN lowers the overall hardware and deployment costs for operators, are those cost savings likely to pass through to consumers in the form of lower, more competitive prices for next-generation wireless services? How might Open RAN affect the price of services and products for consumers, if at all? If the federal government provides incentives for a transition in architecture, how can we ensure these cost savings find their way to the consumer? Commenters should discuss the potential effect of Open RAN on the affordability of end-user services and products. In particular, commenters should discuss how Open RAN might affect the affordability of services and products for the most vulnerable consumers, including rural and low-income Americans.

Network Security and Public Safety. Several countries have recognized Open RAN as a potential solution to the increasing security threats posed to their nation's communications supply chains. For example, as previously discussed, the German government is expected to spend two billion euros to reduce its dependency on Huawei by prioritizing Open RAN research, development, and deployments. France has adopted a similar policy. Through open disaggregation of the RAN, Open RAN is intended to enable the use of interchangeable modular technologies, as well as AI/ML, to promote, among other things, network security and public safety. O-RAN Alliance argues that the design of Open RAN, along with the potential for leveraging open-source software, should improve supply chain security.

To what extent does Open RAN address supply chain risk management issues and enable the deployment of secure and reliable networks in the United States? Does the disaggregated nature of Open RAN facilitate market entry by additional vendors and therefore offer viable alternatives to the use of equipment from untrusted vendors in the telecommunications supply chain ( e.g., Huawei and ZTE)? Would Open RAN mitigate operators' reliance on specific vendors, allowing them to secure a back-up supplier or otherwise eliminate lock-in problems resulting from a consolidated equipment marketplace? How would an increase in the number of vendors supplying components for Open RAN affect the 5G vendor management ecosystem? Would the use of Open RAN software facilitate the rapid removal of vendors' equipment when they were identified as untrusted? Would a supply chain of Open RAN software vendors that excludes untrusted entities obviate concerns of that software running over hardware of an untrusted vendor? Can additional criteria be defined to assist in identifying what is an untrusted vendor, beyond frameworks such as the Prague Proposals, EU Toolbox for 5G Security, or the Center for Strategic and International Studies Criteria? We seek information on the risk of security breaches, including the frequency of such breaches and the magnitude of potential economic damages on closed RAN networks, and how this security risk could be addressed by Open RAN. We seek comment on the potential impact of Open RAN on public safety communications. What potential benefits would Open RAN provide for public safety communications and emergency communications, such as 911 or wireless emergency alerting overall? To what extent would Open RAN impact the required location accuracy of 911 calls? How and to what extent would Open RAN facilitate interoperability for public safety communications, especially as state and local 911 systems transition to IP-based networks, such as Next Generation 911 (NG 911)? Similarly, how would Open RAN enhance interoperability with respect to NG 911, the First Responder Network (FirstNet), or priority services, such as wireless priority services? How could Open RAN reduce the overall frequency and duration of communications outages on networks that carry 911 and other emergency communications? What impact, if any, will the deployment of Open RAN systems have on existing signal boosters used to ensure adequate in-building coverage?

Open-Source Software. Open-source software “includes operating systems, applications, and programs in which the source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute that code.” Open RAN can leverage open-source software for network functions and network management. Open-source software draws from a larger and more diverse set of reviewers compared to that of a closed RAN architecture. What are the potential benefits or advantages associated with the use of open-source software in Open RAN environments? For instance, does open-source software result in a well-vetted, more secure finished product? How can these benefits be most effectively realized, and what role can the Commission play in maximizing these benefits? What are the disadvantages to using open-source software in Open RAN environments and how can they be mitigated?

Potential Technological Benefits of Open RAN Deployment. Proponents of Open RAN argue that features such as end-to-end network slicing, edge computing, and machine learning-based network optimization methods may be better enabled by standards-based architectures. Further, they contend that an open architecture could improve the controllability and overall performance of cellular networks that are increasingly heterogenous and distributed, aggregate spectrum in different frequency bands, and use small-cell architectures. We seek comment on these views, and specifically on quantifying the improvement in spectral efficiency and performance under the Open RAN architecture as compared with a closed system.

One of the promised benefits of an Open RAN architecture is the ability to apply AI/ML techniques to optimizing radio resource management, since the interfaces between different elements of the network will be available for real-time control. Proponents argue this would be especially beneficial in network slicing to guarantee end-to-end Quality-of-Service to disparate applications that are allocated resources over the network. The complexity of wireless networks makes manual control and optimization inefficient, leading to wasted resources along multiple axes—spectrum, computing, and infrastructure. Open RAN proponents claim that AI/ML algorithms are increasingly being used even in the current RAN, and that an Open RAN architecture may enable improved performance by offering improved visibility to intermediate nodes within the RAN.

Advanced wireless networks, including 5G, may be used for “vertical” applications outside of traditional telecommunications networking, such as smart cities, automotive, telehealth, and energy. The network slicing and other features of an Open RAN architecture could better enable very different application suites to run on the same hardware stack. We seek comment on the benefits outlined above and what role the Commission should play in facilitating these benefits. We also seek comment on the status and viability of these benefits and ask commenters to quantify the value of such benefits. Are they available now, and if not, how long until the various benefits outlined above become viable? Are these benefits primarily (or exclusively) the result of Open RAN architecture or will they also result from 5G or other advanced wireless networks deployed using traditional network equipment? What are the potential obstacles or disadvantages of the technologies and approaches discussed above?

Radiofrequency spectrum is anticipated to be a key enabler for a variety of public ecosystems including aviation, marine, and land-based transportation infrastructure. Private sector initiatives are being organized that focus on advancing 5G innovation, such as MITRE Engenuity, which has created the Open Generation Consortium to drive 5G innovation, with an initial focus on 5G-equipped drones. The advancement of 5G use cases for drones and other applications may face technological and regulatory barriers, and we seek comment on the barriers to the emerging ecosystem of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) as it relates to network equipment and architecture. MITRE suggested at the FCC's September 2020 Forum on 5G Open Radio Access Networks that the UAS industry could be an attractive focus for Open RAN. Furthermore, the TAC has recommended a pilot program focused on the evolving UAS use case. We seek comment on what network architecture issues need to be addressed to meet these challenges and how we might address any such challenges. We seek comment on this topic generally and, in particular, on the steps that the Commission could take to promote and advance the application of 5G Open RAN to the emerging UAS ecosystem.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Using Open RAN may also enable providers to take advantage of AI and ML from sources other than a proprietary RAN vendor. The O-RAN Alliance contends that AI and ML enable the optimization of RAN configurations in real-time based on learning technologies that accumulate information over time. We seek comment on what steps industry, the Commission, or other organizations can take to promote the development and use of AI and ML to support and enhance the security features of an Open RAN deployment. Can AI and ML be harnessed to identify and remediate malicious changes in configuration or otherwise detect intrusions and vulnerabilities in an Open RAN platform? Are additional standards and Application Layer Interfaces (API) needed to ensure the development of security-based AI/ML features in Open RAN technologies? What other benefits and challenges exist regarding the use of AI and ML in our communications infrastructure and how do we balance those with potential privacy issues?

Virtualized Operating Environment. Proponents argue that Open RAN's use of virtualized environments with containers offers additional operational and security advantages. Software virtualization could enable applications and operating environments to be isolated from each other. Containerization could allow multiple vendors to develop their products for the same Open RAN platform, and could encourage competition between vendors, thus driving down costs for the provider. Are there other advantages of virtualization in the context of security ( e.g., data privacy, or protection of computer resources assigned to an Open RAN application)? What are the disadvantages and can they be addressed? We note that the Distributed Management Task Force is a standards body focusing on emerging IT infrastructures like cloud computing and virtualization. Are additional industry standards needed to facilitate various virtualization platforms for different hardware used to support Open RAN functionality and security?

Disaggregation/Need for a System Integrator. If the flexibility created by disaggregation of the RAN has potential benefits, would it also make the deployment of the Open RAN more complex than deployment of a closed RAN because different components must be seamlessly integrated? Since the different Open RAN components may be supplied by different vendors, how would operators resolve compatibility problems that arise during deployment, in spite of standardized interfaces being specified?

We seek information on the practical implications of the disaggregation of the components of the RAN. How difficult will it be to ensure that the components of the Open RAN seamlessly operate together? Will testing of the Open RAN deployment be a time-consuming and complicated process compared to a proprietary closed RAN? Have Open RAN deployments to date demonstrated comparable performance to 4G and 5G systems employing a traditional RAN architecture? Is the performance of Open RAN systems likely to be impacted due to the multi-vendor environment? Will network operators have the resources to manage the deployment of Open RAN technology into their networks? Is this a task that smaller network operators can successfully manage? What institutional requirements and associated costs are required to support system integration? What role will system integrators perform in deployment of Open RAN technology?

Network Security and Public Safety. Could Open RAN architecture expose new security vulnerabilities that might not otherwise exist in a more closed architecture? If open-source software fosters collaborative development among many stakeholders, does this enable a greater number of stakeholders to potentially discover vulnerabilities that might not otherwise be exposed and mitigated in closed systems? Or would the introduction of a greater number of stakeholders introduce vulnerabilities if appropriate care is not taken and software is not fully vetted by vendors or operators that choose to use open-software? Does Open RAN introduce further issues raised by compromised trusted vendors, such as those that occurred during the SolarWinds breach?

Does Open RAN introduce any risks to the security and integrity of public safety communications? We seek comment on whether public facing infrastructures, like the RAN, are or may become an ideal target for bad actors to disrupt vital communications that rely on interoperability, such as 911, E-911, and NG 911 services (collectively referred to as 911). Similarly, is there a risk that prioritized public safety communications, such as those provided by FirstNet or the Wireless Priority Service, could also be subject to disruption from bad actors exploiting vulnerabilities in Open RAN that may not exist in a proprietary traditional RAN? Conversely, can Open RAN solutions remediate known vulnerabilities, such as False Base Stations, in proprietary RANs? We seek comment on whether and, if so, how the use of Open RAN may introduce new and heightened security risks to the 911 system. Are these risks particularly heightened by the 911 system's interdependence with originating service providers, the continued operation of legacy public safety access points or emergency communications centers, and the ongoing migration of 911 services to NG 911? For example, it is commonly understood that security functions (like data encryption) to protect data traversing through the IP-based networks do not function or are unavailable as the data travel through legacy network elements. Does the use of Open RAN exacerbate these concerns? Specifically, what other ways might the enhanced interconnectedness fostered by Open RAN increase the cyberthreat attack surface to 911 services? To what extent might Open RAN exacerbate the potential cyber threat from legacy public safety answering points that operate in hybrid environments? To the extent Open RAN introduces risks to public safety communications, what steps can be taken by stakeholders or the Commission to eliminate or mitigate these concerns? We also ask commenters to estimate the potential costs associated with the risk mitigation related to public safety arising from Open RAN development.

Do the attributes of Open RAN that support its versatility to identify, isolate, and remediate security risks or threats in the service architecture also highlight its potential security vulnerabilities? To what extent could use of Open RAN make the network more vulnerable to cyberthreats or unanticipated failures compared to a traditional mobile networking approach? Is there a risk that Open RAN vendors may not yet have the processes in place to address quickly and efficiently possible gaps or bugs that could otherwise be exploited by bad actors? Are accountability and trust reduced in environments with multiple vendors? What steps should we take to promote the diversity of vendors, while ensuring a high standard of security and trust similar to that provided by proprietary end-to-end solutions? Is there a heightened or new security risk introduced by relying on a few established and new suppliers with shorter track records? Technologies associated with Open RAN impact stakeholders across the supply chain, as well as in industries that rely on safe and reliable communications networks. What industry guidelines or standards are in place to ensure vendors remain accountable for their products and service? Beyond industry standards, what role, if any, does the Commission have in holding vendors accountable for their products, especially in systems with components sourced from multiple vendors? Are the Commission's existing equipment authorization rules sufficient to perform this role? We seek comment on these issues.

Moreover, does the disaggregated nature of Open RAN emphasize the importance of adhering to 5G security specifications in both open and closed systems, since security considerations of these components already are defined in the 3GPP standards? Although use of open-source software may be a prominent feature of Open RAN, many 5G vendors and operators already rely on open-source software to accelerate delivery of digital innovation. We seek comment on the effects of open-source software on network security from entities that have already deployed some variation of open-source software.

Open-Source Software Vulnerabilities. As noted earlier, the source code for open-source software is made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify, or redistribute that code. Does this openness also introduce new risks to the network? Does the variety and diversity of open-source software options increase the possibility of incompatibilities in the system or make it more vulnerable to hacking or other vulnerabilities? To what extent are stakeholders applying inventory management of open-source components, code management systems, testing of open-source code, and security frameworks to mitigate open-source risks as recommended by CSRIC? We seek comment on whether the process for reviewing and accepting contributions to open-source software platforms may affect the security of Open RAN. For example, who verifies the integrity of those who seek to change the code? Are there existing criteria or processes used to select reviewers, and what processes are there to ensure that contributions made to change or edit the source code comport with existing security standards? For example, to what extent are Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) against open-source software components monitored? What safeguards and protocols are in place to thwart bad actors? To the extent that safeguards exist, are they implemented to meet the security standards expected by enterprises and service providers? Are there other risk factors we should be considering? An analysis of the benefits and challenges coupled with ideas on how the Commission can support more secure, efficient, and resilient architectures should be provided while addressing this topic.

Risks of a Virtualized Operating Environment. Virtualization isolates applications from each other, thus minimizing or even eliminating their disruption on other applications running in other isolated containers. Is there a risk, however, that actors with unrestricted access to the operating system of the device, often referred to as root access, can bypass the intrinsic security virtualization and can access and/or alter any file, data, applications running on that hardware platform? We seek comment on the security vulnerabilities of the operating environment of virtualized software. Can vendors or providers protect against impermissible root access to the operating system if the hardware is produced by an untrusted source? What credentialing, safeguards, or general operating standards exist to ensure that an actor with root access cannot abuse root access for malicious means. Another attack vector created by virtualization is side-channel attacks, where one container can learn information from an unrelated container. Are there mitigations to side-channel attacks? Are these mitigations in common use? If not, what is inhibiting their use? We ask commenters to estimate the costs associated with risk mitigation related to commercial applicants arising from Open RAN deployment.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Some entities claim that using AI and ML in any product present the risk of false positives ( i.e., an indication that a condition, such as a network intrusion or malware, exists when in fact it does not). Correcting false positives requires the input of time and human resources to investigate, and the remediation of a false problem or incorrectly configured optimization scheme might result in a service outage or other denial of service. Should AI/ML be leveraged to support and enhance the security features of an Open RAN deployment? If so, how?

Barriers to Adoption by Established Operators. Are the potential benefits of Open RAN, described above, available only in a greenfield deployment? Commenters should discuss the relative and absolute costs of incorporating Open RAN components into an established network. How can established RANs incorporate elements of Open RAN without replacing the entire network? Are there any obstacles that overlaying an Open RAN network on top of an existing early-generation closed network create? How scalable is the Open RAN concept to multi-gigabit wireless networks, such as non-standalone, millimeter-wave 5G cellular networks deployed in the U.S. that rely upon legacy, 4G LTE components? Do the potential cost reductions and performance enhancements due to disaggregation disappear once the costs of end-to-end multi-vendor interoperability testing are accounted for? Will this innovation and flexibility also maintain the stable operating environment that suppliers and consumers expect and demand of the nation's communications infrastructure?

Other Considerations. Are there any other factors to take into account when considering the viability and extent of open and virtualized RAN deployments? Will the fronthaul and midhaul between disaggregated units in the radio access network limit the deployment of Open RAN cell sites to areas where fiber or other high-capacity connections are available? Will the availability of fronthaul and midhaul options limit deployment of Open RAN networks to more densely populated areas? According to press reports, some original equipment manufacturers have expressed concerns regarding the energy efficiency of Open RAN equipment. Are these concerns valid? If so, what steps could potentially be taken to reduce the energy consumption associated with this equipment? Are there other issues associated with deployment of open and/or virtualized RAN equipment that we should be aware of?

Identify Potential Barriers. Assuming we find that Open RAN could provide substantial public interest benefits, and subject to the cost-benefit considerations outlined below, we seek comment on whether we should enact rules, consistent with the Commission's rulemaking authority under current statutes, to promote reliability, interoperability, and adoption of Open RAN systems. Are Commission actions warranted to support the development of Open RAN standards? How can the Commission best harness industry experts to understand regulatory constraints impacting Open RAN deployments and the most appropriate regulatory approach moving forward? Commenters should identify aspects of the Open RAN system that require streamlined rules and a harmonized regulatory framework.

We seek comment on whether any of our existing rules impede Open RAN investment and development. Commenters should identify existing regulatory barriers hindering the continued development and proliferation of Open RAN solutions. We ask commenters to identify regulations that are outdated or unnecessarily burdensome to the development and deployment of Open RAN technologies, and whether the Commission should update, forbear from applying, or eliminate any of our existing rules in order to best serve the public interest. We also seek comment on whether there are any market inefficiencies that could be addressed by changes to the Commission's rules.

Testbeds and Demonstration Projects. In 2013, the Commission adopted rules creating the opportunity for expanded experimentation through Program experimental licenses and Innovation Zones. Under a Program experimental license, qualified institutions may conduct testing for multiple non-related experiments under a single authorization within a defined geographic area under control of the licensee and where the licensee has institutional processes to manage and oversee experiments. The Innovation Zone takes this concept a step further by effectively providing an extension of a Program Experimental License's authorized area of operation. Such licensees are permitted to operate within an Innovation Zone, under the parameters set for that particular Zone, without having to modify their licenses to cover the new location. Innovation Zones can be created in response to a particular request or on the Commission's own motion. The Commission has established two Innovation Zones—in New York City and Salt Lake City—to test new advanced technologies and prototype networks outside a traditional small campus or laboratory setting, including those that can support 5G technologies. These Innovation Zones permit experimentation across a wide variety of spectrum bands encompassing both non-federal and federal or shared allocations at power levels commensurate with commercial service. Could these Innovation Zones, either the two already created or new zones, provide opportunities to test and verify the security and operational benefits associated with Open RAN technology? Could Innovation Zones also be used to test and adjust various Open RAN parameters to optimize its implementation? We seek comment on these issues. Are there adjustments that we might need to make to these Innovation Zones to better enable Open RAN technology testing? Should other testbeds be established for this purpose? Should the Commission encourage or require the interconnection of testbeds to better simulate the challenges of actual network deployments? Are there other features of Open RAN technology that should be explored through such testbeds or demonstration projects? For example, can such testbeds be used to evaluate system integration issues in mixed vendor environments both in terms of different Open RAN vendor equipment and a mix of Open RAN and more traditional network equipment operating in close proximity? Are there funding mechanisms in place for researchers to conduct the testing needed to advance Open RAN technology to a maturity level sufficient for widespread commercial deployment? How can the Commission incentivize stakeholder participation in testbeds and/or demonstration projects? What features of such programs would attract stakeholder participation by increasing potential gains and reducing potential risks of participation? What other steps can the Commission take or programs can it establish to encourage and enable development and testing of Open RAN technology?

Moreover, should the Commission have any role in promoting, developing, or testing of Open RAN equipment? Are there any actions that the Commission should take to facilitate the integration and testing of Open RAN technology? How can the Commission encourage the development of Open RAN security and reliability? Could this involve the adoption of performance standards or other rules for Open RAN equipment? Should the Commission support research and development of technologies useful for Open RAN development? If so, how? If the Commission were to support Open RAN research and development activities, what types of technologies would be most useful to facilitate Open RAN adoption? Should the Commission sponsor Open RAN plugfests, either on its own or in partnership with other organizations, to encourage the development of interoperable Open RAN equipment and demonstrate its capabilities? What other actions can the Commission take to demonstrate and test the functionality of Open RAN network equipment? Finally, what timeframes are realistic for the completion of any study or analysis conducted as part of Open RAN network equipment being deployed in a testbed environment?

USF/Rip and Replace. The Supply Chain Second R&O created the Reimbursement Program, which will “reimburse the costs reasonably incurred by providers of advanced communications services . . . to permanently remove, replace, and dispose of covered communications equipment and services from their networks.” In adopting the Reimbursement Program, the Commission recognized that “a certain level of technological upgrade is inevitable . . .” when replacing older technology. Thus, the Commission's Reimbursement Program permits “participants to obtain reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred for replacing older mobile wireless networks with fourth generation Long Term Evolution (4G LTE) equipment or services that are 5G ready.” While the Commission expected providers to “obtain the lowest-cost equipment that most closely replaces their existing equipment . . . , ” it recognized that “replacement of older legacy technology will inevitably require the use of newer equipment and services that have additional capabilities.” This position is consistent with both Congressional intent, which “expects there to be a transition from 3G to 4G or even 5G-ready equipment in instances where equipment being replaced was initially deployed several years ago,” and with market developments which indicate “new equipment supporting older, second- and third[-]generation wireless technology services is unavailable, and even acquiring such equipment and services on the secondary market is proving increasingly difficult and in some instances impossible.” Thus, providers may have an opportunity to replace the non-secure equipment and services, consistent with the Supply Chain Second R&O, with Open RAN equipment and services that could work in a multi-vendor network and architecture. Given the potential advantages of Open RAN technology and virtualized components in a multi-vendor network solution, we seek comment on whether we should take additional steps to support this deployment.

Section 4(d)(1) of the Secure Networks Act directs the Commission to create a list of suggested replacements (Replacement List) for the equipment and services being removed, replaced, and destroyed. The Replacement List must include “both physical and virtual communications equipment, applications and management software, and services or categories of replacements of both physical and virtual communications equipment, application and management software and services.” Importantly, this list must be “technology neutral.” In the Secure Networks Act, Congress explicitly supported the potential inclusion of services such as Open RAN and virtualized network equipment on the Replacement List “to the extent that the Commission determines that communications services can serve as an adequate substitute for the installation of communications equipment.” The Commission made such a finding in the Supply Chain Second R&O. Thus, Open RAN and other services are eligible to be included on the Replacement List and the Commission encouraged “providers participating in the Reimbursement Program to consider this promising technology” along with other technologies as they make their procurement decisions.

While the Replacement List is only a “suggested” list for the types of equipment and services providers may use to secure their networks, we believe including Open RAN and other virtualized equipment and services could help promote Open RAN development and deployment. Are there additional actions the Commission could take to encourage deployment and development of Open RAN through the Replacement List? If so, what precise actions should the Commission take? What would be the likely outcome? How can the Commission support and encourage the deployment and development of Open RAN through the Replacement List while also complying with the obligation in the Secure Networks Act that the Replacement List be technology neutral? Specifically, we seek comment on whether it is possible to comply with the requirement that the Replacement List be technologically neutral, while also supporting the growth and development of new technologies. In the event the Commission took additional steps to encourage the deployment and development of Open RAN through the Replacement List, what are the potential impacts to the Reimbursement Program? How would these steps impact the deployment and development of Open RAN?

The Supply Chain Second R&O allowed providers of advanced communications service to begin removing non-secure equipment now while being reimbursed once the Reimbursement Program is ready to accept applications. We seek comment on whether providers of advanced communications services, especially small providers, are adopting Open RAN or virtualized solutions as they replace covered equipment in their networks. We also seek comment on whether providers that have not begun the remove and replace process are considering or deploying equipment that could support or be upgraded to support Open RAN or virtualized equipment in the future? We seek comment on what steps the Commission could take to encourage providers to deploy Open RAN technology. If providers are not considering Open RAN, or are hesitant to deploy Open RAN and virtualized technology, we seek comment on why and on what steps the Commission could and should take to encourage providers of advanced communications service, especially small providers, to consider or select Open RAN as part of the technological offerings available for replacement going forward. The Secure Networks Act imposes short deadlines to make certain the remove and replace process is completed expeditiously. However, the Secure Networks Act also allows for an individual extension of a provider's deadline in limited circumstances. Could the Commission grant an extension for providers seeking to deploy Open RAN or virtualized network equipment and services? Would such an extension incentivize providers to deploy Open RAN? We seek comment on whether granting extensions in this manner would be consistent with the Secure Networks Act. We also seek comment on whether the Reimbursement Program affords us any other opportunities to encourage the deployment or development of Open RAN technology beyond the Replacement List. The Secure Networks Act does not expressly prohibit the Commission from encouraging providers who choose to replace the covered equipment and services in their networks with any particular type of replacement equipment. The technological neutrality obligation is expressly limited to the items included in the Replacement List. Can the Commission offer any additional incentives to Reimbursement Program participants who choose to replace their covered equipment or services with Open RAN technology? If so, what types of incentives would most benefit such providers? Is the Open RAN technology sufficiently developed where providers of advanced communications services can purchase this equipment or services on the open market? Does the cost to providers make this equipment or these services competitive with other types of equipment or services? We expect that providers may incur increased upfront costs for this equipment. Would any increased upfront purchase costs be offset by reduced costs elsewhere, such as reduced maintenance costs needed to support a virtualized network? Are there other costs that could be covered by the Reimbursement Program? Can the Reimbursement Program cover the expenses for system integrators to configure the network infrastructure for many carriers? What other expenses will providers deploying Open RAN encounter? We also seek comment on whether this technology simply would replace the non-secure equipment and services being removed from communications networks, or whether it would require different infrastructure that would further burden providers or the Reimbursement Program.

Finally, we seek comment on whether other Universal Service Fund support can be used to incentivize the development and deployment of Open RAN or virtualized systems. One of the Commission's central missions is to make “available . . . to all the people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” As the Commission has observed, with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress “directed the Commission and states to take steps necessary to establish support mechanisms to ensure delivery of affordable telecommunications services to all Americans, including low-income consumers, eligible schools and libraries, and rural health care providers.” Specifically, Congress set forth certain specific principles for universal service advancement. The Commission has followed these principles in establishing and occasionally reforming its Universal Service policies, including efforts to “ensure[ ] that all consumers . . . benefit from the historic transitions that are transforming our nation's communications services.” How would supporting Open RAN further the section 254(b) principles, upon which the Commission must base its universal service policies? For example, would Open RAN technologies increase the economic incentives for carriers to deploy 5G services in underserved communities, such as rural areas and low-income neighborhoods?

Operational/Service Rules. We note that the Commission has traditionally adopted a policy of technology neutrality and we seek comment on whether changes are necessary to ensure our rules remain technologically and competitively neutral as Open RAN technologies are integrated into wireless networks. Commenters should identify whether any of our existing rules unfairly advantage or disadvantage one RAN technology over another. For example, do our rules favor or disadvantage either a single vendor or multi-vendor approach? We ask commenters to identify these rules and suggest changes that would address these concerns. What changes are necessary to ensure our rules remain technologically neutral?

A Commission licensee is responsible for ensuring that its network complies with the Communications Act and Commission rules. Would a licensee that chooses to incorporate Open RAN technology, which is comprised of multiple components supplied by multiple vendors, into its network face different challenges than a licensee that has multiple vendors for non-RAN components or different RAN vendors today? We seek comment on ways to ensure that licensees maintain responsibility for each element of their network in accordance with the Communications Act and Commission rules. Does Open RAN present unique challenges in this regard? For example, does Open RAN present any unique challenges in identifying transmission sources (and their operators) compared to traditional RAN? If so, how should we account for those challenges in the service rules for each band?

We also seek comment on how testing of Open RAN equipment for compliance with the Commission's technical rules could be accomplished as part of the equipment certification process. Are the Commission's existing equipment authorization rules that require manufacturers to test whether their products contribute to harmful interference sufficient in the context of Open RAN systems comprised of components from multiple vendors? If not, how should testing responsibilities be allocated between manufacturers and operators to ensure that specific combinations of equipment do not cause harmful interference to other spectrum users? Should the Commission or other Federal agencies have a role in evaluating, auditing, or ensuring that vendors purporting to offer Open RAN systems do actually provide an open and interoperable solution? Commenters should identify other challenges that entities deploying Open RAN technologies may face in complying with existing operational and service rules.

Commission Outreach and Information Gathering. As discussed, the Commission has previously promoted industry and public involvement in Open RAN discussions. The Commission's Technological Advisory Committee provides technical advice to the Commission, and one of its four working groups recently studied virtualized radio access networks as well as 5G technology and the Internet of Things applications. We seek comment on the recommendations of this working group. We seek further comment on how best to harness the work of the TAC or other groups that the Commission could potentially establish, in order to engage government, industry, and academia stakeholders in developing and deploying Open RAN solutions.

As discussed above, CSRIC has previously examined security issues in 5G networks. To what extent should potential future iterations of CSRIC be used to promote Open RAN technology without endorsing a particular technology or company? What other roles might CSRIC serve to foster Open RAN development and security?

Relationship to Other Federal Agencies. The National Science Foundation has funded fundamental research on open architectures for many years. Its most recent program, Platforms for Advanced Wireless Research (PAWR), is a public-private partnership that seeks to develop experimental testbeds for innovative research into the next generation of wireless systems. One such testbed is the Platform for Open Wireless Data-driven Experimental Research (POWDER), a facility for Open RAN experimentation, by both academia and industry, in a city-scale “living laboratory” run by the University of Utah in partnership with Salt Lake City and the Utah Education and Telehealth Network. POWDER will deploy and test both off-the-shelf equipment and radio hardware and software being developed by RENEW (Reconfigurable Eco-system for Next Generation End-to-end Wireless), a partnership of Rice University, University of Michigan, and Texas Southern University focused on developing a fully programmable and observable wireless radio network. Likewise, the Cloud Enhanced Open Software-Defined Mobile Wireless Testbed in New York City provides city-scale wireless experimentation for ultra-high bandwidth and low latency technologies and applications.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) recently started the Open, Programmable, Secure 5G (OPS-5G) program to address security challenges that will confront future wireless networks. OPS-5G aims to reduce reliance on potentially untrusted providers of technology by developing a secure-by-design stack for mobile, wireless networks using open-source software and interoperable, standard-compliant hardware and software components. NTIA recently announced a 5G Challenge Notice of Inquiry in collaboration with the Department of Defense (DoD) 5G initiative, seeking feedback on the creation of a 5G Challenge that will spur stakeholders into accelerating deployment of Open RAN architectures in the recently announced DoD 5G testbeds. The Notice of Inquiry is structured around three main categories of questions: (i) Challenge structure and goals, (ii) incentives and scope, and (iii) timeframe and infrastructure support.

The DoD has awarded $600M in the first phase of funding (called Tranche 1) to 15 prime contractors to evaluate 5G technologies in five military installations across the United States. Each will investigate a specific application such as AR/VR based training, “smart warehousing” capability, and spectrum sharing between radar and cellular services. In addition, seven sites have been chosen for Tranche 2. The solicitation period for white papers for four of the sites in Tranche 2 closed on December 15, 2020, and the process of evaluating these has begun. Request for Proposals for all seven sites in Tranche 2 are expected in early 2021.

Is there a role for the FCC in helping to advance the objectives of these various federal efforts to promote and streamline Open RAN development and deployment? How can the Commission ensure that it is not duplicating efforts of other federal agencies or contribute to these ongoing initiatives? Should the FCC help to facilitate industry engagement in these processes to ensure that the interests of non-federal operators and equipment manufacturers are adequately represented?

Role in International Open RAN Efforts. The Commission's regulatory counterparts around the world are exploring Open RAN within the context of their respective domestic regulatory policy. The United Kingdom, for example, is creating a SmartRAN Open Network Interoperability Centre as a part of its national 5G Diversification Strategy. The center is a joint program between the UK regulator Ofcom and UK innovation agency Digital Catapult, and it will serve as a testbed for Open RAN solutions. Likewise, in Japan, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has outlined plans to pursue international collaboration in order to promote the implementation and standardization of open architecture and network virtualization. Germany has begun to consider providing funding for Open RAN research and development, as the United States has done.

International fora have also increasingly begun to engage in dialogue on Open RAN. For instance, in February 2021, the United States co-sponsored a workshop on open architectures and network virtualization within the Telecommunications & Information Working Group of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC). The European Commission has also launched a study into the status of 5G supply markets and Open RAN and has held workshops with stakeholders to gather information.

These initiatives lead us to ask broadly whether the experiences of other telecommunications regulators provide any best practices or lessons learned that the Commission should consider, especially keeping in mind the international nature of current and planned Open RAN deployments. Are there lessons we should learn from our counterparts abroad about how an independent regulator can best support national research and development efforts? With which specific organizations or events should the Commission consider participating in order to have productive international discussions on Open RAN? As one of many U.S. agencies working alongside the Department of State to engage with organizations like APEC and the OECD, what specific role can the Commission play to ensure any OECD principles or best practices identified by those organizations serve the public interest? Is there information that we should be gathering from, or sharing with, international stakeholders on Open RAN, and, if so, what is the most appropriate avenue by which we should gather or share this information? Finally, are there any steps the Commission can or should take to support industry-led efforts internationally and help avoid fragmentation or duplication? How can the Commission encourage U.S. stakeholders to participate in these fora?

Role in Advancing Open-Architecture Network Solutions Generally. While this Notice of Inquiry primarily examines the potential of open and virtualized radio access networks in promoting U.S. network security and 5G leadership, we also seek comment on whether there is a similar need for or interest in advancing open-architecture network solutions generally ( e.g., open and disaggregated optical and packet transport and open cloud-native core). How do RAN and non-RAN elements of the network differ in terms of their need for or feasibility of disaggregated, interoperable solutions? Are the issues and/or market conditions that prompted development of Open RAN solutions similarly prevalent in the market for other, non-RAN elements of the system? What efforts, if any, have been made to develop and deploy open-architecture network solutions for other elements of the system? What are the costs, benefits, and challenges of open-architecture network solutions generally ( i.e., for non-RAN elements of the system). For example, open and disaggregated Transport requires more nodes for the orchestration layers to manage. Accordingly, we seek comment on challenges associated with open and disaggregated Transport specifically and other elements more generally. What, if any, actions can or should be taken by the Commission to advance open network solutions for non-RAN elements of the network?

Legal Issues. The Commission has broad authority under Title III of the Act to manage the use of radio spectrum, to prescribe the nature of wireless services to be rendered, and to modify existing licenses when doing so would promote the public interest. We seek comment on what additional legal obligations may incentivize and support the development and deployment of more secure Open RAN. For example, in adopting the Commission's prohibition on the use of USF funds to purchase, operate, or maintain covered communications equipment and services, the Commission found that the rule implicated section 105 of CALEA. Section 105 requires every telecommunications provider to “ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization and with the affirmative intervention of an individual officer of employee of the carrier.” The Commission found that, therefore, telecommunications carriers “appear to have a duty” to avoid the risk that an untrusted supplier could illegally intercept or provide remote unauthorized network access by the insertion of malicious hardware or software implants. We seek comment on the impact of virtualized and interoperable network components on a carrier's ability to comply with this statutory obligation. Would disaggregation of the RAN functionality and an enhanced ability to use network elements from different vendors help network operators ensure that carriers can prevent access to their networks by untrusted entities?

In addition to the statutory obligation, the Commission is authorized to “prescribe such rules as are necessary to implement the requirements of” CALEA and to require carriers to establish policies to prevent unauthorized surveillance. When adopting section 54.9, the Commission found that that rule directly implements section 105 of CALEA by reducing the likelihood that ETCs use USF support to facilitate unauthorized surveillance. Can the Commission rely upon CALEA obligations and its associated rulemaking authority to encourage deployment of secure equipment, including Open RAN? We also seek comment on whether CALEA provides authority to support the development and deployment of Open RAN. For example, section 106 directs manufacturers to make available to carriers, “on a reasonable and timely basis and at a reasonable charge, . . . such features or modifications as are necessary to permit such carriers to comply with the capability requirements” of section 103; those capability requirements include the ability to facilitate authorized surveillance “in a manner that protects . . . the privacy and security of communications and call-identifying information not authorized to be intercepted” and “information regarding the government's interception of communications and access to call-identifying information.”

Congress has directed the Commission to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans . . . by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.” What sources of authority could the Commission consider invoking to encourage or incentivize development and deployment of Open RAN and virtualized networks? In the Supply Chain Second Report and Order, the Commission relied upon sections 201(b) and 254, among other sections, for authority to require USF recipients to remove and replace covered equipment. Do those sections provide the Commission with authority to encourage and incentivize development and deployment of Open RAN and virtualized networks? If so, should the Commission rely upon these sections to do so? Commenters should explain in detail why or why not they believe we have authority to act, if the Commission chooses to do so.

We seek comment on the likely costs and benefits of Open RAN deployment for mobile network operators. The Office of Economics and Analytics plans to undertake an economic study that would evaluate the likely benefits and costs of Open RAN deployment. In particular, we ask that commenters provide information and data that quantify both the potential costs and benefits of Open RAN deployment, and we seek comment on the issues that should be studied and likely promising methodologies to carry out such studies. For example, to what extent will mobile network operators benefit from open interfaces and standards? How would the Commission's actions impact the development of Open RAN and related technologies in comparison to what industry participants currently expect? Specifically, are there any obstacles preventing the industry from optimally investing in the Open RAN technologies that could be eliminated by Commission actions? Are there any spillover social benefits arising from the Open RAN deployment not internalized by the wireless network industry in its investment decisions? For example, does one firm's investment in the Open RAN system result in any spillover benefits to other Open RAN component vendors network operators, consumers, or public safety without such benefiting entities paying for the cost of development either directly or indirectly? We ask commenters to quantify the potential spillover social benefits that may be lost if the Open RAN development and deployment decisions are made by the wireless network firms, without Commission action.

We seek comment on the relative and absolute costs of Open RAN deployment and interoperability. How do the costs of Open RAN equipment compare with the costs of equipment from proprietary equipment manufacturers? How do the operating expenses of an Open RAN network compare to those of a proprietary network? Are there any costs to using multiple equipment vendors in constructing networks, such as the costs of network design and integration? If so, we ask commenters to provide information on the magnitude of these costs, and the underlying methodology for quantifying these costs. We also seek information on how interoperability between the various equipment vendors can be ensured. In particular, does it require specific integration platforms or institutions to monitor and coordinate the development and maintenance of standards and integration of the Open RAN technologies? If such institutions exist, are there Commission rules that would affect their operations? If such institutions do not exist, what are the associated costs to set up and maintain such platforms and institutions? Further, we seek information on Open RAN performance compared to existing networks or potential alternative technologies, and how the cost of deployment and relative benefits of performance differ. Do such differences depend on market characteristics such as whether areas are sparsely or densely populated or whether expanding geographic coverage or expanding capacity in a fixed geography is the more important consideration? To the extent that performance differs, we ask commenters to quantify the effect of those performance differences on consumers.

In addition, we seek comment on the likely costs and benefits of Open RAN for the broader economy. Could adopting Open RAN reduce the probability of security breaches compared with existing and alternative technologies? What are the economic costs of these breaches, including costs associated with breach prevention, that may vary across Open RAN and other technologies? How much additional consumer value and utilization of services would there be once networks implement Open RAN? How much would consumers value reduction in security risk from Open RAN deployment? How much would consumers value improvement in speed, additional capacity, or improvements in use cases such as drone operation? We seek comment on the costs of addressing security concerns raised elsewhere in this document.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1282.

OMB Approval Date: March 16, 2021.

Expiration Date: March 31, 2024.

Title: Telemetry, Tracking and Command Earth Station Operators.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 4 respondents; 4 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 12 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and Third-party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The Commission has statutory authority for the information collection requirements under 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 201, 302, 303, 304, 307(e), 309, and 316.

Total Annual Burden: 48 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $2,200.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality pertaining to the information collection requirements in this collection.

Needs and Uses: On March 3, 2020, the Commission released a Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification titled, “In the Matter of Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz,” GN Docket Number 18-122 (FCC 20-22). This rulemaking, which is under the purview of the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, is hereinafter referred to as the 3.7 GHz Report and Order.

The Commission believes that C-band spectrum for terrestrial wireless uses will play a significant role in bringing next-generation services like 5G to the American public and assuring American leadership in the 5G ecosystem. The agency took action to make this valuable spectrum resource available for new terrestrial wireless uses as quickly as possible, while also preserving the continued operation of existing Fixed Satellite Services (FSS) available during and after the transition.

In the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission concluded that a public auction of the lower 280 megahertz of the C-band will best carry out our goals, and the agency will add a mobile allocation to the 3.7-4.0 GHz band so that next-generation services such as 5G can use the band. Relying on the Emerging Technologies framework, the Commission adopted a process to relocate FSS operations into the upper 200 megahertz of the band, while fully reimbursing existing operators for the costs of this relocation and offering accelerated relocation payments to encourage a speedy transition. The Commission also adopted service and technical rules for overlay licensees in the 280 megahertz of spectrum designated for transition to flexible use.

Among other information collection requirements in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission has adopted several requirements, described in the text, related to the protection of TT&C earth stations and coordination with 3.7 GHz Service licensees. In a section of the 3.7 GHz Report and Order titled “Adjacent Channel Protection Criteria” the Commission sets out the following requirements:

Pursuant to paragraph 388 of the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission requires that the TT&C operators make available certain pertinent technical information about their systems upon request by licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service to ensure the protection of TT&C operations. In addition, paragraph 389 of the 3.7 GHz Report and Order includes the requirement that, in the event of a claim by a TT&C earth station operating in 4.0-4.2 GHz of harmful interference by a 3.7 GHZ operator, the earth station operator must demonstrate that that have installed a filter that complies with the mask requirement prescribed by the Commission. This requirement will facilitate an efficient and safe transition by requiring earth station operators to demonstrate their compliance with the mask requirements, thereby minimizing the risk of interference.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Legacy High-Cost Support Recipient Initial Report of Current Service Offerings.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New information collection.

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: Up to 110 respondents and 110 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 16 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 254 and 303(r).

Total Annual Burden: 1,760 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Most of the information collected under this collection will be made publicly available. However, in recognition of the fact that a carrier may consider the infrastructure information required to be submitted as part of its initial report to be sensitive, such infrastructure information will be treated as presumptively confidential by the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and withheld from public inspection, although USAC will provide these data to the Commission and the relevant state, territory, and Tribal governmental entities that have jurisdiction over a particular service area, as applicable. To the extent that a respondent seeks to have other information collected in response to this information collection withheld from public inspection, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: A request for approval of this new information collection will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after this 60-day comment period in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from OMB.

On November 18, 2011, the Commission released the USF/ICC Transformation Order (FCC 11-161) in which it comprehensively reformed and modernized the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems to ensure that robust, affordable voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, are available to Americans throughout the nation. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission, among other things, adopted a requirement that all eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) offer broadband service in their supported area that meets certain basic performance requirements and report regularly on associated performance measures as a condition of receiving federal high-cost universal service support.

On October 27, 2020, the Commission adopted the 5G Fund Report and Order (FCC 20-150) in which it, among other things, helped to complete the reform of the high-cost program begun in the USF/ICC Transformation Order by adopting additional public interest obligations and performance requirements for legacy high-cost support recipients, whose broadband-specific public interest obligations for mobile wireless services were not previously detailed. The public interest obligations adopted in the 5G Fund Report and Order for each competitive ETC receiving legacy high-cost support for mobile wireless services require that such competitive ETC (1) use an increasing percentage of its legacy support toward the deployment, maintenance, and operation of voice and broadband networks that support 5G meeting the adopted performance requirements within its subsidized service area(s), and (2) meet specific 5G broadband service deployment coverage requirements and service deployment milestone deadlines that take into consideration the amount of legacy support the carrier receives.

In order to gain a complete understanding of the current service offerings of each competitive ETC receiving legacy high-cost support for mobile wireless services, the Commission adopted rules that require each such competitive ETC to file an initial report containing information and certifications about (1) its current mobile service offerings in each of its subsidized service areas and how it is using legacy support, (2) whether it is offering mobile services in its subsidized service areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas, and (3) whether it has availed itself of the geographic flexibility granted by the Commission concerning its use of support within any other designated service area(s) for which it or an affiliated competitive ETC receives legacy support. See 47 CFR 54.313(p), 54.322(g), (h). The information and certifications provided in these initial reports will be used by the Commission to ensure that competitive ETCs receiving legacy high-cost support for mobile wireless services deploy 5G service by in their subsidized service areas consistent with the rules adopted by the Commission in the 5G Fund Report and Order.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above.

Report title: Quarterly Report of Interest Rates on Selected Direct Consumer Installment Loans and Quarterly Report of Credit Card Plans.

Agency form number: FR 2835; FR 2835a.

OMB control number: 7100-0085.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Respondents: Commercial banks.

Estimated number of respondents: FR 2835: 150; FR 2835a: 50.

Estimated average hours per response: FR 2835: .29; FR 2835a: .50.

Estimated annual burden hours: FR 2835: 176; FR 2835a: 100.

General description of report: The FR 2835 collects information from a sample of commercial banks on interest rates charged on loans for new vehicles and loans for other consumer goods and personal expenses. The FR 2835a collects information on two measures of credit card interest rates from a sample of commercial banks with $1 billion or more in credit card receivables and a representative group of smaller issuers. The data from these reports help the Board analyze current household financial conditions and the implications of these conditions for household spending and, as such, these data provide valuable input to the monetary policymaking process.

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The FR 2835 and the FR 2835a are authorized by sections 2A and 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”). Section 2A of the FRA requires that the Board and the Federal Open Market Committee maintain long-run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. 1 Section 11 of the FRA authorizes the Board to require reports from each member bank as it may deem necessary and authorizes the Board to prescribe reports of liabilities and assets from insured depository institutions to enable the Board to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control monetary and credit aggregates. 2 The obligation to respond to both the FR 2835 and FR 2835a is voluntary.

Most of the information collected through the FR 2835 is not considered confidential; however, to the extent narrative information submitted to explain large fluctuations in reported data contains nonpublic commercial or financial information, which is both customarily and actually treated as private by the respondent, such information may be kept confidential pursuant to exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 3 Individual respondent data collected through the FR 2835a may be considered confidential pursuant to FOIA exemption 4 to the extent the response contains nonpublic commercial or financial information, which is both customarily and actually treated as private by the respondent. 4

Current actions: On January 19, 2020, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (85 FR 73707) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 2835 and FR 2835a. The comment period for this notice expired on January 19, 2021. The Board received one comment on the proposal from the Bureau of Economic Affairs (BEA). BEA strongly supports the continued collection of the information in the FR 2835 and FR 2835a.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above.

Report title: Board Public website Usability Surveys.

Agency form number: FR 3076.

OMB control number: 7100-0366.

Frequency: As needed.

Respondents: Individual users and potential users of the Board's public website.

Estimated number of respondents: Surveys: 100; focus groups: 20.

Estimated average hours per response: Surveys: 0.25; focus groups: 1.5.

Estimated annual burden hours: Surveys: 300; focus groups: 120.

General description of report: The FR 3076 is used to gather qualitative and quantitative information directly from users or potential users of the Board's website such as the Congress, other government agencies, the public, economic educators, economists, financial institutions, financial literacy groups, and community development groups and more. Participation is voluntary.

The FR 3076 may seek information from users or potential users of various Board web pages, including press releases, data releases and downloads, reports, supervision manuals, brochures, new web pages, audio, video, and use of social media. Information gathered may also include general input on users' interests and needs, feedback on website navigation and layout, distribution channels, or other factors which may affect the ability of users to locate and access content online.

Qualitative collections conducted using the FR 3076 include data gathering methods such as focus groups and individual interviews. Quantitative surveys conducted using the FR 3076 include surveys conducted online or via mobile device, telephone, mail, emails, or a combination of these methods. The Board may contract with an outside vendor to conduct focus groups, interviews, or surveys, or the Board may collect the data directly.

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The Board uses its website and social media to communicate important information to the public about a variety of different issues. The Board is required to provide certain information on its website. For example, under section 2B of the Federal Reserve Act the Board is required to provide certain reports, audits, and other information that “the Board reasonably believes is necessary or helpful to the public in understanding the accounting, financial reporting, and internal controls of the Board and the Federal reserve banks” (12 U.S.C. 225b(c)). In addition, the Board uses its website to provide the public with information about a variety of other matters, including information about the Board, its actions, and the economy. The responses to the FR 3076 help the Board determine how to most effectively communicate this information to the public in order to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.

The FR 3076 is voluntary and the information collected by the FR 3076 is not considered to be confidential.

Current actions: On September 17, 2020, the Board published an initial notice in the Federal Register (85 FR 58053) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 3076. The comment period for this notice expired on November 16, 2020. The Board did not receive any comments.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve .gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above.

Collection title: Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Rules Regarding Availability of Information.

Agency form number: FR 4035.

OMB control number: 7100-0381.

Frequency: As needed.

Respondents: The FR 4035 respondent panel comprises supervised financial institutions (12 CFR 261.21(b)(4)), state, local, and foreign agencies and entities exercising governmental authority (12 CFR 261.22(c)), and any person, entity, agency or authority (12 CFR 261.23(b), 261.23(c), 261.24(a)).

Estimated number of respondents:

Estimated average hours per response:

Estimated annual burden hours:

General description of collection: The information collection consists of reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements under subpart C (Nonpublic Information Made Available to Supervised Financial Institutions, Governmental Agencies, and Others in Certain Circumstances) of the Rules Regarding Availability of Information (12 CFR part 261). Subpart C contains reporting requirements that enable third parties to request the Board's authorization to access, use, or further disclose confidential supervisory information or other nonpublic information of the Board, and that ensure that the Board is notified when any subpoena or other legally enforceable demand requires production of confidential supervisory information or other nonpublic information of the Board in the form of documents or testimony. Subpart C also contains one recordkeeping requirement related to a provision that allows supervised financial institutions to disclose confidential supervisory information to service providers if the disclosure is deemed necessary to the service provider's provision of services, and two disclosure requirements that apply when individuals are served with a subpoena, order, or other judicial or administrative process requiring the production of confidential supervisory information or other nonpublic information of the Board in the form of documents or testimony.

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The FR 4035 is authorized pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 326), which provides that the Board “may furnish . . . confidential supervisory information . . . to any other person that the Board determines to be proper.” Persons seeking to obtain, use, or disclose confidential supervisory information or other nonpublic information of the Board must comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Rules Regarding Availability of Information. Additionally, persons served with a subpoena, order, or other judicial or administrative process requiring the production of confidential supervisory information or other nonpublic information of the Board or requiring the person's testimony regarding such information in any proceeding must comply with the disclosure requirements of FR 4035. Thus, the FR 4035 is required to obtain a benefit, in part, and mandatory, in part.

Any confidential supervisory information that is submitted in connection with the FR 4035 would be considered confidential pursuant to exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which protects information contained in “examination, operating, or condition reports” obtained in the bank supervisory process (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). Individual respondents may request that other information submitted to the Board through the FR 4035 be kept confidential. If a respondent requests confidential treatment, the Board will determine whether the information is entitled to confidential treatment on a case-by-case basis. To the extent a respondent submits privileged or confidential commercial or financial information in connection with the FR 4035, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 4 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

Current actions: On September 15, 2020, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (85 FR 57616) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension for three years, without revision, of the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Rules Regarding Availability of Information. The comment period for this notice expired on November 16, 2020. The Board did not receive any comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report title: Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report.

Agency form number: FR 2052a.

OMB control number: 7100-0361.

Frequency: Monthly, daily.

Respondents: Certain U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs), top-tier savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs), U.S. global systemically important BHCs, and foreign banking organizations (FBOs).

Estimated number of respondents: Monthly (ongoing): 26, monthly (one-time): 26; daily (ongoing): 15, daily (one-time): 15.

Estimated average hours per response: Monthly (ongoing): 121, monthly (one-time): 140; daily (ongoing): 221, daily (one-time): 238.

Estimated annual burden hours: Monthly (ongoing): 37,752; monthly (one-time): 3,640; daily (ongoing): 828,750; daily (one-time): 3,570.

General description of report: The FR 2052a collects quantitative information on select assets, liabilities, funding activities, and contingent liabilities of certain large banking organizations with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets supervised by the Board on a consolidated basis. The Board uses this information to monitor the liquidity profile of these banking organizations.

Proposed revisions: In April 2020, the Board issued an interim final rule that amended the Board's Regulation D (12 CFR part 204—Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions). The Regulation D amendment resulted in an expansion of Regulation D's definition of transaction accounts to permit the inclusion of accounts that were formerly subject to transfer limit requirements. For purposes of the FR 2052a, the Board proposes to expand the term “Transactional Accounts” to include the subset of transaction accounts as defined under Regulation D, where the depositor is not required by the deposit contract to give written notice of an intended withdrawal. Specifically, the Board proposes to update the definition for the product “O.D.1: Transactional Accounts,” consistent with the updated Regulation D.

In June 2016, the Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (collectively, the agencies) proposed the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) rule to implement a stable funding requirement for certain large banking organizations that were subject to the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) rule at that time. The proposed NSFR rule would have introduced a quantitative metric to measure a banking organization's funding stability over a one-year time horizon. The agencies issued two proposals subsequent to issuance of the proposed NSFR rule to revise the criteria for determining the scope of application of the NSFR requirement (tailoring proposals). The agencies issued an NSFR final rule on October 20, 2020, that is generally similar to the proposed NSFR rule, with certain adjustments. The proposed FR 2052a revisions, discussed in detail below, are consistent with the requirements of the NSFR final rule.

The Board proposes the following revisions to the reporting form and instructions of the FR 2052a to accurately reflect the NSFR final rule and to capture other data elements necessary to monitor banking organizations' liquidity positions and compliance with Liquidity Risk Measurement (LRM) Standards. Specifically, the Board proposes to add:

1. The definition of Liquidity Risk Measurement Standards and other clarifications under “General Instructions.”

2. Clarifications and regulation references under “Field Definitions.”

3. The following Counterparty types under “Field Definitions”: Pension Fund; Broker-Dealer; Investment Company or Advisor; Financial Market Utility; Other Supervised Non-Bank Financial Entity; and Non-Regulated Fund; and to remove Supervised Non-Bank Financial Entity and Other Financial Entity.

4. The following fields under “Field Definitions”: Business Line; Risk Weight; Collection Reference; Product Reference; Sub-product Reference; Netting Eligible; Encumbrance Type; Collateral Level; Accounting Designation; Loss Absorbency; G-SIB; and Maturity Optionality.

5. A sentence to the description of “flags” under the field “Settlement”: “FICC: secured financing transactions that are cleared and novated to the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC).”

6. The following language to the “Triparty” flag under the field “Settlement”: “excluding transactions that originate on the tri-party platform, but are novated to FICC ( e.g., the General Collateral Finance repo service).”

7. The following language to the “Bilateral” flag under the field “Settlement”: “(excludes transactions that are initiated bilaterally, but subsequently cleared ( e.g., FICC delivery-vs-payment transactions).”

8. Clarifications to the general guidance, names, and definitions of products under “I.A: Inflows-Assets”; “I.U: Inflows-Unsecured”; “I.S: Inflows-Secured”; “I.O: Inflows-Other”; “O.W: Outflows-Wholesale”; “O.S: Outflows-Secured”; “O.D: Outflows-Deposits”; “O.O: Outflows-Other”; and “S.FX: Supplemental-Foreign Exchange”.

9. The product I.A.7: Encumbered Assets, which refers to encumbered assets of which the reporting entity is the beneficial owner ( i.e., the assets are represented on the accounting balance sheet), that are not otherwise captured under other FR 2052a balance sheet products in the I.A, I.U, or I.S tables.

10. I.U.7: Cash Items in the Process of Collection, which refers to certain items that are customarily cleared or collected as cash items by depository institutions in the country where the covered company's office that is clearing or collecting the item is located.

11. I.U.8: Unposted Debits, which refers to cash items in a subsidiary depository institution's possession, drawn on itself, that are immediately chargeable, but that have not been charged to the general ledger deposit control account at the close of business on the report date.

12. I.U.9: Short-Term Investments, which refers to balances, including, but not limited to time deposits, that are held as short-term investments ( e.g., reported in schedule HC-B on the FR Y-9C) at external financial counterparties.

13. I.S.7: Outstanding Draws on Secured Revolving Facilities, which refers to the existing loan arising from the drawn portion of a revolving facility ( e.g., a general working capital facility) extended by the reporting entity, where the facility is secured by a lien on an asset or pool of assets.

14. I.S.8: Other Secured Loans (Non-Rehypothecatable), which refers to all other secured lending that does not otherwise meet the definitions of the other Inflows-Secured products, for which the collateral received is not contractually rehypothecable.

15. I.S.9: Synthetic Customer Longs, which refers to total return swaps booked in client accounts, where the reporting entity is economically short the underlying reference asset and the client is economically long.

16. I.S.10: Synthetic Firm Sourcing, which refers to total return swaps that are not booked in client accounts, where the reporting entity is economically short the underlying reference asset and the counterparty is economically long.

17. O.S.9: Synthetic Customer Shorts, which refers to total return swaps booked in client accounts, where the reporting entity is economically long the underlying reference asset and the client is economically short.

18. O.S.10: Synthetic Firm Financing, which refers to total return swaps that are not booked in client accounts, where the reporting entity is economically long the underlying reference asset and the counterparty is economically short.

19. O.S.11: Other Secured Financing Transactions, this data field previously was O.S.9, it has been renumbered to be O.S.11. No other aspects of the data field has changed.

20. O.D.5: Excess Balances in Operational Accounts, which refers to deposits from counterparties that are not Retail or Small Business customers that are excluded from the reporting entity's operational deposit amount based on the reporting entity's methodology for identifying excess balances pursuant to 12 CFR 249.4(b)(5).

21. O.D.9: Stable Affiliated Sweep Account Balances, which refers to stable deposit balances held at the reporting entity by a customer or counterparty through a contractual feature that automatically transfers to the reporting entity from an affiliated financial company at the close of each business day the amounts identified under the agreement governing the account from which the amount is being transferred.

22. O.D.10: Less Stable Affiliated Sweep Account Balances, which refers to all other deposit balances, excluding those reported under O.D.9: Stable Affiliated Sweep Account Balances, that are held at the reporting entity by a customer or counterparty as a result of a contractual feature that automatically transfers to the reporting entity from an affiliated financial company at the close of each business day the amounts identified under the agreement governing the account from which the amount is being transferred.

23. S.DC: Supplemental-Derivatives and Collateral table and the associated elements below.

24. S.DC General Guidance, which defines the scope of products to be reported in the Supplemental-Derivatives and Collateral table.

25. S.DC.1: Gross Derivative Asset Values, which refers to the aggregate value of derivative transactions not subject to qualifying master netting agreements that are assets and the net value of derivative transactions within qualifying master netting agreements where the netting sets are assets.

26. S.DC.2: Gross Derivative Liability Values, which refers to the aggregate value of derivative transactions not subject to qualifying master netting agreements that are liabilities and the net value of derivative transactions within qualifying master netting agreements where the netting sets are liabilities.

27. S.DC.3: Derivative Settlement Payments Delivered, which refers to the cumulative value of payments delivered as variation margin on outstanding derivative contracts for the purpose of settling a change in the market value of the contract ( e.g., “settled-to-market” derivatives).

28. S.DC.4: Derivative Settlement Payments Received, which refers to the cumulative value of payments received as variation margin on outstanding derivative contracts for the purpose of settling a change in the market value of the contract ( e.g., “settled-to-market” derivatives).

29. S.DC.11: Derivative CCP Default Fund Contribution, which refers to the reporting entity's contributions to a central counterparty's mutualized loss-sharing arrangement, where the reporting entity's clearing activity with the central counterparty includes derivative transactions.

30. S.DC.12: Other CCP Pledges and Contributions, which refers to the reporting entity's asset pledges ( e.g., in the form of initial margin) and contributions to a central counterparty's mutualized loss sharing arrangement, where the reporting entity's clearing and/or settlement activity with the central counterparty does not include derivative transactions.

31. S.L: Supplemental LRM table and the associated elements below.

32. S.L.2: Subsidiary Liquidity Available for Transfer, which refers to the amount of excess eligible high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) that is held at a subsidiary of the consolidated reporting entity that is determined as transferrable as per sections 22(b)(3)(i)(B), 22(b)(3)(ii)(B) or 22(b)(4)(ii) of the LRM Standards.

33. S.L.6: Liquidity Coverage Ratio, which refers to the reporting entity's LCR calculation, as specified in section 10(c) of the LRM Standards. Only reporting entities that are subject to the LCR on a standalone basis per section 1 of the LRM Standards are required to report this product.

34. S.L.7: Subsidiary Funding That Cannot be Transferred, which refers to the amount of stable funding at a reporting entity's subsidiary that is in excess of the required stable funding amount of that subsidiary, pursuant to the LRM Standards, but cannot be transferred to the reporting entity due to statutory, regulatory, contractual or supervisory restrictions.

35. S.L.8: Subsidiary Funding Available for Transfer, which refers to the amount of stable funding at a reporting entity's subsidiary that is in excess of the required stable funding amount of that subsidiary, pursuant to the LRM Standards, that is determined as transferrable as per section 108(a)(2) of the LRM Standards.

36. S.L.9: Additional Funding Requirement for Off-Balance Sheet Rehypothecated Assets, which refers to a reporting entity's required stable funding amount under section 106(d)(3) of the LRM Standards.

37. S.L.10: Net Stable Funding Ratio, which refers to the reporting entity's NSFR calculation, as specified in section 100(b) of the LRM Standards. Only reporting entities that are subject to the NSFR on a standalone basis per section 1 of the LRM Standards are required to report this product.

38. S.B: Supplemental-Balance Sheet table and the associated elements below.

39. S.B: General Guidance, which explains that the products S.B.1 through S.B.6 represent data elements that are necessary, in tandem with other FR 2052a balance sheet products, to construct an accounting balance sheet.

40. S.B.1: Regulatory Capital Element, which refers to the carrying value of regulatory capital, as defined in section 3 of the LRM Standards, excluding capital instruments already reported in the O.W. table.

41. S.B.2: Other Liabilities, which refers to all other liabilities not otherwise captured under other FR 2052a balance sheet products, including intangible liabilities.

42. S.B.3: Non-Performing Assets, which refers to assets that are past due by more than 90 days or non-accrual.

43. S.B.4: Other Assets, which refers to all other assets not otherwise captured under other FR 2052a balance sheet products, including intangible, life insurance and deferred tax assets.

44. S.B.5: Counterparty Netting, which refers to the value of offsetting of payables and receivables with a single counterparty permissible under section 102 of the LRM Standards that are otherwise reported on a gross basis for the purpose of the FR 2052a.

45. S.B.6: Carrying Value Adjustment, which refers to all other adjustments to the value of FR 2052a balance sheet products necessary to arrive at the carrying value consistent with section 102 of the LRM Standards.

46. The following language to the description of “S.I.3: Gross Client Wires Received,”: “Include transfers of both cash and securities. Use the [Collateral Class] field to differentiate between asset categories.”

47. The following language to the description of “S.I.4: Gross Client Wires Paid,”: “Include transfers of both cash and securities. Use the [Collateral Class] field to differentiate between asset categories.”

48. S.I.6: Subsidiary Liquidity Not Transferrable, which refers to, for U.S. firms that are identified as Category IV banking organizations and foreign banking organizations that are identified as Category IV foreign banking organizations, a report of the amount of highly liquid assets of each reporting entity's consolidated subsidiaries that are in excess of the subsidiary's modeled net outflows over a 30-day planning horizon and would not be freely transferrable to the parent company due to statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supervisory restrictions (including sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W).

Additionally, the Board proposes to reclassify the following items from the Supplemental Information table to the new Supplemental-Derivatives and Collateral and Liquidity Risk Measurement (LRM) tables and include clarifications:

1. S.DC.5: Initial Margin Posted—House, which refers to the fair value of collateral that the reporting entity has posted (total stock by applicable [Collateral Class]) to its counterparties as initial margin on its own proprietary derivatives positions.

2. S.DC.6: Initial Margin Posted—Customer, which refers to the fair value of collateral that the reporting entity has posted (total stock by applicable [Collateral Class]) to its counterparties as initial margin on behalf of customers.

3. S.DC.7: Initial Margin Received, which refers to the fair value of collateral that the reporting entity has received (total stock by applicable [Collateral Class]) from its counterparties as initial margin against both house and customer positions.

4. S.DC.8: Variation Margin Posted—House, which refers to the fair value of collateral that the reporting entity has posted (total stock by applicable [Collateral Class]) to its counterparties as variation margin on its own proprietary derivatives positions.

5. S.DC.9: Variation Margin Posted—Customer, which refers to the fair value of collateral that the reporting entity has posted (total stock by applicable [Collateral Class]) to its counterparties as variation margin on behalf of customers.

6. S.DC.10: Variation Margin Received, which refers to the fair value of collateral that the reporting entity has received (total stock by applicable [Collateral Class]) from its counterparties as variation margin against both house and customer positions.

7. S.DC.13: Collateral Disputes Deliverables, which refers to the fair value of collateral called by the reporting entity's counterparties that the reporting entity has yet to deliver due to a dispute. Disputes include, but are not limited to, valuation of derivative contracts.

8. S.DC.14: Collateral Disputes Receivables, which refers to the fair value of collateral that the reporting entity has called from its counterparties, but has not yet received due to a dispute. Disputes include, but are not limited to, valuation of derivative contracts.

9. S.DC.15: Sleeper Collateral Deliverables, which refers to the fair value of unsegregated collateral that the reporting entity may be required by contract to return to a counterparty because the collateral currently held by the reporting entity exceeds the counterparty's current collateral requirements under the governing contract.

10. S.DC.16: Required Collateral Deliverables, which refers to the fair value of collateral that the reporting entity is contractually obligated to post to a counterparty, but has not yet posted as it has not yet been called by the reporting entity's counterparty.

11. S.DC.17: Sleeper Collateral Receivables, which refers to the fair value of collateral that the reporting entity could call for or otherwise reclaim under legal documentation, but has not yet been called.

12. S.DC.18: Derivative Collateral Substitution Risk, which refers to the potential funding risk arising from the reporting entity's derivative counterparties having the contractual ability to substitute collateral with higher liquidity value currently held by the reporting entity with collateral of lower liquidity value or collateral that the reporting entity cannot monetize either due to liquidity or operational constraints.

13. S.DC.19: Derivative Collateral Substitution Capacity, which refers to the potential funding capacity arising from the reporting entity's contractual ability to substitute collateral with higher liquidity value currently posted to a derivatives counterparty with collateral of lower liquidity value.

14. S.DC.20: Other Collateral Substitution Risk, which refers to the potential funding risk arising from the reporting entity's counterparties of non-derivative transactions having the contractual ability to substitute collateral with higher liquidity value currently held by the reporting entity with collateral of lower liquidity value or collateral that the reporting entity cannot monetize either due to liquidity or operational constraints.

15. S.DC.21: Other Collateral Substitution Capacity, which refers to the potential funding capacity arising from the reporting entity's contractual ability to substitute collateral with higher liquidity value currently posted to a counterparty of a non-derivative transaction with collateral of lower liquidity value.

16. S.L.1: Subsidiary Liquidity That Cannot be Transferred, which refers to the amount of assets of each reporting entity's consolidated subsidiaries that is in excess of the net outflows, calculated pursuant to the LRM Standards, of that consolidated subsidiary that is not freely transferrable to affiliates due to statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supervisory restrictions (including sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W).

17. S.L.3: Unencumbered Asset Hedges—Early Termination Outflows, which refers to all cash outflows that would arise from the early termination of a hedge associated with eligible HQLA, as defined in the LRM Standards, reported in the Inflows-Assets table.

18. S.L.4: Non-Structured Debt Maturing in Greater than 30-days—Primary Market Maker, which refers to the debt security buyback outflow amount set forth in the LRM Standards for the reporting entity's non-structured debt issuances.

19. S.L.5: Structured Debt Maturing in Greater than 30-days—Primary Market Maker, which refers to the debt security buyback outflow amount set forth in the LRM Standards for the reporting entity's structured debt issuances.

Lastly, the Board proposes to remove the following sentence from the instructions due to the addition of a data element for the NSFR final rule:

1. In the “General Guidance” paragraphs under the I.U: Inflows-Unsecured and I.S: Inflows-Secured headings: “Exclude assets that secure Covered Federal Reserve Facility Funding.”

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The information collection under the FR 2052a is authorized by section 5 of the Bank Holding Company Act, 1 section 8 of the International Banking Act, 2 section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act, 3 and section 165 of the Dodd Frank Act. 4 Section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act authorizes the Board to require bank holding companies to submit reports to the Board regarding their financial condition. Section 8(a) of the International Banking Act subjects foreign banking organizations to the provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act. Section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act authorizes the Board to require reports and examine savings and loan holding companies. Section 165 of the Dodd Frank Act requires the Board to establish prudential standards for certain bank holding companies and foreign banking organizations; these standards include liquidity requirements.

The FR 2052a is mandatory. The information collected on the FR 2052a is collected as part of the Board's supervisory process. Therefore, such information is entitled to confidential treatment under exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 5 Additionally, to the extent a respondent submits nonpublic commercial or financial information, which is both customarily and actually treated as private by the respondent, in connection with the 2052a, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 4 of the FOIA. 6

Consultation outside the agency: The Board consulted with the OCC and FDIC in development of the NSFR final rule, which included corresponding revisions to the FR 2052a.

On October 31, 1988, the Congress enacted the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) (Pub. L. 100-578). CLIA amended section 353 of the Public Health Service Act. We issued a final rule implementing the accreditation provisions of CLIA on July 31, 1992 (57 FR 33992). Under those provisions, we may grant deeming authority to an accreditation organization if its requirements for laboratories accredited under its program are equal to or more stringent than the applicable CLIA program requirements in 42 CFR part 493 (Laboratory Requirements). Subpart E of part 493 (Accreditation by a Private, Nonprofit Accreditation Organization or Exemption Under an Approved State Laboratory Program) specifies the requirements an accreditation organization must meet to be approved by CMS as an accreditation organization under CLIA.

In this notice, we approve the College of American Pathologists (CAP) as an organization that may accredit laboratories for purposes of establishing their compliance with CLIA requirements in all specialties and subspecialties. We have examined the initial CAP application and all subsequent submissions to determine its accreditation program's equivalency with the requirements for approval of an accreditation organization under subpart E of part 493. We have determined that the CAP meets or exceeds the applicable CLIA requirements. We have also determined that the CAP will ensure that its accredited laboratories will meet or exceed the applicable requirements in subparts H, I, J, K, M, Q, and the applicable sections of R. Therefore, we grant the CAP approval as an accreditation organization under subpart E of part 493, for the period stated in the DATES section of this notice for all specialties and subspecialties under CLIA. As a result of this determination, any laboratory that is accredited by the CAP during the time period stated in the DATES section of this notice will be deemed to meet the CLIA requirements for the listed specialties and subspecialties, and therefore, will generally not be subject to routine inspections by a state survey agency to determine its compliance with CLIA requirements. The accredited laboratory, however, is subject to validation and complaint investigation surveys performed by CMS, or its agent(s).

The following describes the process used to determine that the CAP accreditation program meets the necessary requirements to be approved by CMS and that, as such, we may approve the CAP as an accreditation program with deeming authority under the CLIA program. The CAP formally applied to CMS for approval as an accreditation organization under CLIA for all specialties and subspecialties.

In reviewing these materials, we reached the following determinations for each applicable part of the CLIA regulations:

The CAP submitted its mechanism for monitoring compliance with all requirements equivalent to condition-level requirements, a list of all its current laboratories and the expiration date of their accreditation, and a detailed comparison of the individual accreditation requirements with the comparable condition-level requirements. We have determined that the CAP policies and procedures for oversight of laboratories performing all laboratory testing covered by CLIA are equivalent to those required by our CLIA regulations in the matters of inspection, monitoring proficiency testing (PT) performance, investigating complaints, and making PT information available. The CAP submitted documentation regarding its requirements for monitoring and inspecting laboratories and describing its own standards regarding accreditation organization data management, inspection processes, procedures for removal or withdrawal of accreditation, notification requirements, and accreditation organization resources. We have determined that the requirements of the accreditation program submitted for approval are equal to or more stringent than the requirements of the CLIA regulations.

We have determined that the CAP's requirements are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.801 through 493.865. Consistent with the CLIA requirements, all of the CAP's accredited laboratories are required to participate in an HHS-approved PT program for tests listed in subpart I. CLIA exempts waived testing from PT, whereas the CAP requires its accredited laboratories to participate in a PT program for test systems waived under CLIA.

The CAP requirements are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1100 through 493.1105. CAP is more stringent than CLIA in its specific requirements for the Laboratory Information System that include requirements for computer facility, hardware and software, system security, patient data, auto verification, data retrieval and preservation, interfaces, and telepathology.

We have determined that the quality control requirements of the CAP are more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1200 through 493.1299. The CAP lists extensive requirements for the methodologies of clinical biochemical genetics, molecular pathology and flow cytometry, which are presented in separate checklists. The CAP's control procedure requirements for molecular testing and histocompatibility are more specific and detailed than the CLIA requirements for control procedures. Laboratories accredited by the CAP, performing waived testing must follow the same requirements that apply to non-waived testing for procedure manuals, specimen handling, results reporting, instruments, and equipment. Under CLIA, the subpart K Quality System requirements do not apply to waived testing.

We have determined that the CAP requirements are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1403 through 493.1495 for laboratories that perform moderate and high complexity testing. For certain types of testing, such as molecular testing, the experience requirements for General Supervisor are more closely related to the specific testing technology than the CLIA requirements. The CAP requires training and annual competency assessment for staff who perform waived testing. CLIA regulations do not contain such requirements for persons performing waived testing.

We have determined that the CAP inspection requirements are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1771 through 493.1780. The CAP will continue to conduct biennial onsite inspections. During the onsite inspection, the CAP requires that the inspector meet with the hospital administrator or medical staff to obtain their feedback on the laboratory service. The CAP also requires a mid-cycle self-inspection of all accredited laboratories. CLIA regulations do not contain these requirements.

We have determined that the CAP meets the requirements of subpart R to the extent that it applies to accreditation organizations. The CAP's policy sets forth the actions the organization takes when laboratories it accredits do not comply with its requirements and standards for accreditation. When appropriate, the CAP will deny, suspend, or revoke accreditation in a laboratory accredited by the CAP and report that action to us within 30 days. The CAP also provides an appeals process for laboratories that have had accreditation denied, suspended, or revoked.

We have determined that the CAP's laboratory enforcement and appeal policies are equal to or more stringent than the requirements of part 493 subpart R as they apply to accreditation organizations.

The federal validation inspections of laboratories accredited by the CAP may be conducted on a representative sample basis or in response to substantial allegations of noncompliance (that is, complaint inspections). The outcome of those validation inspections, performed by CMS or our agents, or the state survey agencies, will be our principal means for verifying that the laboratories accredited by the CAP remain in compliance with CLIA requirements. This federal monitoring is an ongoing process.

Our regulations provide that we may rescind the approval of an accreditation organization, such as that of the CAP, for cause, before the end of the effective date of approval. If we determine that the CAP has failed to adopt, maintain and enforce requirements that are equal to, or more stringent than, the CLIA requirements, or that systemic problems exist in its monitoring, inspection or enforcement processes, we may impose a probationary period, not to exceed 1 year, in which the CAP would be allowed to address any identified issues. Should the CAP be unable to address the identified issues within that timeframe, we may, in accordance with the applicable regulations, revoke the CAP's deeming authority under CLIA.

Should circumstances result in our withdrawal of the CAP's approval, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining the basis for removing its approval.

This notice does not impose any information collection and record keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Consequently, it does not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the authority of the PRA. The requirements associated with the accreditation process for clinical laboratories under the CLIA program, and the implementing regulations in 42 CFR part 493, subpart E, are currently approved under OMB control number 0938-0686.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Elizabeth Richter, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Lynette Wilson, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from a hospice provided certain requirements are met. Section 1861(dd) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establish distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a hospice. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 418 specify the minimum conditions that a hospice must meet to participate in the Medicare program.

Generally, to enter into an agreement, a hospice must first be certified by a state survey agency (SA) as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 418 of our regulations. Thereafter, the hospice is subject to regular surveys by a SA to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. There is an alternative; however, to surveys by SAs.

Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)-approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare requirements are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met such requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

If an AO is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at §§ 488.4 and 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require AOs to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner, as determined by CMS.

The Joint Commission's (TJC's) current term of approval for their hospice accreditation program expires June 18, 2021.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of applications for CMS-approval of an accreditation program is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us 210 days after the date of receipt of a complete application, along with any documentation necessary to make our determination, to complete our survey and review activities. Within 60 days after receiving a complete application, we must publish a notice in the Federal Register that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the request, and provides no less than a 30-day public comment period. At the end of the 210-day period, we must publish notice in the Federal Register of our decision to approve or deny the application.

On November 9, 2020, we published a proposed notice in the Federal Register (85 FR 71343), announcing TJC's request for continued approval of its Medicare hospice accreditation program. In the November 9, 2020 proposed notice, we detailed our evaluation criteria. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and in our regulations at § 488.5, we conducted a review of TJC's Medicare hospice accreditation application in accordance with the criteria specified by our regulations, which include, but are not limited to the following:

• An onsite administrative review of TJC's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its hospice surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited hospices; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.

• The comparison of TJC's Medicare hospice accreditation program standards to our current Medicare hospice conditions of participation (CoPs).

• A documentation review of TJC's survey process to do the following:

++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and TJC's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.

++ Compare TJC's processes to those we require of SAs, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against TJC-accredited hospices.

++ Evaluate TJC's procedures for monitoring and follow up with its accredited hospices, which it has found to have deficiencies and are out of compliance with TJC's program requirements. (This pertains only to monitoring procedures when TJC identifies non-compliance. If noncompliance is identified by a SA through a validation survey, the SA monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c)).

++ Assess TJC's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed hospice and respond to the hospice's plan of correction in a timely manner.

++ Establish TJC's ability to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

++ Determine the adequacy of TJC's staff and other resources.

++ Confirm TJC's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.

++ Confirm TJC's policies with respect to surveys being unannounced.

++ Confirm TJC's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.

++ Obtain TJC's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.

In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the November 9, 2020 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether TJC's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CoPs for hospices. No comments were received in response to our proposed notice.

We compared TJC's hospice accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CoPs in part 418, and the survey and certification process requirements in parts 488 and 489. Our review and evaluation of TJC's hospice application, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, TJC has completed revising its standards and certification processes in order to—

• Meet the standard requirements in all the following regulations:

++ Section 418.52(b)(2), to include language in TJC's comparable standard to specify that if a patient has been adjudged incompetent under state law by a court of proper jurisdiction, as part of the conditions of participation (CoP) relating to patient's rights, the rights of the patient are exercised by the person appointed to act on their behalf.

++ Section 418.52(b)(3), to revise existing language related to the patient's rights CoP; TJC's documentation also refers to a surrogate-decision maker, which may have different implications than the term “legal representative” used in regulations.

++ Section 418.52(b)(4)(i) and (ii), to require that the hospice must immediately investigate all alleged violations involving anyone furnishing services on behalf of the hospice, and to include language related to mistreatment (verbal or mental) and misappropriation of patient property and the need to immediately take action to prevent further potential violations while the alleged violation is being verified.

++ Section 418.54, to include language related to all aspects of the required patient-specific comprehensive assessment, including emotional/psychosocial assessment in addition to the pain/symptom assessment; functional status; and general physical assessment, to be included in writing in the initial and comprehensive assessment, to more closely align with the regulatory language.

++ Section 418.56(e), to incorporate language requiring that hospices must develop and maintain a system of communication and integration, in accordance with the hospice's own policies and procedures that reflects its responsibility to direct and coordinate care.

++ Section 418.58(d), to include that hospices must have developed, implemented, and evaluate performance improvement projects.

++ Section 418.60, to include language requiring the hospice to maintain and document an effective infection control program that protects patients, families, visitors, and hospice personnel by preventing and controlling infections and communicable diseases.

++ Section 418.62(c), to add participation in hospice sponsored in-service training under the requirement applicable to licensed professionals.

++ Section 418.64(b)(1), to include comparable language that nursing services must ensure that the nursing needs of the patient are met as identified in the patient's initial assessment, comprehensive assessment, and updated assessments.

++ Sections 418.66(a) and 418.74, to clarify its discussion of the applicable requirements by including specific language related to hospices operating in non-urbanized areas, specifically in regard to physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, and dietary counseling waivers, and the process of submission of such waivers for CMS approval.

++ Section 418.76(c)(5), to include that hospices must maintain documentation demonstrating that hospice aide services are provided by competent individuals.

++ Section 418.76(h)(1), to remove language suggesting that “If nursing services are not provided, a physical or occupational therapist or speech-language pathologist can supervise the hospice aide” and to reflect the fact that “the supervising individual” must be a Registered Nurse, and is required to make an onsite visit to hospice patients.

++ Sections 418.78(b) and (e) and 418.100(b), to specify the requirements related to daily activities of volunteers.

++ Section 418.100(e) and (g)(3), to specify relevant requirements relating to professional management and training, including adding key terminology relating to financial management and qualified personnel to align with the requirements for organization and administration of services.

++ Section 418.106(d)(1), to include reference to the interdisciplinary group.

++ Section 418.110(f) and (g)(1), to include the term dignity as it relates to the atmosphere set in patient care areas.

++ Section 418.110(m)(1), to appropriately reference the plan of care within TJC's comparable standard.

In addition to the standards review, CMS also reviewed TJC's comparable survey processes, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, and yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, TJC has completed revising its survey processes in order to demonstrate that it uses survey processes comparable to SA processes by taking the following steps:

++ Removing language in award letters or communications with TJC's accredited hospices, which referenced “lengthen the duration of the cycle” beyond the allowable 36-month period, which is inconsistent with the regulatory requirements at § 488.5(a)(4)(i).

++ Providing additional training to surveyors on citing the appropriate levels of noncompliance, as it relates to the scope, manner and degree of deficiencies (condition level versus standard level deficiencies), in the initial comprehensive assessment.

++ Providing additional surveyor training and tools under TJC's Surveyor Technology to ensure surveyors properly document reviews of personnel files and credentialing as part of the survey process.

Based on our review and observations described in sections III and V of this final notice, we approve TJC as a national accreditation organization for hospices that request participation in the Medicare program. The decision announced in this final notice is effective June 18, 2021 through June 18, 2025 (4 years). Due to travel restrictions and the reprioritization of survey activities brought on by the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency (PHE), CMS was unable to observe a hospice survey completed by TJC surveyors as part of the application review process, which is one component of the comparability evaluation. Therefore, we are providing TJC with a shorter period of approval. Based on our discussions with TJC and the information provided in its application, we are confident that TJC will continue to ensure that its accredited hospices will continue to meet or exceed Medicare standards. While TJC has taken actions based on the findings annotated in section V.A. of this final notice, (Differences Between TJC's Standards and Requirements for Accreditation and Medicare Conditions and Survey Requirements) as authorized under § 488.8, we will continue ongoing review of TJC's hospice survey processes and will conduct a survey observation once the COVID-19 PHE has expired.

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting recordkeeping or third party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Elizabeth Richter, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Lynette Wilson, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

Description: The ACF, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) requests public comment on a proposed extension to a currently approved information collection for the Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood (previously known as the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program). Activities include preliminary visits to discuss the evaluation process with program administrators and site visits to each program to speak with program leaders, partners, key stakeholders, front-line staff, and participants. These formative evaluations will determine programs' readiness for more rigorous evaluation in the future. The activities and products from this project will help ACF to fulfill the ongoing legislative mandate for program evaluation specified in the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999.

Respondents: Semi-structured interviews will be held with program leaders, partners, stakeholders, front-line staff, and young adults being served by the programs.

Description: The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as amended directs the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), upon receipt of credible information that a foreign national minor may have been subjected to a severe form of trafficking in persons and is seeking assistance available to victims of trafficking, to promptly determine if the child is eligible for benefits and services to the same extent as refugees. HHS delegated this authority to the Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP).

OTIP developed a form for case managers, attorneys, law enforcement officers, child welfare workers, and other representatives to report these trafficking concerns to HHS in accordance with the TVPA of 2000, as amended, and allow for OTIP to review the concerns and determine eligibility for benefits.

Specifically, the form asks the requester for their identifying information, identifying information for the child, and information describing the potential trafficking concerns. The form takes into consideration the need to compile information regarding a child's experiences in a trauma-informed and child-centered manner and assists the requester in assessing whether the child may have been subjected to a severe form of trafficking in persons.

The information provided through the completion of a Request for Assistance (RFA) for Child Victims of Human Trafficking form enables OTIP to make prompt determinations regarding a foreign national minor's eligibility for assistance, facilitate the required consultation process should the minor receive interim assistance, and enable OTIP to assess and address potential child protection issues. OTIP also uses the information provided to respond to congressional inquiries, fulfill federal reporting requirements, and inform policy and program development that is responsive to the needs of victims.

In 2019, OTIP launched Shepherd, an online case management system, to process requests for assistance and certification on behalf of foreign national minor and adult victims of trafficking. If a requester encounters issues submitting a request through Shepherd, they may submit the RFA form to OTIP as a password protected PDF to childtrafficking@acf.hhs.gov.

Respondents: Representatives of governmental entities, members of the community, and nongovernmental entities providing social, legal, or protective services to foreign national minors in the United States who may have been subjected to severe forms of trafficking in persons. Furthermore, representatives within the community with a concern that a foreign national minor may have been subjected to severe forms of trafficking in persons may also use the RFA form.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 400.

Comments: The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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 automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

The ACICBL provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary concerning policy, program development, and other matters of significance related to interdisciplinary, community-based training grant programs authorized under sections 750-760, Title VII, Part D of the PHS Act. The ACICBL prepares an annual report describing the activities conducted during the calendar year, identifying findings and developing recommendations to enhance these Title VII programs. The annual report is submitted to the Secretary and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. The ACICBL develops, publishes, and implements performance measures for programs under this part; develops and publishes guidelines for longitudinal evaluations (as described in section 761(d)(2)) for programs under this part and recommends appropriation levels for programs under this part. The ACICBL meets at least 3 times each calendar year. A copy of the current committee membership, charter, and reports can be obtained by accessing the ACICBL website at https://www.hrsa.gov/advisory-committees/interdisciplinary-community-linkages/index.html.

Nominations: HRSA is requesting nominations for voting members to serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs). The Secretary appoints ACICBL members with the expertise needed to fulfill the duties of the Committee. The membership requirements are set forth in section 757 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 294f). Members are health professionals from schools of medicine or osteopathic medicine, schools of dentistry, schools of pharmacy, schools of veterinary medicine, schools of public health, schools of podiatry, schools of chiropractic, physician assistant education programs, schools of allied health, and schools of nursing. Interested applicants may self-nominate or be nominated by another individual or organization.

Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee will be invited to serve for 3 years. Members of the ACICBL, as SGEs, receive compensation for performance of their duties on the Committee and reimbursement for per diem and travel expenses incurred for attending ACICBL meetings and/or conducting other business on behalf of the Committee.

The following information must be included in the package of materials submitted for each individual nominated for consideration: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination ( i.e., specific attributes that qualify the nominee for service in this capacity), a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. Potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, consultancies, research grants, and/or contracts to permit an evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest; (2) the nominator's name, address, and daytime telephone number, and the home or work address, telephone number, and email address of the individual being nominated; (3) a current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae; and (4) a statement of interest from the nominee including any experience with Title VII interdisciplinary, community-based training programs; expertise in the field; and personal desire in participating on a National Advisory Committee. Nomination packages may be submitted directly by the individual being nominated or by the person/organization nominating the candidate.

HHS endeavors to ensure that the membership of the ACICBL is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and between the health professions, a broad representation of geographic areas, including balance between urban and rural members, gender, and ethnic and minority groups, as well as individuals with disabilities. At least 75 percent of the members of the Committee are health professionals. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or religion.

Individuals who are selected to be considered for appointment will be required to provide detailed information regarding their financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts. Disclosure of this information is required in order for ethics officials to determine whether there is a potential conflict of interest between the SGE's public duties as a member of the ACICBL and their private interests, including an appearance of a loss of impartiality as defined by federal laws and regulations, and to identify any required remedial action needed to address the potential conflict.

Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.

The National Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Meeting is authorized by § 601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018. The statutory authority is codified in 46 U.S.C. 15104. The Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix) in addition to the provisions applicable to all National Maritime Transportation Advisory Committees in 46 U.S.C. 15109.

The Committee advises the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard on matters related to: (a) Medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (c) medical examiner education; and (d) medical research.

The agenda for the April 19, 2021, teleconference is as follows:

(1) Introduction.

(2) Designated Federal Officer remarks.

(3) Introduction, roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.

(4) Remarks from U.S. Coast Guard Leadership.

(5) Swearing in of Committee Members.

(6) Election by committee members of Chair and Vice Chair.

(7) Presentation of Tasks—The Committee will review the tasks presented by the Coast Guard and determine if they will accept the tasks to form Working Groups. The following tasks will be considered for acceptance:

(a) Task Statement 21-X1, Recommendations on Mariner Mental Health (Formerly MEDMAC Task 18-27);

(b) Task Statement 21-X2, Communication Between External Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program (Formerly MEDMAC Task 18-28);

(c) Task Statement 21-X3, Medical Certifications for Military to Mariner (Formerly MEDMAC Task 19-31);

(d) Task Statement 21-X4, Recommendations on Appropriate Diets and Wellness for Mariners While Onboard Merchant Vessels (Formerly MEDMAC Task 16-24); and

(e) Task Statement 21-X5, Review of Proposed Revisions to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel (STCW-F) Medical Standards.

(8) Introduction to Merchant Mariner Medical Regulations and Policy.

(9) Introduction to the National Maritime Center.

(10) Public comment period.

(11) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.

(12) Adjournment of meeting.

A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/federal-advisory-committees/national-merchant-mariner-medical-advisory-committee-(nmedmac) no later than April 12, 2021. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. David Belliveau as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section above.

During the April 19, 2021 teleconference, a public comment period will be held immediately after the introduction to the National Maritime Center, at approximately 2:00 p.m. Public comments will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comments period will end following the last call for comments. Please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, to register as a speaker.

Pursuant to section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1307), “[a]ll goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labor or/and forced labor or/and indentured labor under penal sanctions shall not be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States, and the importation thereof is hereby prohibited.” Under this section, “forced labor” includes “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily” and includes forced or indentured child labor.

The CBP regulations promulgated under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1307 are found at sections 12.42 through 12.45 of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (19 CFR 12.42-12.45). Among other things, these regulations allow any person outside of CBP to communicate his belief that a certain “class of merchandise . . . is being, or is likely to be, imported into the United States [in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1307].” 19 CFR 12.42(a), (b). Upon receiving such information, the Commissioner “will cause such investigation to be made as appears to be warranted by the circumstances . . . .” 19 CFR 12.42(d). CBP also has the authority to self-initiate an investigation. 19 CFR 12.42(a). If the Commissioner of CBP finds that the information available “reasonably but not conclusively indicates that merchandise within the purview of section 307 is being, or is likely to be, imported,” the Commissioner will order port directors to “withhold release of any such merchandise pending [further] instructions.” 19 CFR 12.42(e). After issuance of such a withhold release order, the covered merchandise will be detained by CBP for an admissibility determination, and will be excluded unless the importer demonstrates that the merchandise was not made using labor in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1307. 19 CFR 12.43-12.44. The importer may also export the merchandise. 19 CFR 12.44(a).

These regulations also set forth the procedure for the Commissioner of CBP to issue a Finding when it is determined that the merchandise is subject to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1307. Pursuant to 19 CFR 12.42(f), if the Commissioner of CBP determines that merchandise within the purview of 19 U.S.C. 1307 is being, or is likely to be, imported into the United States, the Commissioner of CBP will, with the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), publish a Finding to that effect in the Customs Bulletin and in the Federal Register . 1 Under the authority of 19 CFR 12.44(b), CBP may seize and forfeit imported merchandise covered by a Finding.

On July 15, 2020, CBP issued a withhold release order on “disposable gloves” reasonably indicated to be manufactured by forced labor in Malaysia by Top Glove Corporation Bhd. Through its investigation, CBP has determined that there is sufficient information to support a Finding that Top Glove Corporation Bhd is manufacturing disposable gloves with forced labor and that such merchandise is likely being imported into the United States.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1307 and 19 CFR 12.42(f), it is hereby determined that certain articles described in paragraph II.B., that are mined, produced, or manufactured in whole or in part with the use of convict, forced, or indentured labor by Top Glove Corporation Bhd in Malaysia, are being, or are likely to be, imported into the United States. Based upon this determination, the port director may seize the covered merchandise for violation of 19 U.S.C. 1307 and commence forfeiture proceedings pursuant to 19 CFR part 162, subpart E, unless the importer establishes by satisfactory evidence that the merchandise was not produced in any part with the use of prohibited labor specified in this Finding.

This Finding covers disposable gloves classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 3926.20.1020, 4015.11.0150, 4015.19.0510, 4015.19.0550, 4015.19.1010, 4015.19.1050, and 4015.19.5000, which are mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part by Top Glove Corporation Bhd in Malaysia.

The Secretary of Homeland Security has reviewed and approved this Finding.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), received an application from Rancho Vista 2018, LLC (applicant), for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The requested permit would authorize take of the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher ( Polioptila californica californica, gnatcatcher), incidental to activities associated with the development of the Rancho Vista Seniors Project which includes construction of approximately 29 single-family detached senior housing residences, 3 community recreation areas, open space areas, drainage systems, and other infrastructure improvements on approximately 16.87 acres in San Diego County, California. The Service prepared a draft low-effect screening form and environmental action statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) to evaluate the potential effects to the natural and human environment resulting from issuing an ITP to the applicant. We invite public comment on these documents.

The Service listed the gnatcatcher as threatened on March 30, 1993 (58 FR 16742), and published a revised final rule designating critical habitat on December 19, 2007 (72 FR 72010). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered (16 U.S.C. 1538). Under the ESA, “take” is defined to include the following activities: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the Secretary to extend protections for endangered species to those listed as threatened. Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), we may issue permits to authorize take of listed fish and wildlife species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.32. Issuance of an ITP also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species, pursuant to section 7 of the ESA and 50 CFR 402.02. The permittee would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.32(b)(5)).

The project is located on a 16.87-acre site in the City of Oceanside in San Diego County, California. The applicant requests a 3-year incidental take permit for permanent impacts to 8.91 acres of occupied gnatcatcher habitat. The applicant proposes to mitigate impacts through the onsite preservation of 5.52 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub; onsite conversion of 2.43 acres of non-native and disturbed habitats to Diegan coastal sage scrub; and the purchase of mitigation credits sufficient to offset impacts to 2.34 acres of gnatcatcher-occupied coastal sage scrub habitat at an offsite location selected in coordination with and approved by CFWO. The offsite mitigation area will provide equal or higher quality habitat than that found on the project site and will be conserved, managed, and monitored in perpetuity. The applicant also proposes to implement measures to minimize the effects of construction activities on the gnatcatcher.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that neither the issuance of the ITP nor the implementation of the project is neither a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), nor will they individually and cumulatively have more than a minor or negligible effect on the gnatcatcher and the environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily concluded that the ITP for this project would qualify for categorical exclusion as provided by our NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.215.

We will evaluate the proposed HCP and any comments received to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the above findings, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, we will issue the permit to the applicant for incidental take of the gnatcatcher.

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.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539 et seq. ) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the ESA as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed animal species, or to attempt to engage in such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1538). However, under section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing such take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32.

CPS Energy has applied to the Service for an ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The requested ITP, which would be in effect for a period of 30 years, if granted, would authorize incidental take of nine endangered species: Golden-cheeked warbler ( Setophaga [= Dendroica ] chrysoparia ), Madla Cave meshweaver ( Cicurina madla ), Government Canyon Bat Cave spider ( Tayshaneta [= Neoleptoneta ] microps ), Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver ( C. vespera ), Helotes mold beetle ( Batrisodes venyivi ), two ground beetles with no common names ( Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis ), Robber Baron Cave meshweaver ( C. baronia ), and Cokendolpher cave harvestman ( Texella cokendolpheri ) (collectively the covered species). The proposed incidental take would result from activities associated with otherwise lawful activities, including electric transmission and distribution lines; natural gas transmission and distribution lines; electric or natural gas substations, switching stations, metering stations, and similar site-based facilities; and lighting on public roadways (covered activities).

The proposed action involves the issuance of an ITP by the Service for the covered activities in the permit area, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The ITP would cover “take” of the covered species for covered activities within the permit area. An application for an ITP must include an HCP that describes the conservation measures the applicant has agreed to undertake to minimize and mitigate for the impacts of the proposed taking of covered species to the maximum extent practicable. The applicant will fully implement the HCP if approved by the Service. The terms of the HCP and ITP will also ensure that incidental take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild.

We have considered one alternative to the proposed action as part of this process: No Action. Under a No Action alternative, the Service would not issue the requested ITP and the applicant would either consult under the ESA on a project-by-project basis, rather than programmatically, or conduct those activities in a manner that avoids incidental take. Additionally, the applicant would not implement the conservation measures as described in the CPS Energy HCP.

We will evaluate the dEA, HCP, and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also evaluate whether issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would comply with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether to issue an ITP. If all necessary requirements are met, we will issue the ITP to the applicant.

Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce receipt of an application from Wood Partners for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed sand skink ( Neoseps reynoldsi ) incidental to the construction of a housing development (project) in Orange County, Florida. We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), and the Service's preliminary determination that this HCP qualifies as “low-effect,” categorically excluded, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq. ). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for public review.

The applicant requests a 5-year ITP to take sand skinks by converting approximately 2.72 acres (ac) of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to the construction of a housing development located on a 21.6-ac parcel in Sections 31 and 32, Township 23 South, Range 27 East, on Parcel ID number 32-23-27-0000-00-007 in Orange County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the sand skinks by purchasing 5.44 credits from the Lake Wales Ridge Conservation Bank or another Service-approved conservation bank. The Service would require the applicant to make this purchase prior to engaging in activities associated with the project.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project, including land clearing, infrastructure building, landscaping, and the proposed mitigation measure, would individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on sand skinks and the environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily concluded that the ITP for this project would qualify for categorical exclusion and that the HCP is low effect under our NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 45.4405 and 45.4410. A low-effect HCP is one that would result in (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts that, when considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result in significant cumulative effects to environmental values or resources over time.

The Service will evaluate the application and the comments received to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding findings, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER0002676 to WP South Acquisitions, LLC.

The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 46.305).

We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce receipt of an application from Forestar Group, Inc. (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed sand skink ( Neoseps reynoldsi ) and blue-tailed mole skink ( Eumeces egregious lividus ) (skinks) incidental to the construction of a residential development in Polk County, Florida. We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's HCP, and on the Service's preliminary determination that this HCP qualifies as “low-effect,” categorically excluded, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, both of which are also available for public review.

The applicant requests a 5-year ITP to take skinks through the conversion of approximately 0.82 acre of occupied skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to the construction of a residential development on a 32-acre parcel in Section 17, Township 29S, Range 26E in Polk County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the skinks by purchasing credits equivalent to 1.64 acres of skink-occupied habitat from a Service-approved conservation bank. The Service would require the applicant to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any phase of the project.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project, including the construction of single-family homes, paved roads, green areas, storm water ponds, and associated infrastructure ( e.g., electric, water, and sewer lines), would individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on the skinks and the environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily concluded that the ITP for this project would qualify for categorical exclusion and that the HCP would be low effect under our NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.210. A low-effect HCP is one that would result in (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts that, when considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result in significant cumulative effects to environmental values or resources over time.

The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number TE88352D-0 to Forestar Group, Inc. for incidental take of skinks.

The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 46.305).

We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce receipt of an application from Lennar Homes LLC for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed sand skink ( Neoseps reynoldsi ) and blue-tailed mole skink ( Eumeces egregious lividus ) (skinks) incidental to the construction a residential development in Osceola County, Florida. We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's proposed HCP, and on the Service's preliminary determination that this HCP qualifies as “low-effect,” categorically excluded, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, both of which are also available for public review.

The applicant requests a 10-year ITP to take skinks through the conversion of approximately 6.94 acres of occupied skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to the construction of a residential development on a 25.01-acre parcel in Section 14, Township 25 South, Range 27 East, Osceola County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the skinks by purchasing credits equivalent to 13.88 acres of skink-occupied habitat from a Service-approved conservation bank. The Service would require the applicant to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any phase of the project.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project, including the construction of single-family homes, paved roads and driveways, parking and green areas, storm water ponds, and associated infrastructure ( e.g., electric, water, and sewer lines) would individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on the skinks and the environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily concluded that the ITP for this project would qualify for categorical exclusion and that the HCP would be low effect under our NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.210. A low-effect HCP is one that would result in (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and, (3) impacts that, when considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result in significant cumulative effects to environmental values or resources over time.

The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER0002540 to Lennar Homes LLC for incidental take of skinks.

The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)) of the ESA and NEPA regulation 40 CFR 1506.6.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Hanson Aggregates Midwest, Inc. d/b/a Hanson Material Service (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), for its habitat conservation plan (HCP) for the Hine's emerald dragonfly, Blanding's turtle, spotted turtle, leafy prairie clover, and lakeside daisy (project or HCP). The applicant's mining operation is located in Will County, Illinois and would consists of 49.6 acres of impacts to covered species habitat. The applicant has prepared a habitat conservation plan that describes their continued limestone surface mining operation and measures that the applicant would implement to avoid, minimize, and mitigate incidental take of the Hine's emerald dragonfly, Blanding's turtle, and spotted turtle. The HCP proposes to restore, enhance, and maintain 354 acres of covered species habitat on the 519 acres of land that will be protected in perpetuity by a deed restriction that may be converted to a conservation easement if a qualified entity agrees to hold the protected acreage. If approved, the ITP would be for a 30-year period and would authorize the incidental take of an endangered species, the Hine's emerald dragonfly ( Somatochlora hineana ), and species petitioned for Federal listing that are listed as endangered by the State of Illinois, the Blanding's turtle ( Emydoidea blandingii ) and spotted turtle ( Clemmys guttata ). The applicant has prepared a HCP that describes the actions and measures that the applicant would implement to avoid, minimize, and mitigate incidental take of the Hine's emerald dragonfly, Blanding's turtle, and spotted turtle, and impacts to leafy prairie clover and lakeside daisy. We also announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA), which has been prepared in response to the permit application in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). We request public comment on the application and associated documents.

Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the ESA as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect “listed animal species,” or to attempt to engage in such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1538). However, under section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity (16 U.S.C. 1539). Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species, respectively, are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32. Impacts to plants do not fall under the definition of “take,” therefore, the Service cannot authorize incidental take of plants. However, the Service cannot issue an ITP that would jeopardize the continued existence or adversely modify the designated critical habitat of any listed species, including plants, so addressing listed plants in the HCP may be prudent.

The applicant requests a 30-year ITP to take the federally endangered Hine's emerald dragonfly ( Somatochlora hineana ), and species petitioned for Federal listing that are listed as endangered by the State of Illinois: The Blanding's turtle ( Emydoidea blandingii ) and spotted turtle ( Clemmys guttata ). The applicant determined that take is reasonably certain to occur incidental to operation of expanded limestone surface mining located in Will County and consisting of 187 acres of surface mining that will have direct impacts to 49.6 acres of covered species habitat. The proposed conservation strategy in the applicant's proposed HCP is designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of the surface mining expansion on the covered species. The biological goals and objectives are to minimize potential take of Hine's emerald dragonflies, Blanding's turtles, and spotted turtles through on-site minimization measures and to provide habitat conservation measures for Hine's emerald dragonflies, Blanding's turtles, and spotted turtles to offset any impacts from operations of the project. The estimated level of take from the project is 49.6 acres of Hine's emerald dragonfly adult critical habitat, three adult Hine's emerald dragonflies, 12 Blanding's turtles, and two spotted turtles over the 30-year ITP duration. To offset the impacts of the taking of Hine's emerald dragonflies, Blanding's turtles, and spotted turtles, the applicant proposes to avoid potential groundwater-related impacts from quarry dewatering, by instituting operational avoidance measures during the mining process, and implement species habitat maintenance, enhancement or restoration on 354 acres. Additionally, 519 acres of land will be permanently protected by a deed restriction and may be converted to a conservation easement if a qualified entity agrees to hold the protected acreage.

The issuance of an ITP is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with NEPA. We prepared a draft EA that analyzes the environmental impacts on the human environment resulting from three alternatives: A no-action alternative, the applicant's proposed action, and an early planning mitigation alternative.

The Service will evaluate the permit application and the comments received to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the above findings, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(l)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue the requested ITP to the applicant.

The Service invites comments and suggestions from all interested parties on the proposed HCP, draft EA and supporting documents during a 30-day public comment period (see DATES ). In particular, information and comments regarding the following topics are requested:

1. The effects that implementation of any alternative could have on the human environment;

2. Whether or not the significance of the impact on various aspects of the human environment has been adequately analyzed; and

3. Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the human environment including the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly, Blanding's Turtle, and the spotted turtle.

You may submit comments by one of the methods shown under ADDRESSES . We will post on http://regulations.gov all public comments and information received electronically or via hardcopy. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6; 43 CFR part 46).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft habitat conservation plan (HCP) and draft low-effect screening form and environmental action statement for activities associated with an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The ITP would authorize take of the Santa Barbara County distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) incidental to activities associated with the construction of commercial urban developed uses over an 28-acre project site near the Santa Maria Airport in Santa Barbara County, California. The site would be fully developed with urban uses and a water detention basin. The applicant developed the draft HCP as part of their application for an ITP. The Service prepared a draft low-effect screening form and environmental action statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) to evaluate the potential effects to the natural and human environment resulting from issuing an ITP to the applicant. We invite public comment on all of these documents.

The Service listed the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander as endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57242). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered (16 U.S.C. 1538). Under the ESA, “take” is defined to include the following activities: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), we may issue permits to authorize take of listed fish and wildlife species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22. Issuance of an ITP also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species, pursuant to section 7 of the ESA and 50 CFR 402.02. The permittee would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5)).

The applicant has applied for a permit for incidental take of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander. The take would occur in association with the construction of commercial urban developed uses over an 28-acre project site near the Santa Maria Airport in Santa Barbara County, California.

The HCP includes avoidance and minimization measures for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander and mitigation for unavoidable loss of habitat. As mitigation, the applicant proposes to purchase credits from a Service-approved conservation bank.

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

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the ESA as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect “listed animal species,” or to attempt to engage in such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1538). However, under section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species, respectively, are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32.

The applicant requests a 35-year ITP for take of the federally endangered Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) and threatened northern long-eared bat ( Myotis septentrionalis ). The applicant determined that wind farm activities on this land are reasonably certain to result in incidental take of these federally listed covered species. Activity that could result in incidental take if Indiana bats and northern long eared bats is the operation of 52 wind turbines currently being constructed in Jay County, Indiana, consisting of approximately 22,170 acres of private land. The estimated level of take from the project is 69 Indiana bats and 45 northern long-eared bats over the 35-year project duration.

The proposed conservation strategy in the applicant's proposed HCP is designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of the covered activity on the covered species. The biological goals and objectives are to minimize potential take of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats through on-site minimization measures and to provide habitat conservation measures for Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats to offset any impacts from operations of the project. On-site minimization measures include feathering turbine blades up to 3.0 meters per second (m/s) during winter and spring (October 16-May 15), up to 5.0 m/s during fall (August 1-October 15), and up to 5.0 m/s at 39 turbines with risk and 3.0 m/s at the remaining turbines during summer (May 16-July 31). Minimization measures will be implemented nightly from 1/2 hour before sunset to 1/2 hour after sunrise when the temperature is above 10 °C. To offset the impacts of the taking of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats, the applicant proposes to protect known maternity colony habitat for both covered species and staging/swarming habitat for Indiana bats. The Service requests public comments on the permit application, which includes a proposed HCP, and an EA prepared in accordance with NEPA.

The applicants' HCP describes the activities that will be undertaken to implement forestry activities, as well as the mitigation and minimization measures proposed to address the impacts to the covered species. Pursuant to NEPA, the EA analyzes the impacts the ITP issuance would have on the covered species and the environment.

The issuance of an ITP is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). We prepared a draft EA that analyzes the environmental impacts on the human environment resulting from three alternatives: A no-action alternative, the applicant's proposed action, and a more restrictive alternative consisting of feathering at a rate of wind speed that results in less impacts to bats.

The Service will evaluate the permit application and the comments received to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the above findings, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(l)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue the requested ITP to the applicant.

The Service invites comments and suggestions from all interested parties during a 30-day public comment period (see DATES ). In particular, information and comments regarding the following topics are requested:

1. The direct, indirect, or cumulative effects that implementation of any alternative could have on the human environment;

2. Whether or not the significance of the impact on various aspects of the human environment has been adequately analyzed; and

3. Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the human environment.

Because this permit application was sufficiently complete prior to the effective date of the new NEPA regulations, we are exercising our discretion to conduct our NEPA analysis under the regulations in effect prior to September 14, 2020.

You may submit comments by one of the methods shown under ADDRESSES . We will post on http://regulations.gov all public comments and information received electronically or via hardcopy. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6 (2019); 43 CFR part 46).

We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce receipt of an application from BB Groves, LLC (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed sand skink ( Neoseps reynoldsi ) incidental to the construction of a housing development (project) in Orange County, Florida. We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), and the Service's preliminary determination that this HCP qualifies as “low-effect,” categorically excluded, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq. ). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for public review.

BB Groves, LLC requests a 5-year ITP to take sand skinks by converting approximately 10.10 acres (ac) of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to the construction of a housing development located on a 165.55-ac parcel in Section 30, Township 24 South, Range 27 East, on Parcel ID number 30-24-27-0000-00-003, in Orange County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the sand skinks by purchasing 20.20 credits from the Lake Wales Ridge Conservation Bank or another Service-approved conservation bank. The Service would require the applicant to make this purchase prior to engaging in activities associated with the project.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project, including land clearing, infrastructure building, landscaping, and the proposed mitigation measure, would individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on sand skinks and the environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily concluded that the ITP for this project would qualify for categorical exclusion and that the HCP is low effect under our NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 46.305. A low-effect HCP is one that would result in (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts that, when considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result in significant cumulative effects to environmental values or resources over time.

The Service will evaluate the application and the comments received to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding findings, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER0002629 to BB Groves, LLC.

The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 46.305).

In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all information collections require approval under the PRA. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

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

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

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

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 can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: As codified in 25 U.S.C. 4001, The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (the Reform Act) makes provisions for the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration (formerly known as the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians) to administer trust fund accounts for individuals and tribes. This collection of information is required to fulfill the mission of the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration (BTFA) and the Secretary of the Interior's responsibility for evaluating all Public Law 93-638 Compact Tribes administering or managing trust programs, functions, services, and/or activities on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. This responsibility is federally mandated pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 458cc(d) and 25 CFR 1000.350. The BTFA, Office of Trust Risk, Evaluation and Compliance currently performs the evaluations by collecting Tribal trust data and documentation from approximately 126 Compacted Tribes. These evaluations are conducted by performing desk reviews (via email questionnaires, and teleconferences), and on-site visits. The results are documented in a final report which is submitted to the Tribe(s) with copies to select government officials. The data is also reported in the annual report to Congress through the Office of Self-Governance.

The original 2018 request for the OMB Form 1035-0005 to be approved included language regarding the automation of the questionnaires that make up the 1035-0005 collection. This would have provided the Compacted Tribes access to the questionnaires through a Tribal Evaluation System (TES) that the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) was developing. System development reviews identified a number of problematic issues with TES, including potential vulnerabilities to the system. As a result, the system development ended, which lead to the system being formally decommissioned by OST in 2020. This request for renewal of 1035-0005 is for the continued approved use of the collection (questionnaires) only.

Title of Collection: Tribal Trust Evaluations, 25 CFR 1000.350.

OMB Control Number: 1035.

Form Number: 0005.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Public Law 93-638 Compacted Tribes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 64 Tribes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 640.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 3 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,920.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Maintain a Benefit.

Frequency of Collection: Bi-Annually.

Total Estimated Annual Non-Hour Burden Cost: $71,654.

(64 respondents × average of 10 questionnaires per year × 3 hours per questionnaire = 1,920 × $37.32 (Business and Financial Operations Classification) = $71,654.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on September 30, 2020 (85 FR 61767). No comments were received.

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

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

Abstract: The BIA is seeking renewal of the approval for the information collection conducted under 25 U.S.C. 43, 36 Stat. 472, inter alia, and implementing regulations, at 25 CFR part 5, regarding verification of Indian preference for employment. The purpose of Indian preference is to encourage qualified Indian persons to seek employment with the BIA and the Indian Health Service (IHS) by offering preferential treatment to qualified candidates of Indian heritage. The BIA collects the information to ensure compliance with Indian preference hiring requirements. The information collection relates only to individuals applying for employment with the BIA and/or IHS. The tribe's involvement is limited to verifying membership information submitted by the applicant. The collection of information allows certain persons who are of Indian descent to receive preference when appointments are made to vacancies in positions with the BIA and the IHS as well as in any unit that has been transferred intact from the BIA to a Bureau or office within the Department of the Interior or the Department of Health and Human Services and that continues to perform functions formerly performed as part of the BIA and the IHS. You are eligible for preference if (a) you are a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe; (b) you are a descendent of a member and you were residing within the present boundaries of any Indian reservation on June 1, 1934; (c) you are an Alaska native; or (d) you possess one-half degree Indian blood derived from tribes that are indigenous to the United States.

Title of Collection: Verification of Indian Preference for Employment in the BIA and the IHS.

OMB Control Number: 1076-0160.

Form Number: BIA 4432.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Qualified Indian persons who are seeking preference in employment with the BIA and the IHS.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 5,000 per year, on average.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 5,000 per year, on average.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,500 hours.

Respondent's Obligation: A response is required to obtain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $7,400.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ).

DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.

The O*NET Data Collection Program is an ongoing effort to collect and maintain current information on the detailed characteristics of occupations and skills for more than 900 occupations. Section 308 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) authorizes this collection and requires the Secretary of Labor to oversee the “development, maintenance, and continuous improvement of a nationwide workforce and labor market information system” which shall include, among other components, “skill trends by occupation and industry.” The resulting database provides the most comprehensive standardized source of occupational and skills information in the nation. O*NET information is used by a wide range of audiences, including individuals making career decisions, public agencies and schools providing career exploration services or education and training programs, and businesses making staffing and training decisions. The O*NET system provides a common language, framework and database to meet the administrative needs of various federal programs, including workforce investment and training programs supported by funding from the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services.

The O*NET database provides:

Detailed information for more than 900 occupations.

Descriptive information using standardized descriptors for skills, abilities, interests, knowledge, work values, education, training, work context, and work activities.

Occupational coding currently based on the 2018 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) taxonomy.

The O*NET electronic database and related O*NET products and tools have been incorporated into numerous public and private sector products and resources, examples of O*NET use are presented in the O*NET Products at Work (PAW) document at http://www.onetcenter.org/paw.html. These products in turn serve millions of customers.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control No. 1205-0421.

Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.

DOL 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; and

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

Agency: DOL-ETA.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title of Collection: O*NET Data Collection Program.

Form: N/A.

OMB Control Number: 1205-0421.

Affected Public: Private sector (for-profit businesses and not-for-profit organizations); State, local and tribal governments, Federal government, Individuals or Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 40,942.

Frequency: Varies.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 40,942.

Estimated Average Time per Response: Varies.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,446 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Cost Burden: $0.

I. Background

OSHA hereby gives notice that it is granting the renewal of recognition of SolarPTL LLC (PTL) as a NRTL under 29 CFR 1910.7.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL that details the scope of recognition available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

OSHA processes applications submitted by an NRTL for renewal of recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, App. A II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal request to OSHA between nine months and one year before the expiration date of the current recognition. A renewal request includes a request for renewal and any additional information demonstrating their continued compliance with the terms of the recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL headquarters and any key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary on-site assessment prior to the expiration date of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA announces the preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the Federal Register and solicits comments from the public. OSHA then publishes a final Federal Register notice responding to any comments and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or denying the renewal of recognition.

PTL initially received OSHA recognition as a NRTL on March 23, 2011 (76 FR 16452). PTL was previously recognized by OSHA as TUV Rheinland PTL, whose name was changed following a sale to SolarPTL in October 2018. PTL submitted a timely request for renewal, dated April 2, 2015 (OSHA-2010-0013), and has retained their recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. OSHA conducted on-site assessments of PTL on February 18-22, 2016, November 14-15, 2017, and January 30-31, 2019, during which it identified nonconformities with 29 CFR 1910.7. Although PTL worked to resolve these nonconformities, it took several years for PTL to demonstrate compliance with 29 CFR 1910.7. The current address of the PTL facility recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal request is: SolarPTL, 1007 West Fairmont Avenue, Tempe, Arizona 85252.

OSHA evaluated PTL's application for renewal and made a preliminary determination that PTL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition.

OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing PTL's renewal application in the Federal Register on February 3, 2021 (86 FR 8042). The agency requested comments by February 18, 2021, and received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final notice to renew PTL's NRTL recognition.

To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the PTL application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office. Docket No. OSHA-2010-0013 contains all materials in the record concerning PTL's NRTL recognition. Please note: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket Office is closed to the public at this time but can be contacted at (202) 693-2350.

OSHA hereby gives notice of the renewal of recognition of PTL as a NRTL. OSHA examined PTL's renewal application and all pertinent information related to PTL's request for renewal of NRTL recognition. Based on this review of the renewal request and other pertinent information, OSHA finds that PTL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of recognition as a NRTL, subject to the specified limitation and conditions. OSHA limits the renewal of PTL's recognition to include the terms and conditions of PTL's recognition found in 76 FR 16452. The NRTL scope of recognition for PTL is also available on the OSHA website at: https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/ptl.html. This renewal extends PTL's recognition as a NRTL for a period of five years from March 29, 2021.

In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, PTL must abide by the following conditions of recognition:

1. PTL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in their operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);

2. PTL must agree to increased OSHA oversight of their operations including:

(a) More frequent on-site assessments of PTL facilities; and

(b) PTL shall continue to provide OSHA with written notification of any new or revised NRTL certificates that it issues, within 7 calendar days of issuing the certification. This notification shall include:

(i) Name and address of the applicant;

(ii) Model number(s) for the certified products;

(iii) PTL Certification number;

(iv) PTL Project number;

(v) Name(s) of PTL staff involved with the project; and

(vi) Location where the product evaluation and testing took place.

3. Upon request, PTL must provide copies of the test data, certification report and other related information for new or revised certifications to OSHA.

4. PTL must meet all the terms of their recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and

5. PTL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on PTL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.

Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby renews the recognition of PTL as a NRTL.

Amanda L. Edens, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

The Department of Labor published the final rule, Tip Regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on December 30, 2020 (85 FR 86756). The final rule explains the impact of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (CAA) amendments to sections 3(m), 16(b), 16(c), and 16(e) of the FLSA. The amendments, among other things, prohibit employers from keeping employee tips. The Department submitted the ICR to OMB at the time of publication of the final rule. The ICR was previously submitted with the notice of proposed rulemaking under a duplicate control number 1235-0030, and OMB asked that the Department resubmit with the final rule after reviewing any comments. Because two separate actions implicating the ICR 1235-0018 were occurring in close proximity to one another, and OMB can only have one ICR under the same control number open at a time, the Department was encumbered by the need to submit the same package for two separate actions. The addition of 1235-0030 provided a temporary solution for OMB to act on the same collection at the same time. The ICR under control number 1235-0018 was unencumbered at the time of the final rule so the Department submitted the revision to add the burdens from the Tip Regulations final rule.

On February 24, 2021, OMB issued a Notice of Action approving the revision of this ICR under OMB Control Number 1235-0018. Section (k) of 5 CFR 1320.11, “Clearance of Collections of Information in Proposed Rules” states, “[a]fter receipt of notification of OMB's approval, instruction to make a substantive or material change to, disapproval of a collection of information, or failure to act, the agency shall publish a notice in the Federal Register to inform the public of OMB's decision.” This notice fulfills the Department's obligation to notify the public of OMB's approval of ICR.

Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has been tasked by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to prepare to provide COVID-19 vaccines to a prioritized set of employees. These vaccines could be provided to KSC by either the State of Florida Department of Health (via the Florida State Health Online Tracking System (SHOTS) program) or directly by the Federal Government.

Employee data and other medical data related to the vaccination, is required by the State of Florida to be uploaded to the Florida SHOTS website within 24 hours of vaccination. This data is also required by NASA to be entered into the Agency's CORITY electronic health records system, and subsequently be provide to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Eventbrite will be used to gather a subset of this data electronically directly from the employee during registration in lieu of manual entry based on a completed paper form.

Title: KSC COVID-19 Vaccine Scheduling application.

OMB Number: 2700-

Type of Review: New.

Affected Public: Government Contractors and Civil Servants.

Estimated Annual Number of Activities: 1.

Estimated Number of Respondents per Activity: 3,336.

Annual Responses: 3,336.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 278 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $11,073.60.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0102 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; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0102.

• 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. NRC Form 509 and NRC Form 507 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML20203M082 and ML20203M081 respectively. The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML21029A214.

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

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0102 in your comment submission.

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

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

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Public Records.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on January 8, 2021 (86 FR 1542).

1. The title of the information collection: Part 9 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Public Records.”

2. OMB approval number: 3150-0043.

3. Type of submission: Revision.

4. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 509; NRC Form 507.

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

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: FOIA Requesters who have requests that require pre-payment or agree to pay for the processing of their FOIA requests.

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 3,803.

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 3,803.

9. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 2,082.

10. Abstract: The proposed information collection removes the need for requesters to provide the information they are requesting under FOIA, since it would be duplicative. NRC Form 507 will accompany acknowledgement letters, at which point we are requesting additional information, if necessary, for FOIA requesters to submit proof of identification or third-party release authorizations. Providing NRC Form 509 to a request serves as a notification of the processing fees as it relates to search, review, and duplication. Pursuant to NRC's regulations, 10 CFR 9.40, when fees exceed $25.00 the requester has the opportunity to re-scope their request. Additionally, in response to the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, in accordance with 10 CFR 9.39, the revised form notifies the requester that if the agency fails to comply with statutory time limits, the agency cannot charge the requester any fees (except in unusual circumstances). In the event that fees are required, the requester can verify their willingness to pay on this form and must submit payment within ten working days of the receipt of the form.

Several provisions of the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) require reduction of annuities on an actuarial basis. Under each of these provisions, OPM is required to issue regulations on the method of determining the reduction to ensure that the present value of the reduced annuity plus a lump-sum equals, to the extent practicable, the present value of the unreduced benefit. The regulations for each of these benefits provide that OPM will publish a notice in the Federal Register whenever it changes the factors used to compute the present values of these benefits.

Section 842.706(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the method for computing the reduction in the beginning rate of annuity payable to a retiree who elects an alternative form of annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8420a. That reduction is required to produce an annuity that is the actuarial equivalent of the annuity of a retiree who does not elect an alternative form of annuity. The present value factors listed below are used to compute the annuity reduction under 5 CFR 842.706(a).

Section 842.615 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of these factors for computing the reduction required for certain elections to provide survivor annuity benefits based on a post-retirement marriage or divorce under 5 U.S.C. 8416(b), 8416(c), or § 8417(b). Under section 11004 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Public Law 103-66, effective October 1, 1993, OPM ceased collection of these survivor election deposits by means of either a lump-sum payment or installments. Instead, OPM is required to establish a permanent actuarial reduction in the annuity of the retiree. This means that OPM must take the amount of the deposit computed under the old law and translate it into a lifetime reduction in the retiree's benefit.

Subpart F of part 847 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of present value factors for computing the deficiency the retiree must pay to receive credit for certain service with nonappropriated fund instrumentalities made creditable by an election under section 1043 of Public Law 104-106. Subpart I of part 847 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of present value factors for employees that elect to credit nonappropriated fund instrumentality service to qualify for immediate retirement under section 1132 of Public Law 107-107.

OPM published the present value factors currently in effect on April 6, 2020, at 85 FR 19175. On March 29, 2021, OPM published a notice to revise the normal cost percentage under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986, Public Law 99-335, based on changed assumptions adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System. Under 5 U.S.C. 8461(i), those changes require corresponding changes in the present value factors used to produce actuarially equivalent benefits when required by the FERS Act. The revised factors will become effective on October 1, 2021, to correspond with the changes in FERS normal cost percentages. For alternative forms of annuity, the new factors will apply to annuities that commence on or after October 1, 2021. See 5 CFR 842.706. For survivor election deposits, the new factors will apply to survivor reductions that commence on or after October 1, 2021. See 5 CFR 842.615(b). For obtaining credit for service with certain nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, the new factors will apply to cases in which the date of computation under 5 CFR 847.603 or 847.809 is on or after October 1, 2021. See 5 CFR § 842.602, 842.616, 847.603, and § 847.809.

OPM is, therefore, revising the tables of present value factors to read as follows:

Several provisions of CSRS require reduction of annuities on an actuarial basis. Under each of these provisions, OPM is required to issue regulations on the method of determining the reduction to ensure that the present value of the reduced annuity plus a lump-sum equals, to the extent practicable, the present value of the unreduced benefit. The regulations for each of these benefits provide that OPM will publish a notice in the Federal Register whenever it changes the factors used to compute the present values of these benefits.

Section 831.2205(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the method for computing the reduction in the beginning rate of annuity payable to a retiree who elects an alternative form of annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8343a. That reduction is required to produce an annuity that is the actuarial equivalent of the annuity of a retiree who does not elect an alternative form of annuity. The present value factors listed below are used to compute the annuity reduction under section 831.2205(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 831.303(c) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of these factors for computing the reduction to complete payment of certain redeposits of refunded deductions based on periods of service that ended before March 1, 1991, under section 8334(d)(2) of title 5, United States Code; section 1902 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Public Law 111-84.

Section 831.663 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of similar factors for computing the reduction required for certain elections to provide survivor annuity benefits based on a post-retirement marriage under section 8339(j)(5)(C) or (k)(2) of title 5, United States Code. Under section 11004 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Public Law 103-66, effective October 1, 1993, OPM ceased collection of these survivor election deposits by means of either a lump-sum payment or installments. Instead, OPM is required to establish a permanent actuarial reduction in the annuity of the retiree. This means that OPM must take the amount of the deposit computed under the old law and translate it into a lifetime reduction in the retiree's benefit.

Subpart F of part 847 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of similar factors for computing the deficiency the retiree must pay to receive credit for certain service with nonappropriated fund instrumentalities made creditable by an election under section 1043 of Public Law 104-106. Subpart I of part 847 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of present value factors for employees that elect to credit nonappropriated fund instrumentality service to qualify for immediate retirement under section 1132 of Public Law 107-107.

Sections 839.1114-1121 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of these factors for computing the reduction required for certain service credit deposits, Government Thrift Savings Plan contributions, or for previous payment of the FERS Basic Employee Death Benefit in annuities subject to the Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act (FERCCA) under the provisions of Public Law 106-265. Retirees and survivors who owe a larger deposit because of a retirement coverage error can choose to pay the additional deposit amount or their annuity will be actuarially reduced to account for the deposit amount that remains unpaid. Additionally, retirees and survivors of deceased employees who received Government contributions to their Thrift Savings Plan account after being corrected to FERS and who later elect CSRS Offset under FERCCA keep the Government contributions and associated earnings in their Thrift Savings Plan account. Instead of adjusting the Thrift Savings Plan account, FERCCA requires that the CSRS-Offset annuity be actuarially reduced. Also, survivors that received the FERS Basic Employee Death Benefit and elect CSRS Offset under FERCCA do not have to pay back the Basic Employee Death Benefit. Instead, OPM actuarially reduces the survivor annuity payable. These reductions under FERCCA allow the annuity to be actuarially reduced in a way that, on average, allows the Fund to recover the amount of the missing lump sum over the recipient's lifetime.

The present value factors currently in effect were published by OPM on April 6, 2020, at 85 FR 19171. On March 29, 2021, OPM published a notice to revise the normal cost percentage under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986, Public Law 99-335, based on changed assumptions adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the CSRS. Those changes require corresponding changes in present value factors used to produce actuarially equivalent benefits when required by the Civil Service Retirement Act. The revised factors will become effective on October 1, 2021. For alternative forms of annuity and redeposits of employee contributions, the new factors will apply to annuities that commence on or after October 1, 2021. See 5 CFR 831.2205 and 831.303(c). For survivor election deposits, the new factors will apply to survivor reductions that commence on or after October 1, 2021. See 5 CFR 831.663(c) and (d). For obtaining credit for service with certain nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, the new factors will apply to cases in which the date of computation under sections 847.603 or 847.809 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, is on or after October 1, 2021. See 5 CFR § 842.602, 842.616, 847.603, and § 847.809. For retirement coverage corrections under FERCCA, the new factors will apply to annuities that commence on or after October 1, 2021, or in the case of previous payment of the Basic Employee Death Benefit, the new factors will apply to deaths occurring on or after October 1, 2021. See 5 CFR 839.1114-1121 and 5 CFR 831.303(d).

OPM is, therefore, revising the tables of present value factors to read as follows: