Comments are invited 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title: Pandemic EBT.

Form Number: FNS-292B, FNS-388, FNS-46, FNS-366A, and SF-425 (under OMB Control Number 0584-0594) is associated with this collection.

OMB Number: 0584-0660.

Expiration Date: August 31, 2021.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 (FFCRA, Pub. L. 116-127), enacted March 18, 2020, included a general provision that allows the Department of Agriculture to approve state plans to provide temporary emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) assistance to households with children who would otherwise receive free or reduced-price meals if not for their schools being closed due to the COVID-19 emergency (also known as Pandemic EBT, or P-EBT). The authority for P-EBT under FFCRA expired on September 30, 2020. The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (Pub. L. 116-159), enacted October 1, 2020 extended the authority for P-EBT through September 30, 2021. This legislation also expanded the program to include child care facilities affected by the closures and schools with reduced attendance hours. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260), enacted December 27, 2020, provided additional eligibility requirements and State flexibilities for both school and child care components of this program. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA, Pub. L. 117-2) enacted on March 11 made several significant changes to P-EBT. Among these changes is the extension of P-EBT to the summer of 2021, school year 2021-2022, and summer 2022.

Per Public Law 116-159, and in order to operate P-EBT for Federal Fiscal Year 2021 and summer 2021, each State must submit a State plan to FNS Regional Office for approval. Once approved, in addition to administering P-EBT, each State SNAP agency will also be required to provide monthly reports via the FNS-292B ( Disaster Relief ) to the FNS Regional Office, regarding the number of eligible children receiving P-EBT benefits, number of households receiving such benefits, and the total value of the benefits. The State is expected to provide data that:

• Differentiates between non-SNAP and current SNAP households receiving P-EBT,

• within SNAP households, differentiate between base SNAP benefits and P-EBT benefits.

Each State is also expected to separately identify P-EBT participation and benefit issuance on the FNS-388 ( State Issuance and Participation Estimates ) and FNS-46 ( Issuance Reconciliation Report ) reports. There is no additional burden associated with this requirement, as the States already report participation data to FNS on the FNS-388 and FNS-46 on a monthly basis.

FNS will provide funding to each State's SNAP State agency for 100% of P-EBT-related administrative costs. Such funding will be available for the necessary, allowable, and reasonable State agency costs associated with the administration of P-EBT incurred during FY 2021. This includes administrative costs associated with the issuance of retroactive FY 2020 benefits incurred in FY 2021. States interested in the 100% funding will be expected to submit a P-EBT administrative cost plan for the intended period of operations for USDA approval using the FNS-366A ( Program and Budget Summary Statement: Budget Projection ). During the period of performance of the 100% funding, the SNAP State agency will be expected to aggregate obligation and outlay data from all State agencies utilizing the 100% funding and report quarterly to USDA using a P-EBT specific instance of the SF-425 ( Federal Financial Report ).

The current burden for a State agency to submit FNS-292B, FNS-388, FNS-46, FNS-366A and SF-425 reports is currently captured under the information collection for the Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS), OMB Control Number 0584-0594 (expiration date 7/31/23). The Food Programs Reporting System is the Federal system State agencies use to report FNS Program data to FNS. Therefore, this information collection estimates burden hours associated with P-EBT that are above the currently approved hours in 0584-0594 for forms FNS-292B, FNS-366A, and SF-425 for normal Program operations.

In order to determine eligibility and benefit levels for P-EBT, State agencies must collect data from schools. To administer P-EBT during the school year, schools must provide the State with predominant learning model (fully virtual, hybrid, or fully in-person) used by the school for each month of the school year. States generally are collecting this information every couple of months during the school year. This information is used to determine the benefit levels children are eligible to receive. Schools that operated predominantly fully virtual or hybrid learning models must also provide a list of students that have been determined eligible for free and reduced price meals. States use these two pieces of information reported by the school to issue benefits to eligible households. Per Public Law 117-2, during the summer months all children eligible for free or reduced price meals that are enrolled in schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program are considered eligible for P-EBT. This requires all schools to provide the State agency with a list of children who have been determined eligible for free and reduced price meals.

FNS will provide funding to each State's SNAP State agency for 100% of P-EBT-related school level administrative costs. Such funding will be available for the necessary, allowable, and reasonable State agency costs associated with the administration of P-EBT incurred during FY 2021. In order to receive this funding, schools must report to their State agency on the school level costs incurred to administer P-EBT.

Eligibility and benefit levels for the child care portion of P-EBT are determined without needing to collect additional information. State agencies use SNAP enrollment status data to determine eligibility and school learning model data they are already collecting to administer the schools component of P-EBT to determine benefit levels.

This submission seeks OMB approval of this revision to an existing collection (OMB Control # 0584-0660, expiration 8/31/2021) for activities associated with administering P-EBT.

The currently approved burden for this collection is 693,098 hours. FNS estimates the new burden at 3,684,928 burden hours, which is an increase of approximately 2,991,831 hours.

The currently approved total annual responses are 3,320,954; we are requesting 10,379,211, which is an increase of 7,058,257 total annual responses.

Affected Public: State Government, Schools, Individual/Households. Respondents include State agencies (including District of Columbia, and Territories), schools, and participants.

Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 675,820. This includes: State agencies (53), schools (94,767), Individuals/Households (581,000 participants).

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: The total estimated number of responses per respondent for this collection is 15.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: The total estimated number of annual responses for this collection is 10,379,211.

Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time per response averages approximately 21 minutes (0.355 hours) for all participants.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: The estimated total annual burden on respondents for this collection is 3,684,928 hours.

See the table below for the estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

In accordance with sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on March 22, 2021, Commerce published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) and its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of non-refillable cylinders from China. 1

On March 17, 2021 and March 22, 2021, Commerce received allegations that Commerce made ministerial errors in the AD Final Determination from Hangzhou JM Chemical Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou JM), Ningbo Eagle Machinery & Technology Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Eagle), and Wuyi Xilinde Machinery Manufacture Co., Ltd. (Wuyi Xilinde). 2 After reviewing the allegations, we determine that the AD Final Determination included certain ministerial errors and, therefore, we made appropriate changes, as described below in the “Amendment to AD Final Determination” section of this notice.

On May 5, 2021, pursuant to sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports and subsidized imports of non-refillable cylinders from China, within the meaning of sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 3

The products covered by these orders are non-refillable cylinders from China. For a full description of the scope of the orders, see the appendix to this notice.

A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(f), and as explained further in the Ministerial Error Memorandum, 4 Commerce is amending the AD Final Determination to reflect the correction of ministerial errors made in the calculations performed for the AD Final Determination, as alleged by Ningbo Eagle, and Wuyi Xilinde. Correction of these errors, as well as a related error identified by Commerce, resulted in changes to the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Wuyi Xilinde, the rate applicable to the separate rate companies, including Ningbo Eagle, and changes the companies' corresponding cash deposit rates. 5 Further, Commerce is amending the AD Final Determination to reflect the correction of a clerical error made in identifying the incorrect producer corresponding to the exporter Hangzhou JM, and identifies the correct producer, Wuyi Xilinde, in the combination rates for subject merchandise exported by Hangzhou JM listed below.

As stated above, on May 5, 2021, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of non-refillable cylinders from China that are sold in the United States at LTFV. 6 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing this AD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of non-refillable cylinders from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise for all relevant entries of non-refillable cylinders from China. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of non-refillable cylinders from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 30, 2020, the date of publication of the AD Preliminary Determination, but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination, as further described below. 7

Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures—AD” section of this notice, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of non-refillable cylinders from China. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the table below, adjusted by the relevant subsidy offsets. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated customs duties on subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates listed in the table below.

The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of non-refillable cylinders from China, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in this AD investigation. Commerce published the AD Preliminary Determination in this investigation on October 30, 2020. 8

The extended provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determination, ended on April 27, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of non-refillable cylinders from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after April 27, 2021, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register .

As stated above, on May 5, 2021, in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that the industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of non-refillable cylinders from China. 9 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing this CVD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of non-refillable cylinders from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, are subject to the assessment of countervailing duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties for all relevant entries of non-refillable cylinders from China, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 28, 2020, the date of publication of the CVD Preliminary Determination, but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before the publication of the ITC's final injury determination under section 705(b) of the Act, as further described in the “Provisional Measures—CVD” section of this notice. 10

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of non-refillable cylinders from China, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register , and to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates below. On or after the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register , CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated customs duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates listed in the table below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. The all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed below, as appropriate:

Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the CVD Preliminary Determination on August 28, 2020. 11 As such, the four-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the CVD Preliminary Determination ended on December 25, 2020.

Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of non-refillable cylinders from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after December 26, 2020, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register .

This notice constitutes the AD and CVD orders with respect to non-refillable cylinders from China pursuant to sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

These orders are published in accordance with sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

On October 6, 2020, Commerce initiated an administrative review on the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails (nails) from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period August 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020 with respect to 457 companies. 1 Based on the timely withdrawal of review requests, we rescinded the administrative review with respect to five companies pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and (4). 2 Therefore, the results of this review cover the remaining 452 companies.

The products covered by the Order are nails from China. For a complete description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3

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

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Determination Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided as an appendix to this notice.

Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information and information provided by a number of companies, we preliminarily determine that 21 companies under review did not have any shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. 4 For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Consistent with our practice, we are not rescinding this review with respect to these companies but, instead, intend to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review. 5

In accordance with Commerce's policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the China-wide entity. 6 Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in this review, the China-wide entity is not under review and the weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity is not subject to change ( i.e., 118.04 percent). 7

Commerce finds that the two mandatory respondents, Qingdao D&L Group Ltd. (Qingdao D&L) and Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd., a.k.a. Shanghai Yueda Nails Co. (Shanghai Yueda), have not established their eligibility for a separate rate and are to be considered part of the China-wide entity for these preliminary results. Furthermore, because 427 additional companies did not submit separate rate applications or certifications, or no-shipment certifications, we preliminarily determine they are ineligible for a separate rate as well and are part of the China-wide entity. See Appendix I of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum for a full list of companies that are part of the China-wide entity.

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents 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 an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually-examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where all rates are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, Commerce may use “any reasonable method” for assigning a rate to non-examined respondents.

However, for these preliminary results, we have not calculated any individual rates or assigned a rate based on facts available. Therefore, consistent with our recent practice, we preliminarily determine to assign to the non-individually examined separate rate respondents the most recently assigned separate rate in this proceeding, which is from the previous administrative review. 8 Using this method, we are preliminarily assigning a separate rate margin of 41.75 percent to the two non-individually examined companies, Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd., that demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020:

Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 9 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 10 Parties who submit case brief or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 11 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS. 12

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 13 Hearing requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held. 14 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 15

Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

Upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. 16 If the preliminary results are unchanged for the final results, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 118.04 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were exported by 429 companies, including Qingdao D&L and Shanghai Yueda, in the China-wide entity. If Commerce continues to make a no-shipment finding in the final results for the 21 companies referenced in the “Preliminary Determination of No Shipments” section above, any suspended entries of subject merchandise associated with those companies will also be liquidated at the China-wide rate. For the two companies receiving a separate rate, we intend to assign an assessment rate of 41.75 percent, consistent with the methodology described above.

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 final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for those companies); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise not listed above that continue to be eligible for a separate rate based on a completed prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be that existing cash deposit rate published for the most recently completed period; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including Qingdao D&L and Shanghai Yueda, the cash deposit rate will be 118.04 percent, the weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity from the less-than-fair-value investigation; and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

In the Federal Register of May 3, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-09199, on page 23344, in the third column, the title of the document incorrectly states “Request for Panel Review”. The correct title is “Interim Panel Decision”.

In the Federal Register of May 3, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-09199, on page 23345, in the first column in the Summary section, the date of issuance of the Interim Decision and Order incorrectly states April 26, 2019. The correct date of issuance is April 26, 2021.

On March 25, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2015-2016 CVD administrative review of CORE from India. 1 Commerce found that Uttam Galva failed to properly report its affiliation with Lloyds Steels Industry Limited (LSIL). 2 Therefore, Commerce applied total adverse facts available (AFA) pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) to Uttam Galva. 3 Commerce constructed an AFA rate by selecting the highest calculated rate for the identical, or a similar/comparable, program for each of the subsidy programs under review. 4

Uttam Galva appealed Commerce's Final Results with respect to the application of AFA and Commerce's construction of the total AFA rate. On February 6, 2020, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce, sustaining Commerce's decision to apply AFA to Uttam Galva for failing to disclose its affiliation with LSIL and granting Commerce's request for a voluntary remand to reconsider the rate assigned to the Market Access Initiative Program and four additional programs. 5 The CIT directed Commerce to consider Uttam Galva's argument that 20 other subsidy programs should not be included in the total AFA rate and to further explain its rate selections. 6

In its First Remand Redetermination, issued in May 2020, Commerce adjusted Uttam Galva's total AFA rate to reflect the modifications for the five programs that were the subject of its voluntary remand request and continued to find that the other 20 programs were properly included in the AFA rate. 7 Specifically, Commerce modified the AFA rate for the Market Access Initiative program from 16.63 percent to 6.06 percent and removed the following programs from Uttam Galva's total AFA rate: (1) The Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate Remuneration; (2) State Government of Uttar Pradesh (SGUP) Exemption from Entry Tax for the Iron and Steel Industry; (3) SGUP Long-Term Interest Free Loans Equivalent to the Amount of Value-Added Tax and Central Sales Tax Paid; and (4) SGUP's Interest Free Loans under the SGUP Development Promotion Rules 2003.

The CIT remanded for a second time, sustaining Commerce's determination to include the 20 disputed programs in Uttam Galva's AFA rate calculation, and instructing Commerce to further explain its decision to apply total AFA to Uttam Galva in this review for Uttam Galva's failure to properly report its affiliation with LSIL when Commerce applied partial AFA to respondent JSW Steel Limited (JSW) in the investigation of this proceeding for JSW's failure to properly report an affiliate. 8

In its Second Remand Redetermination, issued in December 2020, Commerce explained that application of total AFA to Uttam Galva is warranted in this review and consistent with Commerce's total AFA practice. 9 The application of partial AFA to JSW was based on a distinct set of facts and, although the application of AFA to JSW was similarly based on the company respondent's failure to properly report an affiliated entity, it is not determinative of the treatment of Uttam Galva in this segment because the circumstances surrounding the AFA determinations for each company were different. 10 The CIT sustained Commerce's final redetermination. 11

In its decision in Timken, 12 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 13 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's April 29, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Results with respect to Uttam Galva as follows:

Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Uttam Galva at the subsidy rate listed above in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b).

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing a proposed notice to extend the existing collection of information listed below. 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.

Title: Reparations Complaint, CFTC Form 30 (OMB Control No. 3038-0115). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Pursuant to Section 14 of the Commodity Exchange Act, members of the public may apply to the Commission to seek damages against Commission registrants for alleged violations of the Act and/or Commission regulations. The legislative intent of the Reparations program was to provide a low-cost, speedy, and effective forum for the resolution of customer complaints and to sanction individuals and firms found to have violated the Act and/or any regulations.

In 1984, the Commission promulgated Part 12 of the Commission regulations to administer Section 14. Rule 12.13 provides the standards and procedures for filing a Reparations complaint. Specifically, subparagraph (b) describes the form and content requirements of a complaint. CFTC Form 30 mirrors the requirements set forth in subparagraph (b).

The Commission began utilizing Form 30 in or about 1984. The form was created to assist customers, who are typically pro se and non-lawyers. It was also designed as a way to provide proper notice to respondents of the charges against them. This form is critical to fulfilling this policy goal. 1

With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations. 2

The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the ICR will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Respondents/Affected Entities: Commodity futures customers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 24.

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 1.5.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 36.

Frequency of Collection: As applicable.

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

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: Maintenance-of-Effort Requirements and Waiver Requests under the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund and the Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0745.

Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 81.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 358.

Abstract: The Department is requesting an emergency approval for a revision of the OMB approved CARES Act Maintenance of Effort (MOE) collection under OMB control number 1810-0745. In recognition of the immense challenges facing students, educators, staff, schools, LEAs, and SEAs right now, Congress has made additional ESSER and GEER funds available to SEAs and LEAs to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19 through the CRRSA Act and, most recently and significantly, the ARP Act. It is critical that States and Governors receive clear guidance on the MOE requirements under the CRRSA Act and the ARP Act to inform their spending decisions and implementation plans for the GEER and ESSER programs as SEAs and LEAs prepare to help schools return safely to in-person instruction, maximize in-person instructional time, sustain the safe operation of schools, and address the academic, social, emotional, and mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This guidance and the associated collection provide States and Governors clear guidance they need to fully implement their GEER and ESSER programs. States and Governors have delayed distributing and spending funds due to the absence of guidance on the process for requesting waivers of MOE. Additionally, the Department will not be able to properly monitor GEER and ESSER recipients or provide technical assistance without collecting the MOE data and, when requested by States, grant MOE waiver requests.

Additional Information: If this collection is not allowed to proceed, States and Governors will not have the clear guidance they need to fully implement their GEER and ESSER programs. States and Governors have delayed distributing and spending funds due to the absence of guidance on the process for requesting waivers of MOE. Additionally, the Department will not be able to properly monitor GEER and ESSER recipients or provide technical assistance without collecting the MOE data and, when requested by States, grant MOE waiver requests.

The following information pertains to FERC-567 only.

Title: FERC-567, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0005.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-567 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: Per 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 260.8(a), each major interstate natural gas pipeline with a system delivery capacity exceeding 100,000 Mcf  2 per day is required to submit, by June 1 of each year, diagrams reflecting operating conditions on the pipeline's main transmission system during the previous 12 months ending on December 31. The submitted information must include (i) configuration and location of installed pipeline facilities; (ii) receipt and delivery points between shippers, and pipeline companies; (iii) location of compressor stations on a pipeline system; (iv) pipeline diameters; (v) maximum allowable operating pressures; (vi) suction and discharge pressures at compressor stations; (vii) installed horsepower and volumes compressed at each compressor station; (viii) existing shippers currently nominating service under firm contracts on each pipeline company; and (ix) peak capacity on the system. The data is collected so that it's available in the event the Commission needs to confirm pipeline facility data.

Type of Respondents: Natural gas pipeline companies with a system delivery capacity in excess of 100,000 Mcf per day.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

The following information pertains to FERC-576 only.

Title: FERC-576, Report of Service Interruptions or Damage to Facilities.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0004.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-576 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: Per 18 CFR 260.9, natural gas pipeline companies must report (i) damage to any jurisdictional natural gas facilities other than liquefied natural gas facilities caused by a hurricane, earthquake or other natural disaster or terrorist activity that results in a loss of or reduction in pipeline throughput or storage deliverability; and (ii) serious interruptions of service to any shipper involving jurisdictional natural gas facilities other than liquefied natural gas facilities.

The notifications, made to the Director, Division of Pipeline Certificates via email or fax as soon as feasibly possible, must state: (1) The location of the service interruption or damage to natural gas pipeline or storage facilities; (2) The nature of any damage to pipeline or storage facilities; (3) Specific identification of the facilities damaged; (4) The time the service interruption or damage to the facilities occurred; (5) The customers affected by the service interruption or damage to the facilities; (6) Emergency actions taken to maintain service; and (7) Company contact and telephone number. The information provided by these notifications are kept by the Commission and are not made part of the public record.

In addition, if an incident requires reporting of the incident to the Department of Transportation under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, a copy of such report shall be submitted to the Director of the Commission's Division of Pipeline Certificates, within 30 days of the reportable incident. Natural gas companies must also send a copy of submitted reports to each state commission for the state(s) in which the reported service interruption occurred. If the Commission did not collect this information, it would lose a data point that assists in the monitoring of transactions, operations, and reliability of interstate pipelines.

Type of Respondents: Natural gas companies experiencing service interruptions or damage to facilities.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the average annual burden and cost  5 for this information collection as follows.

Pursuant to Clean Water Act section 312(f)(3), if any state determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the state's waters require greater environmental protection, the state may designate the waters as a vessel sewage no-discharge zone. However, the state may not establish the no-discharge zone until EPA has determined that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the proposed waters. EPA's implementing regulations, 40 CFR part 140, require that the state apply to EPA to obtain such a determination, and identify the types of information that must be included in the application. This includes a certification of need for the no-discharge zone and information regarding the vessel population and pumpout facilities.

The proposed no-discharge zone includes thirteen water bodies wholly within Anne Arundel County, Maryland: Stoney Creek, Rock Creek, Bodkin Creek, the Atlantic Marina Resort, Magothy and Little Magothy Rivers, Severn River, South River, West and Rhode Rivers, Podickory Creek, Sandy Point/Mezick Ponds, Whitehall Bay, Oyster Cove and Fishing Creek. While these waterbodies constitute nearly all of the county's waters, a few water bodies have not been proposed for the no-discharge zone designation. These include two inter-jurisdictional rivers that border the county, the Patapsco River and Patuxent River, as well as Curtis Creek. The proposed no-discharge zone encompasses a total area of 27,379 acres, expanding upon an existing 3,500 acre no-discharge zone for Herring Bay that was approved in 2002 (67 FR 1352, January 10, 2002). The table below provides the coordinates delineating the proposed no-discharge zone boundaries for each of the thirteen waterbodies.

In the application, Maryland certified that the waters of the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County require greater environmental protection than provided by currently applicable Federal standards for vessel sewage discharges. The Magothy River, Whitehall Bay/Meredith River, Severn River, South River, Rhode River and West River have been listed on current or previous Clean Water Act 303(d) lists of impaired waters by Maryland as impaired for shellfish harvesting due to fecal coliform. As such, many shellfish beds are restricted or closed. All except Whitehall Bay/Meredith Creek are also impaired for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and all except the Whitehall Bay/Meredith Creek and West River for total suspended solids. The state anticipates that a no-discharge zone designation would help reduce levels of nutrients, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform within these impaired waters.

The application also highlights the importance of boating in Anne Arundel County. The county is home to the U.S. Naval Academy, has hosted the U.S. Sailboat and Powerboat Shows annually since 1970, and is known as the “The Nation's Sailing Capital.” According to the application's sources, there are approximately 96 recreational boating businesses in Anne Arundel County, plus additional businesses that support and depend on recreational crabbing and fishing.

The State of Maryland provided documentation indicating that the maximum total vessel population is estimated to be 29,789 vessels, the majority of which are recreational. The most conservative vessel population estimates provided by Maryland suggest that there are 7,182 vessels less than 16 feet in length, 10,307 vessels between 16 feet and 26 feet in length, 9,072 vessels between 26 feet and 40 feet in length, and 3,228 vessels greater than 40 feet in length. Commercial traffic on these waterways is limited to boat rental companies, public charter vessels and several small cruise ships. Based on the number and size of vessels and EPA guidance on the subject (“Protecting Coastal Waters from Vessel and Marina Discharges: A Guide for State and Local Officials, Volume 1. Establishing No-Discharge Areas under section 312 of the Clean Water Act” (EPA 842-B-94-004, August 1994)), the estimated number of vessels requiring pumpout facilities in the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County during peak occupancy is 2,924 vessels.

Based on Maryland's vessel population estimates and EPA guidance, approximately 46 pumpout facilities are needed to adequately service the vessel population. Maryland identified 61 marinas offering public pumpout service, including 59 stationary units, nine portable units and three mobile pumpout boats. The application provides additional information regarding height and draft limitations for accessing pumpout facilities. EPA has determined that vessels using the proposed waters will not be excluded due to any such limitations. A list of the facilities, phone numbers, locations and hours of operation follows.

As part of the determination, EPA considered the costs associated with the adequacy and availability of pumpout facilities and determined that costs are minimal. As shown in the table below, pumpout facilities located within the proposed no-discharge zone charge fees that range from $3 to $50, with 52 of 61 available facilities charging $5 or less, including 15 facilities that are free to use. According to Maryland's application, the majority of commercial vessels operating in the proposed no-discharge zone are already equipped with holding tank capacity and therefore are not expected to experience incremental cost increases as a result of the designation.

In order to solicit input on Maryland's application, EPA published a tentative affirmative determination in the Federal Register on September 23, 2020, thereby opening a 30-day public comment period (85 FR 59788). EPA received comments from five individuals regarding establishment of a no-discharge zone in Anne Arundel County and its tributaries. Of those, one supported and three opposed the effort. The other commenter neither supported nor opposed the no-discharge zone, and instead inquired whether the commenter could receive a temporary exemption from enforcement of this no-discharge zone. Since EPA does not enforce this requirement once approved, that comment is outside the scope of EPA's authority to respond. Comments critical of establishing a no-discharge zone focused on three primary issues.

Issue 1: Nearby municipalities lack the proper waste treatment system that often overflow and result in spilling sewage to nearby waters.

Response 1: In Maryland's application, the state identifies how collected waste is handled by each individual pumpout facility. Some pumpout facilities temporarily store sewage onsite in a holding tank for later pumpout by a septic hauler that ultimately transports the sewage to a wastewater treatment plant licensed to operate in the state of Maryland. The remaining facilities are directly served by the public sewer, where sewage is directly deposited into the public sewer systems. Maryland confirms that these systems comply all applicable regulations. Treatment facilities are regulated by Maryland through NPDES permits under CWA section 402 and addressed in the Code of Maryland Regulations. Any specific overflows or spills from such facilities may further be addressed further through enforcement and/or compliance efforts. EPA reviewed recent data pertaining to overflows and found no significant violations of such permit requirements. Additionally, there are no Combined Sewer Systems in the proposed waters. EPA does not believe the closest CSO communities have any significant impact on these waters; furthermore, those programs are being adequately addressed through ongoing separation projects and/or in accordance with the schedule for approved long term control plans.

Issue 2: The number of available pumpouts is sufficient for the resident vessel population but not for the transient vessel population in Whitehall Bay.

Response 2: In addition to the stationary pumpout facility open for public use in Whitehall Bay, nearby facilities are available to the southwest in Severn River (16 facilities) and to the northeast in Sandy Point/Mezick's Pond (one facility). As such, transient vessel operators have an option available to them while operating within Whitehall Bay, as well as before or after transiting through the area.

Issue 3: Most pumpout facilities are not open after dark and very few are open during winter.

Response 3: The commenter is correct that few pumpout facilities offer around-the-clock service. However, numerous facilities across the proposed no-discharge zone are available to service vessels into the late afternoon and evening. It is reasonable to expect that vessel operators can identify suitable times and locations to pumpout during facility operating hours. During the off-season (winter) months, vessels can be pumped out at the six different pumpout facilities across the proposed no-discharge zone that continue to operate. The Annapolis City pumpout boat also remains in service during this time. While most pumpout facilities are closed, Maryland estimates that only a small percentage of vessels operate during the off-season, and typically only do so for short day trips. As such, EPA has determined that, because the reduction in pumpout service capacity coincides with a reduction in demand for pumpout services, the available facilities during the off-season months remain adequate and reasonably available to the small number of vessels requiring pumpouts.

Based on the information provided by the State of Maryland and after consideration of the comments received, as well as information otherwise available to EPA, EPA hereby issues a final affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the thirteen identified waterbodies located in the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County and its tributaries such that the State of Maryland may establish a vessel sewage no-discharge zone.

Through this notification, EPA also amends one of the geographic coordinates from an existing no-discharge zone for Perrin River. EPA's final affirmative determination for Sarah Creek and Perrin River, Virginia, published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2020, incorrectly identified one of the coordinates delineating the no-discharge zone boundary at the mouth of the Perrin River as 37°15′47.18″ N, 76°25′20.73″ W (85 FR 59796). This notification hereby corrects this coordinate to 37°15′43.52″ N, 76°25′25.71″ W (NAD 83).

This proposed administrative settlement for recovery of response costs concerning the Former Healy School Site, located in Fall River, Bristol County, Massachusetts, is made in accordance with Section 122(h)(l) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA covenants not to sue or take administrative action against the Settling Party, Spindle City Homes, Inc., pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for Response Costs. In exchange, the Settling Party agrees to pay to EPA an amount equal to the Net Sale Proceeds minus $5,000 for attorney fees and expenses. “Net Sale Proceeds” shall mean the $450,000 sales price set forth in the Purchase and Sale Agreement minus the sum of: (i) Any reasonable closing costs paid regarding the sale; (ii) any reasonable. broker's fees regarding the sale; and (iii) any outstanding real estate taxes or other municipal charges owed to the City of Fall River with respect to the Property that are paid to the City of Fall River at the time of closing. Payment of such amount shall be due within 48 hours of the closing of the sale of the property and within 14 days of receiving payment, EPA will provide Settling Party with a release of lien. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to this cost recovery settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the Environmental Protection Agency—Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. The Effective Date of the Agreement is the date upon which EPA notifies Spindle City Homes, Inc. that the public comment period has closed and that such comments, if any, do not require that EPA modify or withdraw from the Agreement. If the closing of the sale of the Property pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement does not take place on or before November 1, 2021, this Agreement is voidable at the discretion of EPA. The proposed settlement has been approved by the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice.

This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from registrants to cancel certain pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 and Table 1A of this unit.

Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the Federal Register canceling all the affected registrations.

The registrant for the pesticide product registration listed in Table 1A has requested to the Agency via letter that the cancellation becomes effective September 30, 2022.

Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 and Table 1A of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register .

Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:

1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or

2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.

The registrants in Table 2 of Unit II have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.

Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . If the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. In any order issued in response to these requests for cancellation of product registrations EPA proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

For products 400-600, 10324-89, 10324-139, 10324-140, 10324-149, 10324-187, 34704-920, 70506-214, 70506-292 & 70506-293, the registrants have requested 18-months to sell existing stocks. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of these product cancellations, identified in Table 1of Unit II, EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these voluntarily canceled products for 18-months after the effective date of the publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal Register . Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing these products identified in Table 1 of Unit II, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal.

For product 1021-2600, the registrant has requested that the cancellation becomes effective September 30, 2022. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with this pesticide product, upon cancellation of this product cancellation, identified in Table 1A of Unit II, EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these voluntarily canceled products for 1 year after the effective date of the product cancellation, which will be September 30, 2023. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing these products identified in Table 1A of Unit II, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal.

Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with all the other pesticide products, identified in Table 1 of Unit II, upon cancellation of these product cancellations, EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these voluntarily canceled products for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal Register . Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Unit II, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal. Persons other than registrants will generally be allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is considering adopting guidelines (Account Access Guidelines) to be used by Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) in evaluating requests for master accounts and/or access to Federal Reserve Bank financial services (accounts and services). The Board's approach to this proposal reflects its analysis of the Board's policy goals of (1) ensuring the safety and soundness of the banking system, (2) effectively implementing monetary policy, (3) promoting financial stability, (4) protecting consumers, and (5) promoting a safe, efficient, inclusive, and innovative payment system. The Board's proposed guidelines are also intended to ensure that Reserve Banks evaluate a transparent and consistent set of factors when reviewing requests for accounts and services (access requests).

The payments landscape is evolving rapidly as technological progress and other factors are leading to both the introduction of new financial products and services and to different ways of providing traditional banking services ( i.e., payments, deposit-taking, and lending). Relatedly, there has been a recent uptick in novel charter types being authorized or considered across the country and, as a result, the Reserve Banks are receiving an increasing number of inquiries and requests for access to accounts and services from novel institutions.

Although the Reserve Banks have received such inquiries on an exceptional basis in the past, the Board now believes, given the increase in the number and novelty of such inquiries, that a more transparent and consistent approach to such requests should be adopted by the Reserve Banks. Given that access decisions made by individual Reserve Banks can have implications for a wide array of Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) policies and objectives, a structured, transparent, and detailed framework for evaluating access requests would benefit the financial system broadly. Such a framework would also help foster consistent evaluation of access requests, from both risk and policy perspectives, across all twelve Reserve Banks.

To help achieve the goal of applying a transparent and consistent process for all access requests, the Board is proposing guidelines for the Reserve Banks to evaluate such requests. The proposed account access guidelines contain six principles that would support consistency in approach and decision-making across Reserve Banks while maintaining Reserve Bank discretionary authority to grant or deny requests. Accordingly, the proposed guidelines would reduce the potential for forum shopping across Reserve Banks and mitigate the risk that individual decisions by Reserve Banks could create de facto System policy for a particular business model or risk profile. These risk-focused guidelines would also promote more consistent implementation for eligible institutions with similar risk profiles.

The proposed account access guidelines are centered on a foundation of risk management and mitigation. In developing the proposed guidelines, the Board considered the risks that may arise when an institution gains access to accounts and services. These risks include, among others, risks to the Reserve Banks, to the payment system, to the financial system, and to the effective implementation of monetary policy.

The introduction to the proposed guidelines discusses the Federal Reserve's broad policy goals when providing accounts and services as well as the reasons for proposing to issue the account access guidelines. In addition, the introduction provides that while the guidelines are designed primarily for new access requests, Reserve Banks should also apply the guidelines to existing account and services relationships when a Reserve Bank becomes aware of a significant change in the risks that the account holder presents due to changes in the nature of its principal business activities, condition, etc.

The proposed account access guidelines identify potential risks and prompt the Reserve Bank to identify risk mitigation strategies adopted by the institution (including capital, risk frameworks, compliance with regulations, and supervision) and by the Reserve Bank (including account agreement provisions, restrictions on financial services accessed, account risk controls, and denial of access requests). The first principle specifies that only institutions that are legally eligible for accounts and services are in scope, and the remaining five principles are designed to address specific risks ranging from narrow risks (such as risk to an individual Reserve Bank) to broader risks (such as risk to the U.S. financial system). 1 The Board is considering whether it may in the future be useful to clarify the interpretation of legal eligibility under the Federal Reserve Act for a Federal Reserve account and services.

For each of these principles, the proposed guidelines identify factors that Reserve Banks should consider when evaluating an institution against the specific risk targeted by the pringciple (several factors are pertinent to more than one principle). The identified factors are commonly used in the regulation and supervision of federally-insured institutions. When applying the account access guidelines the Reserve Bank should incorporate, to the extent possible, the assessments of an institution by state and/or federal supervisors into its independent assessment of the institution's risk profile. Given that the proposed guidelines utilize factors broadly applied to federally-insured institutions, the Board anticipates the application of the guidelines to access requests by federally-insured institutions would be fairly straightforward in most cases. Reserve Bank assessments of access requests from non-federally-insured institutions, however, may require more extensive due diligence.

Currently, Reserve Bank risk management practices include monitoring the condition of institutions with accounts and services on an ongoing basis using supervisory ratings, capitalization data, and other supplementary information. Reserve Banks use this process to determine whether risk controls or other restrictions should be placed on an institution's account. For example, the process is used to determine if an institution continues to remain eligible for primary credit. The Board anticipates that, if the proposed guidelines are adopted, Reserve Banks would use the guidelines to re-evaluate the risks posed by an institution in cases where these condition-monitoring activities indicate potential changes in the institution's risk profile.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) has adopted account access guidelines comprised of six principles to be used by Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) in evaluating requests for master accounts and access to Federal Reserve Bank financial services (access requests). 2 3 The account access guidelines apply to requests from all institutions that are legally eligible to receive an account or services, as discussed in more detail in the first principle. 4

The Federal Reserve System's (Federal Reserve) approach to providing institutions with accounts and services depends on, among other things, whether the institution is legally eligible to obtain an account and on the Federal Reserve's policy goals of ensuring the safety and soundness of the banking system, effectively implementing monetary policy, promoting financial stability, protecting consumers, and promoting a safe, effective, efficient, accessible and innovative payment system. The Board believes it is important to make clear that legal eligibility does not bestow a right to obtain an account and services. While decisions regarding individual access requests remain at the discretion of the individual Reserve Banks, the Board believes it is important that the Reserve Banks apply a consistent set of guidelines when reviewing such access requests to promote consistent outcomes across Reserve Banks and to facilitate equitable treatment across institutions.

These account access guidelines also serve to inform requestors of the factors that a Reserve Bank will review in any access request and thereby allow requestors to make any enhancements to its risk management, documentation, or other practices, as the case may be, to attempt to demonstrate how it meets each of these factors for review.

These guidelines broadly outline considerations for evaluating access requests but are not intended to provide assurance that any specific institution will be granted an account and services. The individual Reserve Bank will evaluate each access request on a case-by-case basis. When applying these account access guidelines, the Reserve Bank should incorporate to the extent possible the assessments of an institution by state and/or federal supervisors into its independent analysis of the institution's risk profile. The evaluation of an institution's access request should also consider whether the request has the potential to set a precedent that could affect the Federal Reserve's ability to achieve its policy goals now or in the future.

If the Reserve Bank decides to grant an access request, it may impose (at the time of account opening, granting access to service, or any time thereafter) obligations relating to, or conditions or limitations on, use of the account or services as necessary to limit operational, credit, legal, or other risks posed to the Reserve Banks, the payment system, financial stability or the implementation of monetary policy or to address other considerations. 5 The account-holding Reserve Bank may, at its discretion, decide to place additional risk management controls on the account and services, such as real-time monitoring of account balances, as it may deem necessary to mitigate risks. If the obligations, limitations, or controls are ineffective in mitigating the risks identified or if the obligations, limitations, or controls are breached, the account-holding Reserve Bank may further restrict the institution's use of accounts and services or may close the account. Establishment of an account and provision of services by a Reserve Bank under these guidelines is not an endorsement or approval by the Federal Reserve of the institution. Nothing in the Board's guidelines relieves any institution from compliance with obligations imposed by the institution's supervisors and regulators.

Accordingly, Reserve Banks should evaluate how each institution requesting an account and services will meet the following principles. 6 Each principle identifies factors that Reserve Banks should consider when evaluating an institution against the specific risk targeted by the principle (several factors are pertinent to more than one principle). The identified factors are commonly used in the regulation and supervision of federally-insured institutions. As a result, the Board anticipates the application of the account access guidelines to access requests by federally-insured institutions will be fairly straightforward in most cases. However, Reserve Bank assessments of access requests from non-federally insured institutions may require more extensive due diligence.

Reserve Banks monitor and analyze the condition of institutions with accounts and services on an ongoing basis. Reserve Banks should use the guidelines to re-evaluate the risks posed by an institution in cases where its condition monitoring and analysis indicate potential changes in the risk profile of an institution, including a significant change to the institution's business model.

1. Each institution requesting an account or services must be eligible under the Federal Reserve Act or other federal statute to maintain an account at a Federal Reserve Bank (Reserve Bank) and receive Federal Reserve services and should have a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for its operations. 7

a. Unless otherwise specified by federal statute, only those entities that are member banks or meet the definition of a depository institution under section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act are legally eligible to obtain Federal Reserve accounts and financial services. 8

b. The Reserve Bank should assess the consistency of the institution's activities and services with applicable laws and regulations, such as Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The Reserve Bank should also consider whether the design of the institution's services would impede compliance by the institution's customers with U.S. sanction programs, Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money-laundering (AML) requirements or regulations, or consumer protection laws and regulations.

2. Provision of an account and services to an institution should not present or create undue credit, operational, settlement, cyber or other risks to the Reserve Bank.

a. The Reserve Bank should incorporate, to the extent possible, the assessments of an institution by state and/or federal supervisors into its independent assessment of the institution's risk profile.

b. The Reserve Bank should confirm that the institution has an effective risk management framework and governance arrangements to ensure that the institution operates in a safe and sound manner, during both normal conditions and periods of idiosyncratic and market stress.

i. For these purposes, effective risk management includes having a robust framework, including policies, procedures, systems, and qualified staff, to manage applicable risks. The framework should at a minimum identify, measure, and control the particular risks posed by the institution's business lines, products and services. The effectiveness of the framework should be further supported by internal testing and internal audit reviews.

ii. The framework should be subject to oversight by a board of directors (or similar body) as well as oversight by state and/or federal banking supervisor(s).

iii. The framework should clearly identify all risks that may arise related to the institution's business ( e.g., legal, credit, liquidity, operational, custody, investment) as well as objectives regarding the risk tolerances for the management of such risks.

c. The Reserve Bank should confirm that the institution is in substantial compliance with its supervisory agency's regulatory and supervisory requirements.

d. The institution must, in the Reserve Bank's judgment:

i. Demonstrate an ability to comply, were it to obtain a master account, with Board orders and policies, Reserve Bank agreements and operating circulars, and other applicable Federal Reserve requirements.

ii. Be in sound financial condition, including maintaining adequate capital to continue as a going concern and to meet its current and projected operating expenses under a range of scenarios.

iii. Demonstrate the ability, on an ongoing basis (including during periods of idiosyncratic or market stress), to meet all of its obligations in order to remain a going concern and comply with its agreement for a Reserve Bank account and services, including by maintaining:

A. Sufficient liquid resources to meet its obligations to the Reserve Bank under applicable agreements, operating circulars, and Board policies;

B. The operational capacity to ensure that such liquid resources are available to satisfy all such obligations to the Reserve Bank on a timely basis; and

C. Settlement processes designed to appropriately monitor balances in its Reserve Bank account on an intraday basis, to process transactions through its account in an orderly manner and maintain/achieve a positive account balance before the end of the business day.

iv. Have in place an operational risk framework designed to ensure operational resiliency against events associated with processes, people, and systems that may impair the institution's use and settlement of Reserve Bank services. This framework should consider internal and external factors, including operational risks inherent in the institution's business model, risks that might arise in connection with its use of any Reserve Bank account and services, and cyber-related risks. At a minimum, the operational risk framework should:

A. Identify the range of operational risks presented by the institution's business model ( e.g., cyber vulnerability, operational failure, resiliency of service providers), and establish sound operational risk management objectives to address such risks;

B. Establish sound governance arrangements, rules, and procedures to oversee and implement the operational risk management framework;

C. Establish clear and appropriate rules and procedures to carry out the risk management objectives;

D. Employ the resources necessary to achieve its risk management objectives and implement effectively its rules and procedures, including, but not limited to, sound processes for physical and information security, internal controls, compliance, program management, incident management, business continuity, audit, and well-qualified personnel; and

E. Support compliance with the electronic access requirements, including security measures, outlined in the Reserve Banks' Operating Circular 5 and its supporting documentation.

3. Provision of an account and services to an institution should not present or create undue credit, liquidity, operational, settlement, cyber or other risks to the overall payment system.

a. The Reserve Bank should incorporate, to the extent possible, the assessments of an institution by state and/or federal supervisors into its independent assessment of the institution's risk profile.

b. The Reserve Bank should confirm that the institution has an effective risk management framework and governance arrangements to limit the impact that idiosyncratic stress, disruptions, outages, cyber incidents or other incidents at the institution might have on other institutions and the payment system broadly. The framework should include:

i. Clearly defined operational reliability objectives and policies and procedures in place to achieve those objectives.

ii. A business continuity plan that addresses events that have the potential to disrupt operations and a resiliency objective to ensure the institution can resume services in a reasonable timeframe.

iii. Policies and procedures for identifying risks that external parties may pose to sound operations, including interdependencies with affiliates, service providers, and others.

c. The Reserve Bank should identify actual and potential interactions between the institution's use of a Reserve Bank account and services and (other parts of) the payment system.

i. The extent to which the institution's use of a Reserve Bank account and services might restrict funds from being available to support the liquidity needs of other institutions should also be considered.

d. The institution must, in the Reserve Bank's judgment:

i. Be in sound financial condition, including maintaining adequate capital to continue as a going concern and to meet its current and projected operating expenses under a range of scenarios.

ii. Demonstrate the ability, on an ongoing basis (including during periods of idiosyncratic or market stress), to meet all of its obligations in order to remain a going concern and comply with its agreement for a Reserve Bank account and services, including by maintaining:

A. Sufficient liquid resources to meet its obligations to the Reserve Bank under applicable agreements, Operating Circulars, and Board policies;

B. The operational capacity to ensure that such liquid resources are available to satisfy all such obligations to the Reserve Bank on a timely basis; and

C. Settlement processes designed to appropriately monitor balances in its Reserve Bank account on an intraday basis, to process transactions through its account in an orderly manner and maintain/achieve a positive account balance before the end of the business day.

iii. Have in place an operational risk framework designed to ensure operational resiliency against events associated with processes, people, and systems that may impair the institution's payment system activities. This framework should consider internal and external factors, including operational risk inherent in the institution's business model, risk that might arise in connection with its use of the payment system, and cyber-related risks. At a minimum, the framework should:

A. Identify the range of operational risks presented by the institution's business model ( e.g., cyber vulnerability, operational failure, resiliency of service providers), and establish sound operational risk-management objectives;

B. Establish sound governance arrangements, rules, and procedures to oversee the operational risk management framework;

C. Establish clear and appropriate rules and procedures to carry out the risk management objectives;

D. Employ the resources necessary to achieve its risk management objectives and implement effectively its rules and procedures, including, but not limited to, sound processes for physical and information security, internal controls, compliance, program management, incident management, business continuity, audit, and well-qualified personnel.

4. Provision of an account and services to an institution should not create undue risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system.

a. The Reserve Bank should incorporate, to the extent possible, the assessments of an institution by state and/or federal supervisors into its independent assessment of the institution's risk profile.

b. The Reserve Bank should determine, in coordination with the other Reserve Banks and Board, whether the access to an account and services by an institution itself or a group of like institutions could introduce financial stability risk to the U.S. financial system.

c. The Reserve Bank should confirm that the institution has an effective risk management framework and governance arrangements for managing liquidity, credit, and other risks that may arise in times of financial or economic stress.

d. The Reserve Bank should consider the extent to which, especially in times of financial or economic stress, liquidity or other strains at the institution may be transmitted to other segments of the financial system.

e. The Reserve Bank should consider the extent to which, especially during times of financial or economic stress, access to an account and services by an institution itself (or a group of like institutions) could affect deposit balances across U.S. financial institutions more broadly and whether any resulting movements in deposit balances could have a deleterious effect on U.S. financial stability.

i. Balances held in Reserve Bank accounts are high-quality liquid assets, making them very attractive in times of financial or economic stress. For example, in times of stress, investors that would otherwise provide short-term funding to nonfinancial firms, financial firms, and state and local governments could rapidly withdraw that funding and instead deposit their funds with an institution holding mostly central bank balances. If the institution is not subject to capital requirements similar to a federally-insured institution, the potential for sudden and significant deposit inflows into that institution is particularly large, which could disintermediate other parts of the financial system, greatly amplifying stress.

5. Provision of an account and services to an institution should not create undue risk to the overall economy by facilitating activities such as money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud, cybercrimes, or other illicit activity.

a. The Reserve Bank should incorporate, to the extent possible, the assessments of an institution by state and/or federal supervisors into its independent assessment of the institution's risk profile.

b. The Reserve Bank should confirm that the institution has an anti-money-laundering program consistent with the requirements in 31 CFR 1020.210(b) and complies with the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) regulations at 31 CFR Chapter V.

i. For these purposes, the Reserve Bank should confirm that these compliance programs contain the following elements:

A. A system of internal controls, including policies and procedures, to ensure ongoing BSA/AML and OFAC compliance, including regular written risk assessments to identify, analyze and address the risks the institution faces, policies, procedures, and an effective transaction-monitoring system;

B. Independent audit and testing of BSA/AML and OFAC compliance;

C. Senior management commitment to BSA/AML and OFAC compliance, including, at a minimum: (a) The designation of a specific person or persons responsible for managing BSA/AML and OFAC compliance, including the employment of an experienced BSA/AML and OFAC compliance officer; (b) senior management review and approval of the institution's BSA/AML and OFAC compliance programs; (c) the institution's compliance staff has sufficient authority and autonomy to deploy policies and procedures in a manner that effectively controls the institution's BSA/AML and OFAC risk; and (d) senior management taking, and demonstrating that it will continue to take, steps to ensure that the institution's compliance unit receives adequate resources;

D. Ongoing training for appropriate personnel with a scope that is appropriate for the products and services the institution offers; and

E. Processes that allow for a risk-based classification of its customer base, including risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence.

6. Provision of an account and services to an institution should not adversely affect the Federal Reserve's ability to implement monetary policy.

a. The Reserve Bank should incorporate, to the extent possible, the assessments of an institution by state and/or federal supervisors into its independent assessment of the institution's risk profile.

b. The Reserve Bank should determine, in coordination with the other Reserve Banks and the Board, whether access to an account and services by an institution itself or a group of like institutions could have an effect on the implementation of monetary policy.

c. The Reserve Bank should consider, among other things, whether access to a Reserve Bank account and services by the institution could affect the level and variability of the demand for and supply of reserves, the level and volatility of key policy interest rates, the structure of key short-term funding markets, and on the overall size of the consolidated balance sheet of the Reserve Banks. The Reserve Bank should consider the implications of providing an account to the institution in normal times as well as in times of stress. This consideration should occur regardless of the current monetary policy implementation framework in place.

The Board requests comment on all aspects of the proposed account access guidelines, including: (1) Whether the scope and application of the proposed guidance are sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve their intended purpose; and (2) suggesting/identifying other criteria or information that commenters believe may be relevant to evaluate accounts and services requests under the proposed guidance. The Board further seeks comment specifically on the following aspects of the proposed guidance:

1. Do the proposed account access guidelines address all the risks that would be relevant to the Federal Reserve's policy goals?

2. Does the level of specificity in each principle provide sufficient clarity and transparency about how the Reserve Banks will evaluate requests?

3. Do the proposed account access guidelines support responsible financial innovation?

Finally, the Board also seeks comment on whether the Board or the Reserve Banks should consider other steps or actions to facilitate the review of requests for accounts and services in a consistent and equitable manner.

Title: Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 16 CFR part 303.

OMB Control Number: 3084-0101.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Likely Respondents: Manufacturers, importers, processors and marketers of textile fiber products.

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure; recordkeeping requirement.

Estimated annual hours burden: 37,234,317 hours (1,180,725 recordkeeping hours + 36,053,592 disclosure hours).

Estimated annual cost burden: $243,170,994 (solely relating to labor costs). 1

Abstract: The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Act)  2 prohibits the misbranding and false advertising of textile fiber products. The Textile Rules establish disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed purchasing decisions, and recordkeeping requirements that assist the Commission in enforcing the Rules. The Rules also contain a petition procedure for requesting the establishment of generic names for textile fibers.

On February 23, 2021, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 86 FR 10967. The Commission received no germane comments. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule.

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

This is to invite the public to nominate members to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Initial Review Group (IRG) responsible for the scientific peer review of AHRQ grant applications. AHRQ is required to conduct appropriate scientific peer review of grant applications pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 299c-1. The AHRQ IRG conducts scientific and technical review for health services research grant applications and is comprised of five subcommittees or study sections, each with a particular research focus. AHRQ is seeking nominations for scientific reviewers in specific competency domains to evaluate grant applications.

AHRQ's mission is to produce evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable, and to work within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and with other partners to make sure that the evidence is understood and used. AHRQ works to fulfill its mission by supporting health services research, evaluation, demonstration, dissemination, and training grants.

The peer review of AHRQ grant applications involves an assessment conducted by panels of qualified experts established according to scientific disciplines or medical specialty areas. Members of the IRG will be selected based upon their training and experience in relevant scientific and technical fields, taking in account, among other factors: (1) The level of formal education and pertinent expertise and experience; (2) extent of engagement in relevant research; (3) extent of professional recognition; (4) need for specialization in relevant field; and (5) appropriate representation based on gender, racial/ethnic origin, and geography. See 42 CFR 67.15(a)(2).

The IRG is comprised of five subcommittees, or study sections, each with a particular emphasis around which peer reviewer expertise is assembled. AHRQ seeks nominations for each of the subcommittee competency domains described below:

Health Care Effectiveness and Outcomes Research: End-stage renal disease; cardiovascular disease; pediatrics; pharmacologist in opioid management; biostatisticians in health services research; health disparities and social determinants of health.

Healthcare Safety and Quality Improvement Research: Pharmacists with expertise in informatics; infectious diseases specialists; geriatricians; surgeons with a specialty in diagnostic error; health disparities and social determinants of health.

Healthcare Information Technology Research: Biomedical and consumer health informatics; family medicine; health care data analysis; health information technology; health services research in patient-oriented research; electronic health record and data for research; population-based studies in medicine; epidemiology; telehealth/telemedicine; emergency medicine; insurance benefit design; chronic condition care; natural language processing and machine learning; social networking and its determinants of health; health disparities and social determinants of health.

Healthcare Systems and Value Research: Health statistics; health care outcome research; evaluation and survey methods; health system and service research; health care policy research; health economics research; large database analysis; private health insurance/Medicaid and Medicare; learning laboratory development; health disparities and social determinants of health.

Health Care Research Training: Clinician with knowledge of health policy; Medicare and Medicaid; addiction medicine; health disparities and social determinants of health.

Additional study section descriptive information can be found here:

Study Section Rosters: http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/process/study-section/peerrev.

Study Section Descriptions: http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/process/study-section/peerdesc.

Study Section Research Foci: http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/process/study-section/resfoci.

Interested individuals may nominate themselves, and organizations and individuals may nominate one or more qualified persons for study section membership. A diversity of perspectives is valuable to AHRQ's work. To help obtain a diversity of perspectives among nominees, AHRQ encourages nominations of women and members of minority populations. AHRQ also seeks broad geographic representation. All nominations must be submitted electronically, and should include:

1. A copy of the nominee's current curriculum vitae and contact information, including mailing address, phone number, and email address.

2. Preferred study section assignment.

This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES ).

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new control number); Title of Information Collection: The International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS); Use: The HIPAA Act of 1996 required CMS to adopt standards for coding systems that are used for reporting health care transactions. The Transactions and Code Sets final rule (65 FR 50312) published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2000 adopted the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) Volumes 1 and 2 for diagnosis codes and ICD-9-CM Volume 3 for inpatient hospital services procedures as standard code sets for use by covered entities (health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care providers who transmit any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction for which the Secretary has adopted a standard).

The ICD-10-PCS code set has been maintained, enhanced and expanded as a direct result of recommendations for updates ( e.g., adding new codes, deleting codes, and editing descriptive material related to existing codes) received from interested stakeholders from both the public and private sectors. Thus, information collected in the application is significant to code set maintenance. The ICD-10-PCS code set maintenance is an ongoing process, as changes are implemented and updated; therefore, the process requires continual collection of information from applicants on a bi-annual basis. As new technology evolves and new complex medical procedures are developed, requests are submitted to CMS requesting modifications to the ICD-10-PCS code set. Requests have been received prior to HIPAA implementation and must continue to be collected to facilitate quality decision-making.

The Committee provides two meetings each year as a public forum to discuss proposed changes to ICD-10. Suggestions to CMS for ICD-10-PCS procedure code modifications come from both the public and private sectors. ICD-10-PCS modification requests can be proposals for new or revised procedure codes or requests for technical coding updates including but not limited to, enhancements to existing procedure code concepts, such as adding a new body part value or a new approach value. Requestors are asked to include a description of the procedure code or change being requested, and rationale for why the procedure code or change is needed. Supporting references and literature may also be submitted. Interested parties submit these ICD-10-PCS modification requests three months prior to a scheduled Spring or Fall C&M meeting via email to the following email address: ICDProcedureCodeRequest@cms.hhs.gov. Form Number: CMS-10744 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions and Private Sector; Number of Respondents: 80; Total Annual Responses: 80; Total Annual Hours: 800. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Marilu Hue at 410-786-4510.)

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Transitional Pass through payments related to Drugs, Biologicals, and Radiopharmaceuticals to determine eligibility under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System; Use: Section 201(b) of the BBRA 1999 amended section 1833(t) of the Act by adding new section 1833(t)(6). This provision requires the Secretary to make additional payments to hospitals for a period of 2 to 3 years for certain drugs, radiopharmaceuticals, biological agents, medical devices and brachytherapy devices. Section 1833(t)(6)(A)(iv) establishes the criteria for determining the application of this provision to new items. Section 1833(t)(6)(C)(i) provides that the additional payment for drugs and biologicals be the amount by which the amount determined under section 1842(o) of the Act exceeds the portion of the otherwise applicable hospital outpatient department fee schedule amount that the Secretary determines to be associated with the drug or biological.

Interested parties such as hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and physicians will apply for transitional pass-through payment for drugs, biologicals, and radiopharmaceuticals used with services covered under the hospital OPPS. After we receive all requested information, we will evaluate the information to determine if the criteria for making a transitional pass- through payment are met and if an interim healthcare common procedure coding system (HCPCS) code for a new drug, biological, or radiopharmaceutical is necessary. We will advise the applicant of our decision, and update the hospital OPPS during its next scheduled quarterly update to reflect any newly approved drug, biological, or radiopharmaceutical. We list below the information that we will require from all applicants. Form Number: CMS-10008 (OMB control number: 0938-0802); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private Sector; Number of Respondents: 30; Total Annual Responses: 30; Total Annual Hours: 480. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Raymond A. Bulls at 410-786- 7267.)

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the Information Collection Request title for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Pay for Outcomes Supplemental Information Request, OMB NO. 0906-XXXX, NEW

Abstract: HRSA is requesting approval to collect information in response to a SIR which will include eligible entities' plans for implementation and evaluation of Pay for Outcomes (PFO) initiatives to be applied for through the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-123) added subsection (c)(3) to Section 511 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 711. The new provision authorizes MIECHV Program funding recipients to use up to 25 percent of the funds awarded under subsection 511(c)(1) “to enable eligible entities to deliver services under early childhood home visitation programs” for “outcomes or success payments related to a pay for outcomes initiative that will not result in a reduction of funding for services delivered by the entity under a childhood home visitation program under this section while the eligible entity develops or operates such an initiative.” Subsection 511(j)(3)(B) further requires that “funds made available to an eligible entity under this section for a fiscal year (or portion of a fiscal year) for a pay for outcomes initiative shall remain available for expenditure by the eligible entity for not more than 10 years after the funds are so made available.”

Eligible entities may propose to use MIECHV funds for outcomes or success payments related to a PFO initiative in response to the fiscal year 2021 MIECHV Notice of Funding Opportunity and in succeeding fiscal years pending availability of future funds, the recipient must submit a detailed application that responds to the forthcoming SIR (henceforth this application is referred to as a PFO SIR Response).

A 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2020. HRSA received four comments. Comments sought clarification on guidance related to third-party evaluation, selection of outcome measures, partnership agreements, budgeting PFO funds, annual reports, and maintenance of service delivery. Other comments highlighted topics that would benefit from specific technical assistance, indicated support for various aspects of the guidance, or offered suggestions that were outside the intended scope of the guidance. After taking the public comments into consideration, HRSA is proposing final revisions to the PFO SIR Guidance by making the following changes:

• Revising the SIR to further describe expectations and best practices associated with conducting feasibility studies and ensuring independence and accountability in the process. HRSA will not specify credentials or level of experience of evaluators or researchers, allowing recipients to have flexibility to determine what will work best for their context.

• Revising the SIR to further clarify that applicants are to select outcome measure(s) that will have meaningful impacts for the children and families served.

• Editing the SIR to broaden the requirements around obtaining signed partnership agreements so that a draft agreement or letter of intent, as well as a signed partnership agreement, would be acceptable.

• Revising the SIR to clarify that recipients can set aside funds awarded in multiple years as part of its PFO initiative. Recipients must propose a PFO project extending over the project period of the entire initiative, and must work closely with HRSA to ensure appropriate monitoring of use of funds for this purpose over the 10-year period of availability.

• Revising the SIR to clarify that the required annual reports must be made available to the public and removing language that may suggest that the annual reports will include outcomes that have been achieved and/or payments made.

• Revising the SIR to clarify the expectation that recipients must continue to meet program and model fidelity requirements with no reduction of funding for services. HRSA will further develop and apply criteria as part of the review and approval process of any proposed PFO initiatives to ensure PFO initiatives have no negative impact on high-quality service delivery.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: Congress, through enactment of the Social Security Act, Title V, Section 511 (42 U.S.C. 711), as amended, established the MIECHV Program. The MIECHV Program is designed to (1) strengthen and improve the programs and activities carried out under Title V of the Social Security Act, (2) improve coordination of services for at risk communities, and (3) identify and provide comprehensive services to improve outcomes for families who reside in at risk communities. The MIECHV Program, authorized by section 511 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 711, and administered by HRSA, in partnership with the Administration for Children and Families, supports voluntary, evidence-based home visiting services during pregnancy and to parents with young children up to kindergarten entry. States, territories, tribal entities, and in certain circumstances, nonprofit organizations are eligible to receive funding through MIECHV and have the flexibility, within the parameters of the authorizing statute, to tailor the program to serve the specific needs of their communities.

Section 50605 of the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-123) added new Section 511(c)(3), which authorizes MIECHV recipients the option to use up to 25 percent of MIECHV funding for “outcomes or success payments related to a PFO initiative that will not result in reduction of funding for home visiting services. The new authority establishes new requirements, including that the PFO initiative “will not result in a reduction of funding for services delivered by the entity under a childhood home visitation program under this section while the eligible entity develops or operates such an initiative.” Under Section 511(j)(3)(A), funds used by recipients for a PFO initiative remain available for expenditure by the eligible entity for not more than 10 years after the funds are made available.

In response to the forthcoming SIR, MIECHV recipients planning to use MIECHV grant funds for outcomes or success payments related to a PFO initiative will be required to submit a PFO SIR Response outlining how their plans will meet all of the applicable statutory requirements and identifying what specific MIECHV funds ( e.g., fiscal year 2021 formula funding) they propose to use to (1) develop and implement their PFO initiative and (2) make PFO outcomes or success payments based on the planned PFO initiative.

Regarding a PFO initiative, the MIECHV authorizing statute requires the following:

The forthcoming SIR will provide further instructions to recipients in proposing a PFO initiative and submitting the required information to HRSA. Recipients are not required to propose or implement a PFO initiative, but if they wish to do so, they must submit a PFO SIR Response describing how their PFO initiative will meet all of the applicable statutory requirements. HRSA will use the information collected through the PFO SIR Response to ensure that MIECHV recipients' proposals to use grant funds for PFO initiatives meet statutory requirements and to provide technical assistance to recipients. The implementation of a PFO initiative is not intended to disrupt current services or negatively impact communities that have benefited from home visiting programs and must not result in a reduction of funding for home visiting services.

Likely Respondents: MIECHV Program recipients that are states, territories, and, where applicable, nonprofit organizations providing home visiting services within states.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions and supporting materials; to collect and analyze data and information to develop the PFO SIR Response; engage with stakeholders and coordinate with state level partners; and to draft and submit the PFO SIR Response. The table below summarizes the total annual burden hours estimated for this SIR.

Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:

HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science & Technology Directorate (S&T) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/S&T-003 National Bioforensic Analysis Center Laboratory Elimination Database System of Records.” The National Bioforensic Analysis Center (NBFAC) is a laboratory within one of DHS's National Laboratories, the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC). DHS/S&T and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory Division (FBI-LD) collaborate on NBACC operations and management, including NBFAC. DHS designated NBFAC to be the lead federal facility to conduct and facilitate the technical forensic analysis and interpretation of materials recovered following a biological attack. NBFAC performs research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities to develop bioforensic capabilities and casework analysis in support of FBI law enforcement investigations requiring bioforensic analytic capabilities.

DHS/S&T uses the NBFAC Laboratory Elimination Database for contamination detection and prevention. The NBFAC Laboratory Elimination Database provides the capability to ensure that human deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequences identified and reported in NBFAC's operational casework or RDT&E activities are not the result of accidental contamination by a person who has been in contact with or in proximity to NBFAC or its evidence, or RDT&E samples or biological material derived from the samples.

DHS/S&T establishes the database to collect, organize, store, maintain, and query information about laboratory-based or specimen-processing individuals to determine whether a contamination event may have occurred and which individual or individuals may be the source of an unintended contaminant present within a controlled environment, experiment, or scientific process. DHS/S&T also will use the database for contamination prevention purposes to identify, correct, and prevent the recurrence of the nonconformity that led to the contamination event. NBFAC compares individuals' information from the database to identify the possible source of a contaminant that may affect NBFAC's analytic results. NBFAC collects information from individuals, on a voluntary basis, who NBFAC has determined may be in a position to inadvertently contaminate samples or the biological materials derived from samples.

The database segregates data by core function and tracing function. Core function data consists of unique NBFAC-assigned identifiers and associated DNA. Tracing function data includes biographic information on the individual ( e.g., name, institution, position, contact information, biological sex, or physical sample location), enabling NBFAC to link core data to an individual, as needed, pursuant to NBFAC standard operating procedures.

DHS S&T creates this system of records in accordance with the authorities granted by 6 U.S.C. 182 for conducting basic and applied research, development, demonstration, testing, and evaluation activities that are relevant to any or all elements of DHS, through intramural and extramural programs. In addition, National Security Presidential Memorandum 14, Support for National Biodefense, and the National Biodefense Strategy serve as the primary authorities for the bioforensic work NBFAC performs in its laboratories. NBFAC uses the elimination database to ensure the accuracy of analytic results and improve laboratory procedures, as warranted, by evaluating and remediating any nonconformities that may have resulted in contamination.

NBFAC has taken steps to minimize the potential risks posed by the loss and/or unauthorized access, use, modification, destruction, or disclosure of individuals' information by adopting administrative, technical, and physical controls. NBFAC also takes steps to ensure the quality of the data NBFAC collects by collecting the information directly from the individual. The data S&T collects is the minimum relevant data needed for the contamination detection and prevention purposes of this system of records.

NBFAC limits access to the information by segregating the data into a core function and a tracing function. The core function is the data maintained and used to monitor and control for contamination purposes. NBFAC cannot identify an individual based on the core function data only. NBFAC would need the tracing function biographic information to be able to identify an individual, when necessary. NBFAC stores the tracing function data separately. For example, if a match is made between a DNA record from the core function data and a suspected contaminant, if needed, NBFAC may retrieve additional information on the individual ( e.g., name, institution, position, contact information, biological sex, or physical sample location) from a separate tracing function area in the database, in accordance with NBFAC the database standard operating procedure.

Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/S&T-003 National Bioforensic Analysis Center Laboratory Elimination Database System of Records may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/S&T may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice. This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.

The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides covered persons with a statutory right to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.

Below is the description of the DHS/S&T-003 National Bioforensic Analysis Center Laboratory Elimination Database System of Records.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.

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

Title of Information Collection: Multifamily Insurance Benefits Claims Package.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0418.

OMB Expiration Date: 06/30/2021.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Form Numbers: HUD-2741; HUD-2742; HUD-2744-A; HUD-2744-B; HUD-2744-C; HUD-2744-D; HUD-2744-E; HUD-434; HUD-1044-D.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: A lender with an insured multifamily mortgage pays an annual insurance premium to the Department. When and if the mortgage goes into default, the lender may elect to file a claim for FHA Multifamily insurance benefits with the Department. HUD needs this information to determine if FHA multifamily insurance claims submitted to HUD are accurate, valid and support payment of an FHA multifamily insurance claim.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 110.

Estimated Number of Responses: 110.

Frequency of Response: Occasion.

Average Hours per Response: 6.25.

Total Estimated Burden: 688 hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

We are 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 USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS 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. 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: This notice concerns the collection of information that is sufficient and relevant to evaluate and select proposals for funding under the NGGDPP. We will accept proposals from state geological surveys requesting funds to inventory and assess the condition of current collections and data preservation needs. Financial assistance will be awarded annually on a competitive basis following the evaluation and ranking of state proposals by a review panel composed of representatives from the U.S. Department of the Interior, state geological surveys, and academic institutions. To submit a proposal, respondents must complete a project narrative and submit the application via www.grants.gov. Grant recipients must complete a final technical report at the end of the project period. Narrative and report guidance is available at https://datapreservation.usgs.gov, https://grants.gov, and https://grantsolutions.gov.

Annual data preservation priorities are provided in the Program Announcement as guidance for applicants to consider when submitting proposals. Since its inception in 2007, NGGDPP has awarded 46 states with $12 million, which, when matched or exceeded by the states, amounts to over $24 million invested in the rescue and preservation efforts. This notice concerns the collection of information that is sufficient and relevant to evaluate and select proposals for funding. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We intend to release the project abstracts and identify states for awarded/funded projects only.

Title of Collection: National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDPP).

OMB Control Number: 1028-0087.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: All state geological surveys may apply for NGGDPP grants.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 35.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 70 (35 applications, 35 final technical report submissions).

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Grant application time estimate is 80 hours; final technical report completion time estimate is 10 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,150.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain a Benefit.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: None.

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. ).

The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before May 1, 2021. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

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.

Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:

Nomination submitted by Federal Preservation Officer:

The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 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.

We are 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 agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency 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. 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: 30 CFR 874.16 requires that every successful bidder for an AML contract must be eligible under 30 CFR 773.15(b)(1) at the time of contract award to receive a permit or conditional permit to conduct surface coal mining operations. Further, the regulation requires the eligibility to be confirmed by OSMRE's automated Applicant/Violator System (AVS) and the contractor must be eligible under the regulations implementing Section 510(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to receive permits to conduct mining operations. This form provides a tool for OSMRE and the States/Indian tribes to help them prevent persons with outstanding violations from conducting further mining or AML reclamation activities in the State.

Title of Collection: Contractor Eligibility and the Abandoned Mine Land Contractor Information Form.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0119.

Form Number: AML Contractor Information Form (No form number).

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State governments and businesses.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 173.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 173.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes to1 hour, depending on activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 91.

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

Frequency of Collection: One time.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $0.

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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 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.

We are 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 agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency 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. 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: The regulation allows any interested person to request the Director of OSMRE evaluate a state program by setting forth in the request a concise statement of facts that the person believes establishes the need for the evaluation

Title of Collection: Maintenance of State Programs and Procedures for Substituting Federal Enforcement of State Programs and Withdrawing Approval of State Programs.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0025.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and organizations.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 1.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 20 hours to 100 hours, depending on activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 50.

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

Frequency of Collection: One time.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $0.

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. ).

OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of CSA Group Testing & Certification Inc. (CSA) as a NRTL. CSA's expansion covers the addition of four test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its 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 of the products.

The agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL, including CSA, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

CSA submitted an application, dated July 17, 2019 (OSHA-2006-0042-0018), to expand their recognition to include four additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.

OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CSA's expansion application in the Federal Register on February 23, 2021 (86 FR 11004). The agency requested comments by March 10, 2021, but it received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of CSA's scope of recognition.

To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the CSA's application, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042 contains all materials in the record concerning CSA's 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 staff examined CSA's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed in this notice. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant CSA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of CSA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed below in Table 1.

OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

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

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

2. CSA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and

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

Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of CSA as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.

James S. Frederick, Principal 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 Section 29 U.S.C. 655(6)(d), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1905.11.

Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more PRBs. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the final rating authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

The persons named below have been selected to serve on OMB's PRB.

We are publishing notice of records schedules in which agencies propose to dispose of records they no longer need to conduct agency business. We invite public comments on these records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a), and list the schedules at the end of this notice by agency and subdivision requesting disposition authority.

In addition, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or states that the schedule has agency-wide applicability. It also provides the control number assigned to each schedule, which you will need if you submit comments on that schedule. We have uploaded the records schedules and accompanying appraisal memoranda to the regulations.gov docket for this notice as “other” documents. Each records schedule contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their proposed disposition. The appraisal memorandum for the schedule includes information about the records.

We will post comments, including any personal information and attachments, to the public docket unchanged. Because comments are public, you are responsible for ensuring that you do not include any confidential or other information that you or a third party may not wish to be publicly posted. If you want to submit a comment with confidential information or cannot otherwise use the regulations.gov portal, you may contact request.schedule@nara.gov for instructions on submitting your comment.

We will consider all comments submitted by the posted deadline and consult as needed with the Federal agency seeking the disposition authority. After considering comments, we will post on regulations.gov a “Consolidated Reply” summarizing the comments, responding to them, and noting any changes we have made to the proposed records schedule. We will then send the schedule for final approval by the Archivist of the United States. You may elect at regulations.gov to receive updates on the docket, including an alert when we post the Consolidated Reply, whether or not you submit a comment. If you have a question, you can submit it as a comment, and can also submit any concerns or comments you would have to a possible response to the question. We will address these items in consolidated replies along with any other comments submitted on that schedule.

We will post schedules on our website in the Records Control Schedule (RCS) Repository, at https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs, after the Archivist approves them. The RCS contains all schedules approved since 1973.

Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives or to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking continuing administrative, legal, research, or other value. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value. Public review and comment on these records schedules is part of the Archivist's consideration process.

1. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Research Integrity Records (DAA-0514-2020-0001).

2. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, IntelPlus Analytical Database (DAA-0065-2020-0001).

3. Department of State, Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism, Consolidated Schedule (DAA-0059-2019-0003).

4. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Affordable Care Act (ACA) Hospital Review Cases (DAA-0058-2021-0001).

5. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Affordable Care Act (ACA) Insurance Provider Fee Records (DAA-0058-2021-0002).

6. Federal Communications Commission, Agency-Wide, Connected Care Pilot and Covid-19 Telehealth Program Records (DAA-0173-2020-0006).

The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website ( http://www.prc.gov ). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3011.301. 1

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

1. Docket No(s).: MC2021-87 and CP2021-90; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 697 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: May 5, 2021; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: May 13, 2021.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

Locations providing Post Office Box service are classified as competitive or market dominant and assigned to fee groups based upon proximity to private sector competitors and other criteria. Competitive locations provide more services than market dominant ones and have somewhat higher fees. In May 2011, the Postal Service filed a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) to transfer approximately 6,800 PO Box locations from market-dominant to competitive fee groups, based on a showing that sufficient competition exists when a private sector alternative exists within five miles or less. PRC Docket No. MC2011-25. Documents pertinent to that proceeding are available at www.prc.gov, Docket No. MC2011-25. At that time, the Postal Service advised the PRC that a Federal Register notice would be filed whenever the Postal Service subsequently updates the list of competitive locations by applying the criteria approved in that docket. Since the original filing, the Postal Service updated the list of competitive locations in 2013 to add an additional location, see 79 FR 60928-60929 (Oct. 2, 2013), and subsequently updated it again to add 1625 locations effective Aug. 27, 2014, see 79 FR 38972-38998 (July 9, 2014). Competitive Post Office Box service includes several enhancements such as: Electronic notification of the receipt of mail, use of an alternate street address format, signature on file for delivery of certain accountable mail, and additional hours of access and/or earlier availability of mail in some locations. Recently, the Postal Service re-applied the Docket No. MC2011-25 criteria to its PO Box locations and determined that an additional 237 locations (out of a total of approximately 32,788 locations) would properly be classified as competitive, based on their proximity to a private sector competitor within five miles. The Postal Service confirms that the 237 locations being reclassified meet all of the criteria that the Commission considered in Docket No. MC2011-25. The Postal Service used WebBATS and geospatial data to identify and confirm that each post office location is within five miles of a private sector competitor. The Postal Service excluded locations with less than 250 boxes due to the “small customer base” and locations with access constraints. Communications are being sent to the identified Postmasters of the locations; and PO Box customers in the identified 237 Post Office locations will receive an email and/or letter notifying them that their PO Boxes are now competitive locations and will include the additional services. Additional internal and external communications are planned as well. A list of affected locations, with the associated ZIP Codes, is provided in the Appendix to this notice.