On May 4, 2010, Commerce published its CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam in the Federal Register . 1 On March 31, 2021, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 Commerce received a notice of intent to participate from the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee (the Committee), an ad hoc association of U.S. producers of PRCBs, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 3 The Committee claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(E) of the Act, as a trade or business association a majority of whose members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the United States and stated that each member of the Committee is a manufacturer of the domestic like product and thus, is a domestic interested party pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act. 4

Commerce received a substantive response from the Committee  5 within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from the Government of Vietnam or any other domestic or interested parties in this proceeding, nor was a hearing requested.

On May 21, 2021, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties. 6 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order.

The scope of this Order covers PRCBs. Imports of merchandise included within the scope of this Order are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 7

All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following rates:

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

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

On November 3, 2020, Commerce self-initiated these anti-circumvention inquiries to determine whether certain imports of welded OCTG completed in Brunei or the Philippines using inputs manufactured in China are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on OCTG from China. 1

The products covered by the orders are certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish. A full description of the scope of the orders is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 The written description is dispositive.

These anti-circumvention inquiries cover welded OCTG completed in Brunei or the Philippines using inputs manufactured in China and subsequently exported from Brunei or the Philippines to the United States.

Commerce is conducting these anti-circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.225(h). Because China is a non-market economy country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce relied on surrogate values to value the purchases of Chinese hot-rolled steel, as discussed in section 773(c) of the Act. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of these anti-circumvention inquiries, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Commerce preliminarily determines that welded OCTG assembled or completed in Brunei or the Philippines using inputs manufactured in China and subsequently exported from Brunei or the Philippines to the United States are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on OCTG from China. We therefore preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to include this merchandise within the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on OCTG from China and to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend entries of merchandise produced using Chinese inputs in a third country, i.e., Brunei or the Philippines, and exported to the United States.

As stated above, Commerce has made preliminary affirmative findings of circumvention of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on OCTG from China for welded OCTG completed in Brunei or the Philippines using inputs manufactured in China and subsequently exported from Brunei or the Philippines to the United States. These preliminary circumvention findings apply to welded OCTG assembled or completed in Brunei or the Philippines using inputs manufactured in China and subsequently exported from Brunei or the Philippines to the United States. In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), Commerce will direct CBP to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of welded OCTG completed in Brunei or the Philippines using inputs manufactured in China, subsequently exported from Brunei or the Philippines to the United States, and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 3, 2020, the date of initiation of these anti-circumvention inquiries. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. For entries of such merchandise produced in Brunei or the Philippines, Commerce will instruct CBP to require antidumping duty cash deposits equal to the rate established for the China-wide entity, i.e., 99.14 percent, 3 and countervailing duty cash deposits equal to the current all-others rate, i.e., 27.08 percent. 4

Welded OCTG assembled or completed in Brunei or the Philippines using non-Chinese inputs is not subject to these anti-circumvention inquiries. However, because the mandatory respondents are unable to track welded OCTG to the country of origin of inputs used in the production of welded OCTG, 5 Commerce will not implement a certification process at this preliminary stage, and Commerce will require cash deposits on all entries of welded OCTG from Brunei and the Philippines. 6 However, we intend to implement a certification process in the future for any companies that may be established in Brunei or the Philippines, and we plan to issue draft certifications shortly after these preliminary determinations of circumvention. With respect to the mandatory respondents, Commerce will reconsider eligibility to participate in a certification process if a party demonstrates in a future segment of the proceeding ( i.e., a changed circumstances review or an administrative review) that the OCTG being entered into the United States that it produces is not produced using Chinese inputs. Interested parties are invited to comment on this issue in their case briefs.

Commerce intends to disclose the analysis used in these preliminary findings within five days of publication of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determinations of these anti-circumvention inquiries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(b)(2), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may not be filed later than seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 7 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in these anti-circumvention inquiries are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

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

Consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of these preliminary determinations to include the merchandise subject to these anti-circumvention inquiries within the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on OCTG from China. Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Act, the ITC may request consultations concerning Commerce's proposed inclusion of the subject merchandise. If, after consultations, the ITC believes that a significant injury issue is presented by the proposed inclusion, it will have 60 days from the date of notification by Commerce to provide written advice.

According to section 781(f) of the Act, Commerce shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make its anti-circumvention determination within 300 days from the date of the initiation of the inquiry. 8 Due to the complicated nature of these anti-circumvention inquiries, we are hereby extending the deadline for the final determinations of these anti-circumvention inquiries by 50 days. Therefore, Commerce intends to issue the final determinations of these anti-circumvention inquiries to October 28, 2021.

These preliminary affirmative circumvention determinations are published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).

The issuance of permits under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) is based on a finding that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the ESA-listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations (50 CFR parts 222-226) governing listed marine and anadromous species.

The following listed species is covered in this notice:

Threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch; covered species).

Twelve permittees have been issued enhancement of survival permits upon entry into the Agreement, which was developed by NMFS, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Shasta Watershed Conservation Group (SWCG), and the permittees (Table 1). The 12 permittees (Table 1) each developed site plan agreements for their respective properties ( i.e., Enrolled Properties) that describe management activities that will be implemented, including Beneficial Management Activities (BMAs), as defined in the Agreement. The Site Plan Agreements, Agreement, and enhancement of survival permits are expected to promote the recovery of the covered species on enrolled properties within the Shasta River watershed in the Agreement area (see Figure 1 in the Agreement). The Shasta River is a tributary to the Klamath River and is in Siskiyou County, California. The duration of the Agreement and the associated enhancement of survival permits is 20 years.

The enhancement of survival permits authorize the incidental taking of the covered species associated with routine agricultural activities, implementation of BMAs, and the potential future return of the enrolled property to the baseline or elevated baseline conditions identified in the respective Site Plan Agreement. Under the enhancement of survival permits, Site Plan Agreements, and Agreement, the permittees specify the restoration and/or enhancement, and management activities to be carried out on the enrolled properties and a timetable for implementing those activities. NMFS prepared a biological opinion under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to determine whether NMFS' actions of entering into the Agreement and the 14 associated Site Plan Agreements, and issuing the 14 section 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement of survival permits, would result in jeopardy to the covered species or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. NMFS determined that these actions would not result in jeopardy or destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. NMFS also determined that the Agreement and Site Plan Agreements will result in a net conservation benefit for the covered species and meet all required standards of NMFS' Safe Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717; June 17, 1999). The Agreement and Site Plan Agreements specify baseline or elevated baseline conditions for the enrolled properties and include restoration/enhancement activities that will be completed by the permittee to achieve the specified conditions. The Agreement also contains a monitoring component and an Adaptive Management Program that requires the permittees to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and to ensure that the baseline or elevated baseline conditions of habitat for the covered species occur on the enrolled properties. Results of the monitoring efforts will be provided to NMFS by the permittees in annual reports for the duration of the 20-year permit term. In addition to reviewing annual reports submitted by SWCG, NMFS, and CDFW will conduct a five-year review to assess the effectiveness of the Agreement.

At the end of the permit term and Agreement, the enhancement of survival permits authorize the permittees to incidentally take covered species associated with a return to baseline or elevated baseline conditions if desired and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permits.

Notices were published in the Federal Register on the dates listed below that requests for a permit or permit modification had been submitted by the below-named applicants. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application and a complete description of the activities, go to www.federalregister.gov and search on the permit number provided in Table 1 below.

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

As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

Authority: The requested permits have been issued under the MMPA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), as applicable.

The DISA is modifying the K890.15 EASF system of records to allow the provision of user accounts, and to authenticate users to DoD enterprise Web applications ( e.g., Defense Collaboration Services, Defense Enterprise Portal, DEE) for non-dual persona personnel with DoD's Personal Identity Verification (PIV)—Authentication (Auth) certificate, rather than DoD's Email signing certificate. Subject to public comment, the DoD proposes to update this SORN to add the standard DoD routine uses (routine uses A through I) and to allow for additional disclosures outside DoD related to the purpose of this system of records. Additionally, the following sections of this SORN are being modified as follows: (1) To the Authority for Maintenance of the System section to update citation(s) and add additional authorities; (2) purpose of the system to improve clarity; (3) to the Categories of Individuals Covered by the System section to expand the individuals covered and Categories of Records to clarify how the records relate to the revised Category of Individuals; (4) Record Source Categories to account for Five Eyes partners and Coalition partners exchange in order to populate the information into the Five Eyes national directory; (5) Routine Uses to align with DoD's standard routine uses; (6) to the Administrative, Technical, and Physical Safeguards to update the individual safeguards protecting the personal information; (7) to the Record Access Procedures section to reflect the need for individuals to identify the appropriate DoD office or component to which their request should be directed; and (8) to the Contesting Records Procedures and Notification procedures section to update the appropriate citation for contesting records. Furthermore, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.

DoD SORNs have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division (DPCLTD) website at https://dpcld.defense.gov/privacy.

Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of 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 as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, DPCLTD has provided a report of this system of records to the OMB and to Congress.

In this notice, DOE is publishing RefPlus's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv)). 1 DOE is also publishing the Interim Waiver Order granted to RefPlus, which serves as notification of DOE's determination regarding RefPlus's petition for an interim waiver, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(e)(1)(ii). DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by September 9, 2021, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate test procedure. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Michel Lecompte, mlecompte@refplus.com, 2777, Grande-Allée St-Hubert, Quebec Canada, J4T 2R4.

Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. Faxes will not be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

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

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), 2 authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317). Title III, Part C  3 of EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), added by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Public Law 95-619, sec. 441 (Nov. 9, 1978), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency for certain types of industrial equipment. Through amendments brought about by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140, sec. 312 (Dec. 19, 2007), this equipment includes walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively “walk-ins”), the subject of this Interim Waiver Order. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)).

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the covered equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)).

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.6314(a)(2)) The test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Net Capacity and AWEF of Walk-In Cooler and Walk-In Freezer Refrigeration Systems (“Appendix C”).

Under 10 CFR 431.401, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the performance of the product type in a manner representative of the energy consumption characteristics of the basic model. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2).

As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(l). As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule to that effect. Id.

The waiver process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the underlying petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the underlying petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(1).

If DOE ultimately denies the petition for waiver, or if the alternate test procedure specified in the interim waiver differs from the alternate test procedure specified by DOE in a subsequent Decision and Order, DOE will provide a period of 180 days before the manufacturer is required to use the DOE test procedure or the alternate test procedure specified in the Decision and Order to make representations of energy efficiency. 10 CFR 431.401(i). 4 When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(3).

On June 2, 2021, DOE received  5 from RefPlus a petition for waiver and interim waiver from the test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems set forth at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C. (RefPlus, No. 1 at p. 1). 6 DOE received an updated petition for waiver and interim waiver from RefPlus on July 12, 2021. (RefPlus, No. 2 at p. 1). The updated petition specifies additional basic models to be considered under the waiver request. (RefPlus, No. 2 at pp. 2-5). Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv), DOE has posted both petitions to the docket at, at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-WAV-0014 and has reproduced the most recent petition for waiver in this notice. 7

RefPlus claims that the test conditions described in Table 15 and Table 16 of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) Standard 1250-2009, Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers (“AHRI 1250-2009”) (for walk-in refrigerator unit coolers and freezer unit coolers tested alone, respectively), as incorporated by Appendix C with modification, cannot be achieved by the specified basic models and are not consistent with the operation of RefPlus's CO 2 direct expansion unit coolers. RefPlus also stated that CO 2 has a critical temperature of 87.8 °F, 8 and thus the required liquid inlet saturation temperature of 105 °F and the required liquid inlet subcooling temperature of 9 °F are not achievable, and that the test conditions should be more consistent with typical operating conditions for a transcritical CO 2 booster system (RefPlus, No. 2, p. 5).

The statements made by RefPlus reference the difference in thermodynamic properties between CO 2 and other refrigerants. Many substances transition from a solid to a liquid to a gas at a given pressure as temperature increases. For example, a pure substance like water transitions from liquid to steam at a specific temperature, e.g. 212 °F, at atmospheric pressure. As heat is added during a liquid to gas transition, the temperature remains constant and the substance coexists as both liquid and vapor. Continuing to add heat converts more of the liquid to vapor at a constant temperature. The reverse occurs when heat is removed. However, the transition temperature depends on the pressure—the higher the pressure, the higher the transition temperature. This is a key principle in refrigeration systems, which operate at two pressure levels associated with two temperatures. A refrigerant absorbs heat when it is at a low temperature and pressure, converting to gas and cooling the surrounding space. At high temperature and pressure, the refrigerant transitions to a liquid while releasing heat to the environment. A compressor is used to raise a gas from low- high-pressure, and a throttle (pressure reduction device) is used to reduce the pressure once the refrigerant has been fully liquefied (condensed) at high pressure.

All refrigerants have a “critical temperature” and an associated “critical pressure” above which liquid and vapor phases cannot coexist. Above this critical point, the refrigerant will be a gas and its temperature will increase or decrease as heat is added or removed. For conventional refrigerants, the critical temperature is never exceeded in typical refrigeration cycles. For example, R404A is a common refrigerant used in refrigeration systems and has a critical temperature of 161.7 °F with an associated critical pressure of 540.8 psia. 9 However, CO 2 behaves differently, with a critical temperature of 87.8 °F and an associated critical pressure of 1,072 psia. The refrigerant temperature must be somewhat higher than the ambient temperature in order to reject refrigeration cycle heat to the ambient environment. Ambient temperatures greater than 87.8 °F are common and the performance of many refrigeration and air conditioning systems are tested using a 95 °F ambient temperature, as indicated by the A test condition in AHRI 1250-2009 Section 5. Above the critical temperature and critical pressure, the CO 2 refrigerant is in a supercritical state and heat is transferred to the environment. Since the temperature of the CO 2 refrigerant ranges from supercritical to subcritical within the system, CO 2 cycles are said to be “transcritical.”

The transcritical nature of CO 2 generally requires a more complex refrigeration cycle design to approach the efficiency of traditional refrigerants ( i.e., R404A, R407A, R448A, etc.) during operation in high temperature conditions. To increase efficiency and prevent overheating, transcritical booster systems introduce (or use) multiple stages of compression and intercooling. CO 2 is cooled in the gas cooler of a transcritical booster system, then expands through a high-pressure control valve and is delivered to a subcritical-pressure flash tank. In the flash tank, the refrigerant is in the subcritical phase and the liquid and vapor phases can be separated. In a CO 2 booster system, subcooled liquid refrigerant from the flash tank supplies the unit cooler via expansion valves where the refrigerant is evaporated. The evaporated refrigerant is subsequently compressed up to gas cooler pressure to complete the cycle (Docket EERE-2021-BT-WAV-0014, No. 5).

As noted, RefPlus requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. DOE will review the petition for interim waiver within 45 business days of receipt of the petition. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(1)(ii). If DOE does not notify the applicant of the disposition of the petition for interim waiver, in writing, within 45 business days of receipt of the petition, the interim waiver is granted utilizing the alternate test procedure requested in the petition. Id. DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2).

Based on the assertions in the petition, absent an interim waiver, the prescribed test procedure is not appropriate for RefPlus's CO 2 direct expansion unit coolers and the test conditions are not achievable. As discussed, CO 2 refrigerant has a critical temperature of 87.8 °F and the current DOE test procedure calls for a liquid inlet saturation temperature of 105 °F. The inability to achieve test conditions for the stated basic models would result in economic hardship from loss of sales stemming from the inability of the DOE test procedure to address the operating conditions of RefPlus's equipment. DOE has published decision and orders granting a waiver for other equipment relying on the same technology. 10

EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Consistency is important when making representations about the energy efficiency of covered equipment, including when demonstrating compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE may establish in a subsequent Decision and Order an alternate test procedure for the basic models addressed by the Interim Waiver Order.

RefPlus seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific CO 2 direct expansion unit cooler basic models. RefPlus's suggested approach specifies using modified liquid inlet saturation and liquid inlet subcooling temperatures of 38 °F and 5 °F, respectively, for both walk-in refrigerator unit coolers and walk-in freezer unit coolers. (RefPlus, No. 2 at p. 5). Additionally, RefPlus recommended that because the subject units are used in transcritical CO 2 booster systems, the calculations in AHRI 1250-2009 section 7.9 should be used to determine Annual Walk-in Efficiency Factor (“AWEF”) and net capacity for unit coolers matched to parallel rack systems as required under the DOE test procedure. (RefPlus, No. 2 at pp. 5-6). This section of AHRI 1250-2009 is prescribed by the DOE test procedure for determining AWEF for all unit coolers tested alone (see 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, section 3.3.1). Finally, RefPlus also recommended that AHRI 1250-2009 Table 17, EER for Remote Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, should be used to determine power consumption of CO 2 direct expansion unit cooler systems as required under the DOE test procedure (RefPlus, No. 2 at p. 5).

DOE has reviewed RefPlus's application for an interim waiver, the alternate test procedure requested by RefPlus, and the websites and product specification sheets for the basic models listed in RefPlus's petition. Based on this review, the suggested alternate test procedure appears to allow for the accurate measurement of the energy efficiency of the specified basic models, while alleviating the testing issues associated with RefPlus's implementation of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer testing for these basic models. Review of the CO 2 refrigeration market confirms that the testing conditions and approach suggested by RefPlus would be representative for operation of a unit cooler used in a transcritical CO 2 booster system (Docket EERE-2021-BT-WAV-0014, No. 4). Specifically, CO 2 that is cooled in the gas cooler of a transcritical booster system expands through a high-pressure control valve that delivers CO 2 to a subcritical-pressure flash tank, where liquid and vapor phases of the refrigerant are separated. The liquid is then split, and the unit coolers receive the refrigerant at the same condition, consistent with the use of the same liquid inlet saturation temperature for both the medium- and low-temperature systems in RefPlus's suggested test approach. Calculations on other external CO 2 refrigeration system designs in the market indicate that the 38 °F liquid unit cooler inlet saturation temperature suggested by RefPlus is representative of CO 2 booster systems (Docket EERE-2021-BT-WAV-0014, No. 5). Regarding use of the EER values in AHRI 1250-2009 Table 17 to determine the representative compressor power consumption for CO 2 unit cooler systems, research into the performance of different configurations of CO 2 booster systems shows that enhanced CO 2 cycles (like those used in transcritical booster systems) can match conventional refrigerants in average annual efficiency (Docket EERE-2021-BT-WAV-0014, No. 3). The findings from this research, along with the other collective factors previously noted, justify the use of the EER values in AHRI 1250-2009 Table 17 for determining the power consumption for CO 2 booster system evaporators, despite these EER values being initially established for systems using conventional refrigerants. Consequently, DOE has determined that RefPlus's petition for waiver likely will be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant RefPlus immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.

For the reasons stated, it is ordered that:

(1) RefPlus must test and rate the following RefPlus-branded, CO 2 direct expansion unit cooler basic models with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2).

(2) The alternate test procedure for the RefPlus basic models identified in paragraph (1) of this Interim Waiver Order is the test procedure for walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer refrigeration systems prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C (“Appendix C”), except that the liquid inlet saturation temperature test condition and liquid inlet subcooling temperature test condition shall be modified to 38 °F and 5 °F, respectively, for both walk-in refrigerator unit coolers and walk-in freezer unit coolers, as detailed below. All other requirements of Appendix C and DOE's regulations remain applicable.

In Appendix C, under section 3.1. General modifications: Test Conditions and Tolerances, revise section 3.1.5., to read as follows:

3.1.5. Tables 15 and 16 shall be modified to read as follows:

(3) Representations. RefPlus may not make representations about the energy efficiency of a basic model listed in paragraph (1) for compliance, marketing, or other purposes unless that basic model has been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in this alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing.

(4) This Interim Waiver Order shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401.

(5) This Interim Waiver Order is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, test data, and documentary materials provided by RefPlus are valid. If RefPlus makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of a basic model subject to this Interim Waiver Order, such modifications will render the waiver invalid with respect to that basic model, and RefPlus will either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may rescind or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for the Interim Waiver Order is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(1). Likewise, RefPlus may request that DOE rescind or modify the Interim Waiver Order if RefPlus discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the interim waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2).

(6) Issuance of this Interim Waiver Order does not release RefPlus from the applicable requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. RefPlus may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of CO 2 direct expansion unit coolers. Alternatively, if appropriate, RefPlus may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g).

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 3, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Request for Interim Waiver from a DOE test procedure pursuant to provisions described in 10 CFR 431.401 for the following product on the grounds that “the basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures.”

The design characteristics constituting the grounds for the Interim Waiver Application:

• Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431—Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Net Capacity and AWEF of Walk-in Cooler and Walk-in Freezer Refrigeration Systems specifies that unit coolers tested alone use the test procedures described in AHRI 1250-2009. Table 15 and Table 16 of AHRI 1250-2009 are as follows:

• CO 2 refrigerant has a critical temperature of 87.8 °F thus the liquid inlet saturation temperature of 105 °F and the liquid inlet subcooling temperature of 9 °F as specified in Table 15 and Table 16 are not achievable.

• The test condition values need to be more inline with typical operating conditions for a CO 2 refrigeration application

All these basic models with brand name: RefPlus

Specific Requirements sought to be waived—Petitioning for a waiver and interim waiver to exempt CO 2 Direct Expansion Unit Coolers in Medium and Low Temperature application from being tested to the current test procedure. The prescribed test procedure is not appropriate for these products for the reasons stated previously (liquid inlet saturation temperature and liquid inlet subcooling temperature test condition values are not appropriate for a transcritical CO 2 booster system application).

List of manufacturers of all other basic models marketing in the United States and known to the petitioner to incorporate similar design characteristics—

Proposed alternate test procedure

1. Utilize the test procedure as outlined in Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431—Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Net Capacity and AWEF of Walk-in Cooler and Walk-in Freezer Refrigeration Systems with reference to AHRI 1250-2009 with the exception of modifying the test conditions in Table 15 and 16 for liquid inlet saturation temperature and liquid inlet subcooling temperature as noted below. In addition, per Appendix C to Subpart R of 431 use the calculations in AHRI 1250 section 7.9 to determine AWEF and net capacity for unit coolers matched to parallel rack systems. Use AHRI 1250 Table 17, EER for Remote Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets to determine the power consumption of the system.

Success of the application for Interim Waiver will: ensure that manufacturers of CO 2 Direct Expansion Unit Coolers in Medium and Low Temperature application can continue to participate in the market

What economic hardship and/or competitive disadvantage is likely to result absent a favorable determination on the Application for Interim Waiver—Economic hardship will be loss of sales due to not meeting the DOE requirements set forth.

RefPlus Inc. seeks an Interim Waiver from DOE's current requirement to test CO 2 direct expansion unit coolers.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended 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 used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1910-1800;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Security, Information Collections;

(3) Type of Review: renewal;

(4) Purpose: The purpose of this collection is to protect national security and other critical assets entrusted to the Department. Information collected is for (1) Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence data from bidders on DOE contracts requiring personnel security clearances; and (2) individuals in the process of applying for a security clearance/access authorization or who already holds one. The collections instruments are: DOE Form 5631.18, Security Acknowledgement; DOE F 5631.20, Request for Visitor Access Approval; DOE Form 5631.29, Security Termination Statement; DOE F 5631.34, Data Report on Spouse/Cohabitant; DOE Form 5631.5, The Conduct of Personnel Security Interviews; DOE Form 5639.3 Report of Security Incident/Infraction; DOE F 471.1, Security Incident Notification Report; DOE Form 472.3 Foreign Citizenship Acknowledgement; DOE Form 473.2, Security Badge Request; DOE Form 473.3, U.S. Department of Energy Clearance Access Request; Influence (e-FOCI) System (SF-328 used for entry); and the Foreign Access Central Tracking System (FACTS);

(5) Estimated Number of Respondents: 75,661;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 84,621;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 13,251;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $1,192,590.

Statutory Authority: Section 641 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7251, and the following additional authorities:

DOE F 5631.34, Data Report on Spouse/Cohabitant: Section 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2165; Executive Order 12968 (August 2, 1995); Executive Order 10865 (February 20, 1960); Executive Order 10450 (April 27, 1953); DOE O 472.2 (July 21, 2011).

Security Incident Notification Report and Report of Preliminary Security Incident/Infraction (DOE F 471.1 and DOE F 5639.3): Executive Order 13526 (December 29, 2009); 32 CFR part 2001; DOE O 470.4B (July 21, 2011).

DOE F 5631.20, Request for Visitor Access Approval: Section 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2165.

DOE Form 5631.18, Security Acknowledgement: Section 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2165; Executive Order 13526 (December 29, 2009); Executive Order 10865 (Feb. 20, 1960); Executive Order 10450 (April 27, 1953); DOE O 5631.2C (February 17, 1994).

DOE Form 5631.29, Security Termination Statement: Section 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2165; Executive Order 13526 (December 29, 2009); Executive Order 10865 (Feb. 20, 1960); Executive Order 10450 (Apr. 27, 1953); 32 CFR part 2001; DOE O 472.2 (July 21, 2011).

DOE Form 5631.5, The Conduct of Personnel Security Interviews: 10 CFR part 710; Executive Order 12968 (Aug. 2, 1995); Executive Order 10450 (April 27, 1953); DOE Order 472.2 (July 21, 2011).

DOE F 473.3 U.S. Department of Energy Clearance Access Request DOE F 471.1, Security Incident Notification Report; DOE Form 472.3 Foreign Citizenship Acknowledgement; and DOE Form 473.2, Security Badge Request; the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and by Executive Orders 13764, 10865, and 13526.

Electronic Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (e-FOCI) System: Executive Order 12829 (January 6, 1993); DOE O 470.4B (July 21, 2011).

Foreign Access Central Tracking System (FACTS): Presidential Decision Directive 61 (February 1999); DOE O 142.3A (October 14, 2010).

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 5, 2021, by Matthew B. Moury, Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Background: The EFAB is an EPA advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2, to provide advice and recommendations to EPA on innovative approaches to funding environmental programs, projects, and activities. Administrative support for the EFAB is provided by the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center within EPA's Office of Water. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the EFAB will hold a public webinar briefing for the following purpose:

(1) The purpose of the webinar will be for members of the EFAB to hear from Opportunity Zones practitioners who work on Opportunity Zones investments in disadvantaged communities and are willing to share their experiences to support the workgroup's charge. The webinar is open to the public, but no oral public comments will be accepted during the briefing. Written public comments relating to the Opportunity Zones Workgroup should be provided in accordance with the instructions below on written statements.

Registration for the Meeting: Register for the meeting at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/us-epa-environmental-financial-advisory-board-opportunity-zones-panel-tickets-164877317495.

Availability of Meeting Materials: Meeting materials (including the meeting agenda and briefing materials) will be available on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments on matters being considered by the EFAB for consideration by members as they develop their advice and recommendations to EPA.

Written Statements: Written statements for the webinar should be received by August 20, 2021 so that the information can be made available to the EFAB for its consideration. Written statements should be sent via email to efab@epa.gov. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the EFAB website. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations for a disability, please register for the webinar and list any special requirements or accommodations needed on the registration form at least 10 business days prior to the meeting to allow as much time as possible to process your request.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

1. Title: Credit Risk Retention.

OMB Number: 3064-0183.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks, state savings institutions, insured state branches of foreign banks, and any subsidiary of the aforementioned entities.

General Description of Collection: This information collection request comprises disclosure and recordkeeping requirements under the credit risk retention rule issued pursuant to section 15G of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-11), as added by Section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). 1 The Credit Risk Retention rule (“the Rule”) was jointly issued in 2015 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the Federal Reserve Board (“Board”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and, with respect to the portions of the Rule addressing the securitization of residential mortgages, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). 2 The FDIC regulations corresponding to the Rule are found at 12 CFR part 373. 3

Section 941 of Dodd-Frank requires the Board, the FDIC, the OCC (collectively, the “Federal banking agencies”), the Commission and, in the case of the securitization of any “residential mortgage asset,” together with HUD and FHFA, to jointly prescribe regulations that (i) require a an issuer of an asset-backed security or a person who organizes and initiates an asset backed securities transaction by selling or transferring assets, either directly or indirectly, including through an affiliate, to the issuer (“issuer or organizer”) to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any asset that the issuer or organizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security (“ABS”), transfers, sells or conveys to a third party and (ii) prohibit an issuer or organizer from directly or indirectly hedging or otherwise transferring the credit risk that the issuer or organizer is required to retain under section 941 and the agencies' implementing rules. Exempted from the credit risk retention requirements of section 941 are certain types of securitization transactions, including ABS collateralized solely by qualified residential mortgages (“QRMs”), as that term is defined in the Rule. In addition, Section 941 provides that the agencies must permit an issuer or organizer to retain less than five percent of the credit risk of residential mortgage loans, commercial real estate (“CRE”) loans, commercial loans and automobile loans that are transferred, sold or conveyed through the issuance of ABS by the issuer or organizer, if the loans meet underwriting standards established by the Federal banking agencies.

The FDIC implemented Section 941 of Dodd-Frank through 12 CFR part 373 (the “Rule”). The Rule defines a securitizer as (1) The depositor of the asset-backed securities (if the depositor is not the sponsor); or (2) The sponsor of the asset-backed securities. 4 The Rule provides a menu of credit risk retention options from which securitizers can choose and sets out the standards, including disclosure, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, for each option; identifies the eligibility criteria, including certification and disclosure requirements, that must be met for ABS offerings to qualify for the QRM and other exemptions; specifies the underwriting standards for CRE loans, commercial loans and automobile loans, as well as disclosure, certification and recordkeeping requirements, that must be met for ABS issuances collateralized by such loans to qualify for reduced credit risk retention; and sets forth the circumstances under which retention obligations may be allocated by sponsors to originators, including disclosure and monitoring requirements.

Part 373 contains several requirements that qualify as information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”). The information collection requirements are found in sections 373.4; 373.5; 373.6; 373.7; 373.8; 373.9; 373.10; 373.11; 373.13; 373.15; 373.16; 373.17; 373.18; and 373.19(g). The recordkeeping requirements relate primarily to (i) the adoption and maintenance of various policies and procedures to ensure and monitor compliance with regulatory requirements and (ii) certifications, including as to the effectiveness of internal supervisory controls. The required disclosures for each risk retention option are intended to provide investors with material information concerning the sponsor's retained interest in a securitization transaction ( e.g., the amount, form and nature of the retained interest, material assumptions and methodology, representations and warranties). Compliance with the information collection requirements is mandatory, responses to the information collections will not be kept confidential and, with the exception of the recordkeeping requirements in sections 373.4(d), 373.5(k)(3) and 373.15(d), the Rule does not specify a mandatory retention period for the information.

Burden Estimate:

To determine the total paperwork burden for the requirements contained in the Credit Risk Retention Rule, FDIC first estimated the universe of sponsors that would be required to comply with the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements. FDIC estimated that approximately 270 unique sponsors conduct ABS offerings each year. 5 This estimate was based on the average number of ABS offerings from 2007 through 2017 reported by the ABS database Asset-Backed Alert for all non-CMBS transactions and by Commercial Mortgage Alert for all CMBS transactions. 6 Of the 270 sponsors, the agencies assigned 8 percent of these sponsors to the Board, 12 percent to FDIC, 13 percent to the OCC, and 67 percent to the Commission. 7

Next, FDIC estimated how many respondents keep records and make required disclosures by estimating the proportionate amount of offerings per year for each agency. The estimate was based on the average number of ABS offerings from 2007 through 2017. The agencies estimated the total number of annual offerings per year to be 1,400  8 which resulted in the following:

(a) 13 offerings per year will be subject to disclosure and recordkeeping requirements under § 373.11, which are divided equally among the four agencies ( i.e., 3.25 offerings per year per agency);

(b) 110 offerings per year were estimated to be subject to disclosure and recordkeeping requirements under §§ 373.13 and 373.19(g), which were divided proportionately among the agencies based on the entity percentages described above:

(i) Nine (9) offerings per year for the Board (8%);

(ii) 13 offerings per year for the FDIC (12%);

(iii) 14 offerings per year for the OCC (13%);

(iv) 74 offerings per year for the Commission (67%).

(c) 132 offerings per year were estimated to be subject to the disclosure requirements under § 373.15, which were divided proportionately among the agencies based on the entity percentages described above:

(i) 11 offerings per year for the Board (8%);

(ii) 16 offerings per year for the FDIC (12%);

(iii) 17 offerings per year for the OCC (13%);

(iv) 88 offerings per year for the Commission (67%).

(d) Of these 132 offerings per year, 44 offerings per year were estimated to be subject to disclosure and recordkeeping requirements under §§ 373.16, 373.17, and 373.18, respectively, which were divided proportionately among the agencies based on the entity percentages described above:

(i) 4 offerings per year for each section for the Board (8%);

(ii) 6 offerings per year for each section for the FDIC (12%);

(iii) 6 offerings per year for each section for the OCC (13%);

(iv) 29 offerings per year for each section for the Commission (67%).

To obtain the estimated number of responses (equal to the number of offerings) for each option in subpart B of the rule, FDIC multiplied the number of offerings estimated to be subject to the base risk retention requirements ( i.e., 1,158)  9 by the sponsor percentages described above. The result was the number of base risk retention offerings per year per agency. For the FDIC, this was calculated by multiplying 1,158 offerings per year by 12 percent, which equals 139 offerings per year. This number was then divided by the number of base risk retention options under subpart B of the rule ( i.e., nine)  10 to arrive at the estimate of the number of offerings per year per agency per base risk retention option. For the FDIC, this was calculated by dividing 139 offerings per year by nine options, resulting in 15 offerings per year per base risk retention option.

The agencies assumed that 90% of institutions use the vertical interest form of risk retention while the remaining 10% use the combined vertical and horizontal form of risk retention. The burden tables above use this allocation and of the 45 responses attributed to § 373.4, we allocated 40 (90%) to the vertical form of risk retention and 5 (10%) to the other two options (1 response to the horizontal form of risk retention and 4 responses to the combined vertical and horizontal form of risk retention.

FDIC believes that the burden estimation methodology previously used overestimates the number of ABS offerings by FDIC-supervised institutions. Furthermore, the OCC has confirmed that the estimates it used for its 2021 renewal of OCC's Credit Risk Retention information collection are based on the expertise of the OCC's subject matter experts rather than the 2015 interagency methodology. 11 As a result of these two factors, the FDIC has decided to diverge from the interagency methodology used in 2015 and 2018 and instead use the new methodology described below to estimate burden for this information collection.

Potential respondents to this information collection (IC) are FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions (“IDIs”) including state nonmember banks, state savings institutions, insured state branches of foreign banks, and any subsidiary of the aforementioned entities. As of December 31, 2020, the FDIC supervised 3,227 state nonmember banks, state savings institutions, and insured state branches of foreign banks. Of these 3,227 IDIs, 2,382 are small for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). 12

Respondents to this information collection are FDIC-supervised IDIs that are securitizers of ABS. To generate a universe of potential securitizers, FDIC obtained data from Call Reports for the quarter ending on December 31 for the years 2018, 2019, and 2020, for all FDIC-supervised IDIs that reported a non-zero amount in either: (a) Outstanding principal balance of assets sold and securitized with servicing retained or with recourse or other seller-provided credit enhancements;  13 or (b) amount of loans and leases held for investment, net of allowance, and held for sale held by consolidated variable interest entities (VIEs). 14 This search resulted in a list of 79 IDIs that were potential securitizers. Using this list, FDIC searched for each IDI's name in FitchConnect's repository of ABS offerings (“deals”)  15 and compiled a list of deals for which an IDI was listed as the issuer, sponsor, originator, or servicer of the offering. For IDIs for which deals were not found on FitchConnect, the following method was followed: The queried Call Report item labeled “(a)” above includes assets sold with recourse or other seller-provided credit enhancements, which are outside the scope of the Credit Risk Retention rule. To identify IDIs which securitized from those that did not, a $75 million threshold of year over year growth in that item is used to identify new securitizations in 2018, 2019, and 2020, as FDIC assumes that growth of less than $75 million would be unlikely to reflect sponsorship or issuance of new term ABS offerings during that period. This method yielded a list of 20 institutions. FDIC reviewed examination records for the 20 IDIs identified as potential securitizers to determine which institutions actually securitize. FDIC cross-referenced the list of securitizing IDIs and the list of aforementioned ABS offering naming conventions found using FitchConnect with Intex's database of prospectuses. 16 From this cross-referencing, FDIC found a count of deals associated with each deal name. Finally, FDIC determined whether the sponsor or depositor for each deal was an FDIC-supervised IDI or subsidiary of an FDIC-supervised institution by reading the prospectus of each deal.

Once the set of deals, with corresponding FDIC-supervised securitizers, was constructed, FDIC matched each deal with the sections in Part 373 that imposed one or more PRA requirements on that deal. Most sections impose both disclosure and recordkeeping requirements. 17 For those sections, FDIC separately estimated the burdens for each of the two types of PRA requirements. The following details the estimated respondent counts for each of these sections:

(a) Two FDIC-supervised IDIs were involved in deals in which credit risk was retained through horizontal interest (§ 373.4(a)(2) Standard Risk Retention—Horizontal Interest). These two IDIs were involved in four, three, and four such deals in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. FDIC therefore estimates two annual respondents, with an average annual response rate of two responses per respondent, for the disclosure requirement associated with § 373.4(a)(2) and the corresponding reporting requirement in § 373.4(d). 18

(b) Two FDIC-supervised IDIs were involved in deals in which credit risk was retained through vertical interest (§ 373.4(a)(1) Standard Risk Retention—Vertical Interest). These two IDIs were involved in 0, 0, and 13 such deals in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. FDIC therefore estimates two annual respondents, with an average annual response rate of two responses per respondent, for the disclosure requirement associated with § 373.4(a)(1) and the corresponding reporting requirement in § 373.4(d). 19

(c) Three FDIC-supervised IDIs were involved in deals in which credit risk was retained through revolving master trusts (§ 373.5 Revolving Master Trusts). These three IDIs were involved in eight, six, and zero such deals in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. FDIC therefore estimates three annual respondents, with an average annual response rate of two responses per respondent, for the disclosure requirement associated with § 373.5 and the corresponding reporting requirement in § 373.5(k)(3). 20

Using the above methodology, FDIC could not find any ABS offerings that (1) involved an FDIC-supervised IDI or subsidiary of an FDIC-supervised IDI as a securitizer and (2) were subject to the PRA requirements listed in one or more of the following ten sections: §§ 373.4(a)(3); 373.6; 373.7; 373.10; 373.11; 373.13; 373.15; 373.16; 373.17; and 373.18. It is possible that an FDIC-supervised IDI or subsidiary of an FDIC-supervised IDI would be a respondent to burden items related to these sections in the next three years. As such, FDIC is using one respondent and one annual response per respondent for the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements related to each of these ten sections to preserve the associated burden estimate.

Of the seven unique institutions with securitizations between 2018 and 2020, none are considered small for the purposes of the RFA. 21

The estimated time per response varies by burden item, and these estimates are unchanged from the previous renewal which remains in line with the burden estimated adopted by the agencies.

Two burden items included in the 2018 information collection request have been removed from this renewal request. The disclosure burden related to § 373.8 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was removed as FDIC has determined that it is not possible for FDIC-supervised IDIs or subsidiaries of FDIC-supervised IDIs to be respondents to this burden item. The disclosure burden related to § 373.9 Open Market Collateralized Loan Obligations (“CLOs”) was removed because the D.C. Circuit Court invalidated section 941 of Dodd-Frank as it applies to CLOs. 22

The estimated annual burden, in hours, is the product of the estimated number of respondents, number of responses per respondent, and time per response, as summarized in the table below. The total estimated annual burden for this information collection is 376 hours, a 3,075-hour reduction from the 2018 burden estimate, which reflects the aforementioned change in methodology.

Pursuant to section 814 of NAPA, as amended, ANA is required to provide members of the public an opportunity to comment on proposed changes in interpretive rules and general statements of policy and to give notice of the proposed changes no less than 30 days before such changes become effective.

ANA published a NOPC (86 FR 10283) on February 19, 2021, with proposed policy and program clarifications, modifications, and activities for the FY 2021 FOAs. The NOPC provided proposed clarifications, modifications, and new text for six FY 2021 FOAs. During the 30-day comment period, ANA received three responses to the NOPC. ANA reviewed the comments and determined them non-substantive and therefore would not require changes to the FOAs.

The following are the public comments received in response to the NOPC and ANA's responses:

Comment: My comment is that I hope to have ANA implement a requirement that all data collected in Indian Country by non-Indigenous and Indigenous entities are collected in a manner that ensures the tribe and community will have ownership, guardianship, and access to that data.

Response: ANA highly encourages tribes to be aware of their rights to intellectual property rights and data sovereignty. In the past, ANA has provided trainings at grantee meetings and webinars through ANA's training and technical assistance centers. In addition, ANA included a statement in all FY 2021 FOAs that encouraged applicants to educate themselves on intellectual property rights and the protection of ownership of Native language materials, ceremonies, music and dance, and other forms of knowledge and cultural practices that originate from Native communities. However, due to the variety of laws, rights, and jurisdictions of these matters, ANA leaves this up to the discretion of grantees and applicants.

Comment: We urge ANA to discontinue the use of “normalized scoring.” While the intent of this practice is to normalize scoring across all review panels, it has had a negative impact on applications that obtain high scores in their review panels, but end up with a much lower scaled score, unjustly knocking them out of the competitive range for a funding award.

Response: ANA may use the statistical technique of “normalization” to convert raw scores from review panels to a standardized scale to negate any differences or biases in scoring behaviors among different panels and numerous reviewers. The decision to normalize scores occurs in advance of the panel session so as not to prejudice any specific competition and that all awards are made consistently across the different funding competitions when there are three or more panels. ANA has left the option for using normalized scores in the FY 2021 FOAs but will keep this comment in mind for planning the FY 2022 competitions.

Comment: We would like clarification about whether training and technical assistance information will still be available and accessible on the websites of the regional training and technical assistance providers, and that applicants who do not provide a letter of intent will be able to access such services.

Response: ANA provides technical assistance throughout all stages of the application process, regardless of providing a letter of intent.

Comment: Project-specific funding does not clearly define “essentially identical or similar in whole or in part.” It is not clear if the development of resources, like textbooks, would count as “essentially identical or similar” projects if they build on previous work and use similar project designs.

Response: ANA has a long-standing policy that it will not fund projects that are essentially identical or similar in whole or in part to previously funded projects proposed by the same applicant. While an applicant can have previously developed materials, the new project cannot duplicate the same materials and must address different subjects, populations, etc. If an applicant has concerns about whether ANA has funded them in the past for a project “essentially identical or similar in whole or in part,” ANA encourages them to reach out to ANA or an ANA technical assistance center for clarification.

Comment: ANA is requiring applicants to the Esther Martinez Immersion (EMI) language FOA to submit “an official document that certifies the applicant has at least 3 years of experience in operating and administering” an immersion school or language nest as required by the statute. As it stands, there are very few immersion schools and language nests in the United States where applicants could gain experience. We propose that this be modified to provide a training alternative for applicants without access to existing immersion programs. We recommend that ANA provide examples of certifications that will be accepted.

Response: The requirement of a certification by the applicant having not less than 3 years of experience in operating and administering a Native American language survival school or a Native American language nest is in the authorizing legislation of the Native American Programs Act for the EMI. ANA only clarified in the FOA that this was a requirement. In the EMI FOA, it states that the application should include an official document signed by the authorized representative that certifies that the applicant has at least 3 years of experience operating and administering a Native American language nest, Native American language survival school, or any other education program in which instruction is conducted in a Native American language in accordance with Public Law 109-394 (42 U.S.C. 2991b-3(c)(7)). ANA's training and technical assistance centers are available to help applicants meet the requirements of the EMI FOA.

Comment: We would like to commend ANA for the proposed changes to the FY 2021 FOAs. We appreciate the revision resulting from the Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act (ICEEA) of 2020, which added Native community development financial institutions (CDFIs) as eligible entities. Similarly, we strongly support the new economic development legislative priorities that will be incorporated into the program areas of interest for the SEDS FOA. We encourage ANA to make it clear that these economic development priority points are available for applications from existing Native CDFIs that proposed economic development projects as well as from eligible applicants who propose to develop new Native CDFIs. In addition, we applaud the proposed efforts to reduce the redundancy and the number of scoring criteria in the FY 2021 FOAs.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The new ICEEA law does allow for the development of existing Native CDFIs. Therefore, should a Native CDFI submit an application that proposes a project for any of the following projects: (1) The development of a tribal code or courts system for purposes of economic development, including commercial codes, training for court personnel, (2) the development of non-profit subsidiaries or other tribal business structures; or “(3) the development of a tribal master plan for community and economic development and infrastructure” and the application includes the economic priority area(s) in the project goal, all objectives and indicators as reflected in the project's framework, project approach, OWP, and outcome tracker, they will be awarded points. ANA will instruct reviewers to provide all bonus points for applications that propose an economic priority project that expands or creates a Native CDFI.

Description: Through this study, ACF is conducting web or telephone surveys with adopted youth, young adults, and adults as well as adoptive parents who were participants in the first or second cohort of NSCAW (NSCAW I, II; OMB #0970-0202). The surveys are designed to collect information about instability events (such as foster care re-entry or running away that occurred after a child's adoption) as well as family functioning, perceptions of the adoption relationship, and services and support received after adoption. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, initial activities to contact potential respondents were delayed. As a result, ACF is requesting an extension to collect data beyond the current OMB expiration date of September 30, 2021.

Respondents: Adopted youth, young adults, adults, and their associated adoptive parents who participated in NSCAW I or II.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 571.

Authority: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978.

The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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.

Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. On September 17, 2021, the Pediatric Advisory Committee (PAC) will discuss pediatric-focused safety reviews, as mandated by the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (Pub. L. 107-109) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-155).

The PAC will meet to discuss the following product: Center for Devices and Radiological Health FLOURISH TM Pediatric Esophageal Atresia Device (humanitarian device exemption).

FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see ADDRESSES ) on or before September 10. 2021, will be provided to the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before September 2, 2021. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by September 2, 2021.

Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at fdaoma@fda.hhs.gov or 301-796-4540.

FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Marieann Brill (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our Nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. FDA also has responsibility for regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors.

FDA is establishing a public docket, Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0834, to receive input on post-marketing pediatric-focused safety reviews of products posted between September 2, 2020, and September 2, 2021, available on FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/PediatricAdvisoryCommittee/ucm510701.htm but not presented at the September 17, 2021, PAC meeting. FDA welcomes comments by members of the PAC, as mandated by the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (Pub. L. 107-109) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-155), interested parties (such as academic researchers, regulated industries, consortia, and patient groups), and the general public. The docket number is FDA-2021-N-0834. The docket will open on September 3, 2021, and remain open until September 24, 2021. The post-marketing pediatric-focused safety reviews are for the following products from the following centers at FDA:

This action is being taken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., section 4314 (c) (4), which requires that members of performance review boards be appointed in a manner to ensure consistency, stability, and objectivity in performance appraisals and requires that notice of the appointment of an individual to serve as a member be published in the Federal Register .

The following persons will serve on the NIH Performance Review Board, which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of NIH Senior Executive Service (SES) members:

Intellectual Property

All U.S. and foreign patents and applications claiming priority to any member of the above.

The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned or exclusively licensed to the Government of the United States of America.

The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and in fields of use that may be limited to use as a human therapeutic in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), including patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery who are at risk of acute kidney injury.

The patents listed above cover an invention directed to peptides or peptide analogs with multiple amphipathic alpha helical domains that promote lipid efflux from cells via an ABCA1-dependent pathway. This invention is also directed to methods of identifying non-cytotoxic peptides that promote ABCA1-dependent lipid efflux from cells, and to methods of using multi-domain amphipathic alpha helical peptides or peptide analogs to treat or inhibit dyslipidemic disorders.

This notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially, and may be made publicly available.

License applications submitted in response to this notice will be presumed to contain business confidential information and any release of information in these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) is an independent office tasked with resolving individual complaints from or about individuals in immigration detention regarding the potential violation of immigration detention standards or other potential misconduct. OIDO was established by Congress (Sec. 106 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. 116-93). Its intake form is intended for use by individuals wishing to submit a complaint to OIDO. Information collected will provide the office with details about the allegations the submitter seeks to have OIDO address.

The information collected on this form will allow OIDO to identify: (1) The individual submitting the complaint and their contact information; (2) the detained individual who is the subject of the complaint; (3) the government-owned or contracted facility where the individual is or was detained and for how long; and (4) relevant details about the complaint. All of this information will be used by OIDO to investigate, resolve, and if appropriate, provide redress.

The use of this form is the most efficient means for collecting and processing the required data. Initially, collection will be via a paper form, which may be obtained from OIDO staff conducting routine visits in detention facilities. The form will also be available for download from the OIDO website. The PDF form will be able to be completed online, printed out, and submitted to OIDO by email, mail, or fax, or handed to a staff member in a detention facility.

After approval of the form described in this supporting statement, an electronic version will be developed so that submitters may complete and file via the OIDO website. The paper version will continue to be available; it will be noted on the form that using the paper method may result in processing delays for OIDO to complete data entry.

This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses or other small entities.

If this information is not collected, OIDO will not be able to accomplish its Congressional mandate to provide assistance to individuals who may be affected by misconduct, excessive force, or other violations of law or detention standards.

The assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents for this information collection is based on the forthcoming Privacy Impact Assessment for the Immigration Detention Ombudsman Case Management System (ID-CMS) (Summer 2021). Additionally, the information collected is covered by DHS/ALL-020 Department of Homeland Security Internal Affairs, April 28, 2014, 79 FR 23361 and DHS/ALL-025 Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned, Occupied, or Secured by the Department of Homeland Security System of Records, June 14, 2017, 82 FR 27274.

This information collection was constructed in compliance with regulations and authorities under the purview of the DHS Privacy Office, DHS OCIO, DHS Records Management, and OMB regulations regarding data collection, use, sharing, storage, information security, and retrieval of information.

There are no changes to the information being collected and there is no change to the estimated burden associated with this collection.

The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Title: Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman Intake Form.

OMB Number: 1601-0030.

Frequency: Every 3 years.

Affected Public: Members of the Public or non-government organizations.

Number of Respondents: 30,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 30,000.

TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on April 8, 2021, 86 FR 18292.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation will be available at http://www.reginfo.gov upon its submission to OMB. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title: Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed Training.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number: 1652-0034.

Forms(s): N/A.

Affected Public: Law Enforcement Officers.

Abstract: TSA requires territorial, tribal, Federal, municipal, county, State, and authorized railroad law enforcement officers (LEOs) who have a mission need to fly armed to complete the LEOs Flying Armed Training under 49 CFR 1544.219. Eligibility is based on requirements stated in 49 CFR 1544.219. TSA will gather information, including, but not limited to, agency name and address, and name of each individual who will receive the training from law enforcement agencies that have requested the LEOs Flying Armed training course. Applicant verification ensures that only LEOs with a valid need to fly armed aboard commercial aircraft receive training. Applicants come from territorial, tribal, Federal, municipal, county, State, and authorized railroad law enforcement agencies throughout the country. For more information about the program, please see https://www.tsa.gov/travel/law-enforcement.

Number of Respondents: 2,000.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 167 hours annually.

We announce the availability of a final comprehensive conservation plan, environmental assessment, and finding of no significant impact (CCP/EA/FONSI) for San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge, or NWR), which is located in San Diego County, California. The CCP/EA/FONSI, prepared under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, describes how the Service will manage the Refuge for the next 15 years. Compatibility determinations for public uses are also included in the final CCP.

With this notice, we complete the CCP process for San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, which we began by publishing a notice of intent in the Federal Register on May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29973). For more about the initial process and the history of the Refuge, see that notice. We released the draft CCP and EA to the public, announcing and requesting comments in a notice of availability on June 19, 2014 (79 FR 35183). The 90-day comment period ended on September 17, 2014. A summary of public comments and our responses are included in the final CCP.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires the Service to develop a CCP for each National Wildlife Refuge. The purpose of developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography, environmental education, and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Improvement Act.

Each unit of the NWRS was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the NWRS, and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us to evaluate management goals and objectives that will ensure the best possible approach to wildlife, plant, and habitat conservation, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the NWRS.

The final CCP can be found at https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/133810. The final CCP includes detailed information about the planning process, Refuge, issues, and management alternative selected. The website also includes an EA, prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (43 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The EA includes discussion of five management alternatives. The Service's selected alternative is reflected in the final CCP, and also in the FONSI.

A modified version of Alternative D was selected for implementation. Under the selected alternative, we will optimize species and habitat protection, with a focus on conserving listed and sensitive species and their habitats. Wildlife and habitat management activities will also include monitoring of listed and sensitive species, invasive species control, and habitat restoration. A step-down Feral Pig Monitoring and Eradication Plan and an Integrated Pest Management Plan, both provided for review and comment along with the draft CCP/EA, will also be implemented. Existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses will be expanded, per available funding and staffing. Following the completion of a hunt plan and processing of an opening package, hunting in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations for big game, resident small game, and resident and migratory upland game birds will be permitted on about 160 acres in the southeastern portion of Refuge. A designated multiple use trail system would be established, and leashed dogs will be permitted on multiple use trails.

We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the Final CCP/EA for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act requirements (40 CFR 1506.6(b)). We completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which we included in the draft EA that accompanied the Draft CCP. This notice is in addition to our announcement of the completion of the CCP process on the Refuge website.

The final EA discusses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the alternatives on biological resources, cultural resources, water quality, and other environmental resources. Measures to minimize adverse environmental effects are identified and discussed in the final CCP/EA.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, DOI is rescinding the INTERIOR/USGS-01, National Water Information System: NWIS, SORN as this system of records no longer meets the statutory definition under the Privacy Act. This rescindment complies with the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-108, Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act.

An assessment of NWIS records by the USGS Associate Privacy Officer revealed that the records contained therein are not stored, maintained or retrieved by use of an individual's personal identifier. The USGS Water Mission Area utilizes NWIS to preserve a repository of hydrologic data that is collected as part of cooperative hydrologic studies nation-wide. The records include contact information for individuals or groups that own or have physical control of access sites (site owners) where USGS collects groundwater data. Site owner contact information stored in NWIS includes name, address, phone number, and when provided an email address. The records in NWIS are saved and retrieved by use of the site identification data; records cannot be retrieved by use of the site owner's personal information. Indexing in NWIS is by the site name and number, with the site name being the name given to the body of water and the number a unique identifier assigned to that specific location (example Mississippi River near Bemidji, MN, 05200430). To narrow searches, other site identification data or attributes may be used to retrieve records (state/territory, regional water center, geographic coordinates, water body type, altitude, drainage zone, depth, or aquifer code/name). Controls are in place to ensure contact information is only accessible to authorized USGS personnel; it is not published or released to the public. Rescindment of this notice has no adverse impact on individual privacy of the site owners. The affected records will continue to be maintained under their disposition schedules as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration. This rescindment will promote the overall streamlining and management of DOI Privacy Act systems of records. Members of the public can access hydrological historical data via the NWIS web page ( https://help.waterdata.usgs.gov/ ) or may request NWIS records under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act ( https://www.usgs.gov/about/organization/science-support/foia ). This notice hereby rescinds INTERIOR/USGS-01, National Water Information System: NWIS.

The BLM's purpose for the action is to respond to NGM's proposal as described in the proposed Plan of Operations and to analyze the environmental effects associated with the proponent's Proposed Action and alternatives to the Proposed Action. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that the BLM evaluate the effects of the Proposed Action and develop alternatives when necessary to lessen any effects to environmental resources. The BLM's need for the action is established by its responsibilities under Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the BLM Surface Management Regulations at 43 CFR 3809 to respond to a proposed Plan of Operations and ensure that operations prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands. NGM's purpose and need is to develop the mineral resource.

NGM is proposing to construct, operate, close, and reclaim a new underground mining project in the Cortez Mining District. The proposed Goldrush Mine is located approximately 30 miles south of Beowawe, Nevada, in Lander and Eureka Counties, Nevada.

The proposed Goldrush Mine Plan of Operations boundary would encompass approximately 19,895 acres, of which 772 acres would be on private land controlled by NGM and 19,123 acres on public lands administered by the BLM Battle Mountain District, Mount Lewis Field Office and BLM Elko District, Tuscarora Field Office. The proposed Goldrush Mine would include approximately 1,717 acres of new proposed disturbance and approximately 1,037 acres of existing/authorized and reclassified disturbance, for a total disturbance of approximately 2,754 acres.

The proposed underground mining and surface support activities for the Goldrush Mine would include: (1) A materials handling system for transporting ore and waste rock from the underground workings to the surface and transporting aggregate and supplies to the underground workings and surface backfill plant; (2) a dewatering system, including wells, pipelines and pipeline corridors, a water treatment plant (WTP), rapid infiltration basins (RIBs), and a multi-use shop; (3) a contact water pipeline; (4) ventilation raises; (5) a backfill aggregate paste plant and crusher; (6) a shotcrete/cemented rock fill (CRF) plant; (7) two new power lines, including a 120-kilovolt (kV) power line with two switching stations, and a 13.8-kV power line; (8) new ancillary surface facilities, including bulk material storage, access roads, power supply, stormwater controls, laydown and parking areas, lighting, growth media stockpiles, dewatering and monitoring wells, gravel pit expansion, potable water and septic systems, dry facilities (change rooms), service boreholes for electrical and fuel delivery, fire suppression system, water truck refill stations, emergency helipads, fencing, and modular information technology (IT) and communications buildings; (9) dual use of existing facilities within the nearby Cortez Mine Plan boundary; and (10) continued surface and underground exploration activities.

A fleet of over-the-road haul truck and trailer units would be used for ore transportation to either the NGM-operated Goldstrike or Gold Quarry off-site processing facilities. The Proposed Action would result in changes to the Horse Canyon Mine Plan (NVN-066896), Horse Canyon/Cortez Unified Exploration Project (HC/CUEP) Plan (NVN-066621), West Pine Valley Exploration Plan (NVN-077213), and Cortez Mine Plan (NVN-067575).

The Goldrush Mine would operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year for approximately 24 years. The work force would be approximately 570 persons, which includes both NGM employees and contractors. The construction work force would be approximately 495 workers.

Reclamation of disturbed areas resulting from mining operations would be completed in accordance with BLM and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) regulations. Concurrent reclamation would take place where practicable and safe and when an area is no longer needed. Reclamation activities at the end of mining are anticipated to take approximately 36 months.

In addition to the No Action and the Proposed Action, other alternatives may be identified through scoping comments or through analysis.

The BLM has identified the following preliminary resource concerns associated with the Project: (1) Properties of Cultural and Religious Importance (PCRI) and Native American concerns. Up to 50 National Register of Historic Places-eligible or unevaluated cultural properties would be physically altered, resulting in an adverse effect to these cultural sites. Adverse impacts would occur to approximately 392 acres of the Horse Canyon PCRI. Vegetation communities important to Native American traditional values may be impacted by the Proposed Action. (2) Impacts to wildlife resources. Potential impacts include habitat change, habitat loss, alterations to water sources, fatalities as a result of collisions with vehicles, displacement due to human activity and disturbance, and impediments to movement through corridors. (3) Potential impacts to BLM sensitive species including greater sage-grouse and golden eagles. For greater sage-grouse, the Proposed Action would disturb approximately 805 acres of Priority Habitat Management Areas, 14 acres of General Habitat Management Areas, 618 acres of Other Habitat Management Areas, and 79 acres of Non-Habitat Management Areas. Exploration activities could result in up to 210 acres of additional disturbance to any of the greater sage-grouse habitat types. For golden eagles, the Proposed Action would result in the removal of 1,094 acres of foraging habitat. Additionally, eight golden eagle territories occur within one mile of the proposed Project disturbance area. (4) Potential impacts to visual resources. The Proposed Action would add form, line, texture, and color to the existing landscape. (5) Potential impacts to air quality. Modeling has determined that impacts from the Proposed Action would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 10 , PM 2.5 , CO, NO X , and SO 2 . Total facility-wide Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) are estimated to be 1.8 tons per year (tpy), with 0.5 tpy of the highest single HAP, arsenic. The facility-wide HAP emissions are within U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) thresholds. Greenhouse gas emissions, including off-site ore transport, are estimated to be 96,624 tpy CO 2 e. Mercury emissions are estimated to be 0.014 tpy. (6) Potential impacts to surface and groundwater resources. Potential impacts to seep, spring, and stream flow may occur from proposed dewatering operations if the source of the water is connected to the regional aquifer. Dewatering operations would also result in a lowering of the local groundwater table. Sedimentation and erosion may also occur due to Project-related surface disturbance. (7) Potential impacts to traffic. The Proposed Action would result in two ore hauling trucks per hour on the transportation route, as well as 89 trips each shift for employees and contractors during construction and up to 71 trips during operations along the transportation route. Changes in the level of service at some locations along the transportation route may occur, but there would be no degrading of the level of service below acceptable levels. (8) Potential impacts to livestock grazing. The Proposed Action would result in new surface disturbance of 1,717 acres, which would impact forage utilized by livestock. Approximately 119 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) would be impacted in the Carico Lake, Grass Valley, JD, and South Buckhorn allotments. The 210 acres of proposed exploration disturbance may result in an impact ranging from 9 to 19 AUMs, depending on the allotment in which the activities occur. (9) Potential impacts on vegetation communities and soil productivity. The Proposed Action would result in disturbance to soil and removal of vegetation on 1,717 acres. (10) Potential for subsidence. In the post-closure period, underground mine induced rock collapse may occur over open workings and result in the development of localized ground deformation/subsidence type features, which are unlikely to impact surface features due to the strength and thickness of the overlying rock, and any surface expression is anticipated to be local to the immediate mining area and not propagate extensively. Additionally, at the end of mining, model-predicted subsidence from dewatering may cause a four-inch contour of land with the potential for development of fissures. (11) Reclamation to reduce permanent disturbance. Approximately 2,232 acres of total surface disturbance would be reclaimed and would return to post-reclamation land uses, including open space, grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, while 523 acres would remain permanently altered.

The proposed project has the potential to affect golden eagle nests and territories; therefore, NGM has prepared an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) and has requested an incidental take permit for golden eagles in the area in which NGM proposes to conduct mining operations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is considering the applicant's request for incidental take, as allowed under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) for the purpose of resource development and recovery operations. The USFWS will evaluate the applicant's ECP, which describes NGM's request for incidental take authorization for impacts resulting from their proposed mining operations. The DEIS will analyze any potential effects and impacts of the proposed project on golden eagles and may also analyze impacts and develop alternatives associated with the USFWS eagle take permit decision under the Eagle Act.

The BLM anticipates that the following permits and authorizations will be required for the mine:

The BLM anticipates a decision in May of 2022.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Scoping meetings will be virtual. An announcement about when and how to access the virtual meetings online will be posted on the BLM's project website.

The purpose of public scoping is to identify relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the environmental impact statement. The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA public scoping to help fulfill the public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.

The BLM will conduct government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Agencies will give due consideration to Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and treaty rights and potential impacts to cultural resources.

The BLM invites Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed Goldrush Mine to participate in scoping. Agencies with regulatory authority or special expertise, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.

The BLM requests assistance with identifying potential alternatives to the Proposed Action to be considered. As alternatives should resolve a problem with the Proposed Action, please indicate the purpose of the suggested alternative. The BLM also requests that potential impacts that should be analyzed be identified. Impacts should be a result of the action; therefore, please identify the activity and the potential impact that should be analyzed. Information that reviewers have that would assist in the development of alternatives or analysis of resources issues is also helpful.

The BLM is the lead agency. Cooperating agencies include the USFWS, the USEPA, the Nevada Department of Wildlife, the Nevada Department of Transportation, and Eureka County.

The BLM Battle Mountain District Manager, Doug Furtado, is the responsible official.

The BLM will issue a decision on the proposed Plan of Operations for the Goldrush mine project.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will also be accepted and considered.

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7.

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 July 24, 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:

Authority: Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.

The Commission instituted this investigation on November 20, 2017, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Kyocera Senco Brands, Inc. (now known as Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.) (“Kyocera”) of Cincinnati, Ohio. 82 FR 55118-19 (Nov. 20, 2017). The complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleged violations of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain gas spring nailer products and components thereof by reason of infringement of, inter alia, claims 1, 10, and 16 of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,387,718 (“the '718 patent”). The complaint further alleged the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named Koki as a respondent. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate in the investigation.

On March 5, 2020, the Commission issued its final determination finding a violation of section 337 based on infringement of the asserted claims of the '718 patent. 85 FR 14244-46 (Mar. 11, 2020). The Commission issued an LEO directed against Koki's infringing products, and a CDO directed against Koki. Id. On July 1, 2020, Koki filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is currently pending (Appeal No. 20-2050).

On June 30, 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issued a ruling, pursuant to 19 CFR part 177, that the redesigned products are outside of the scope of the LEO issued in the investigation. See RX-1001 (CBP Ruling); CX-1017C (Ltr. Requesting CBP Ruling). In response, on August 17, 2020, Kyocera petitioned for institution of a modification proceeding, requesting the Commission to determine if the redesigned products are outside of the scope of the LEO and CDO. On August 27, 2020, Koki opposed the petition.

On September 16, 2020, the Commission instituted a modification proceeding to determine whether the redesigned products are covered by the LEO and CDO. See 85 FR 59543-44 (Sept. 22, 2020); Comm'n Order (Sept. 16, 2020). On October 22, 2020, the Commission issued a revised modification institution order that clarified that the presiding ALJ would consider, in the first instance, any issues regarding potentially impermissible arguments raised by Kyocera in the course of the modification proceeding. See Revised Comm'n Order (Oct. 22, 2020).

On July 2, 2021, the CALJ issued the subject RD finding that Koki's redesigned products are not covered by the LEO and CDO.

On July 16, 2021, Kyocera submitted comments on the RD. On July 22, 2021, Koki filed a response to Kyocera's comments.

Having reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to adopt the RD's finding that the redesigned products do not infringe claims 1, 10, and 16 of the '718 patent and thus are not covered by the LEO and CDO. The Commission has issued a contemporaneous order indicating that the redesigned products are exempt from the scope of the LEO and CDO.

The modification proceeding is terminated.

The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 4, 2021.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.

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

SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 4, 2021, ORDERED THAT—

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, or in the sale of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States;

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “polycarbonate and nylon optical enclosures”;

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

(a) The complainant is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview of this information collection:

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of Existing Collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center- Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS).

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: NA. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Office for Victims of Crime, in the Office of Justice Programs.

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

Primary: OVC Grantees.

Abstract: The current package for OMB approval is designed to simplify performance reporting for OVC grantees through the OVC Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS) Online system, a Web-based database and reporting system for the Victims of Human Trafficking Grant and the Enhanced Collaborative Model Grant initiatives. OVC will require OVC Grantees to use this electronic tool to submit grant performance data, including demographics about human trafficking victims. Since 2012, OVC has published annual analyses of these data to provide the crime victims' field with stronger evidence for practices and programs.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: There are approximately 60 OVC Services to Victims of Human Trafficking Grantees per six-month reporting period. On average, it should take each grantee one hour to seven hours, depending on client case load per reporting period, to enter information into TIMS Online. There are two reporting periods per year.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 480 hours (average 60 OVC grantees * average 4 hours * 2 times per year).

If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

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

The Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-306) permanently authorized the SEA program, which is a reemployment program that helps Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants start their own businesses. Public Law 112-96, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the 2012 Act), expanded the SEA program to provide states the opportunity to allow UI claimants receiving Extended Benefits to participate in the SEA program. Currently, five states use this reemployment program.

Section 2183(b)(1) of the 2012 Act directs the Secretary of Labor to establish reporting requirements for States that have established SEA programs, which shall include reporting on:

(A) The total number of individuals who received unemployment compensation and (i) were referred to a SEA program; (ii) participated in such program; and (iii) received an allowance under such program;

(B) the total amount of allowances provided to individuals participating in a SEA program;

(C) the total income (as determined by survey or other appropriate method) for businesses that have been established by individuals participating in a SEA program, as well as the total number of individuals employed through such businesses; and

(D) any additional information, as determined appropriate by the Secretary. ETA currently uses Form ETA-9161 as an electronic reporting mechanism to collect this required information. In addition to Public Law 112-96, collection of data is used for oversight of the program as authorized under Section 303(a)(6) of the Social Security Act. Also, the code of Federal Regulations authorizes this information collection See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

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

Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB control number 1205-0490.

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

DOL is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

Agency: DOL-ETA.

Type of Review: Extension without changes.

Title of Collection: Self Employment Assistance.

Form: ETA 9161.

OMB Control Number: 1205-0490.

Affected Public: State Workforce Agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,105.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 24,820.

Estimated Average Time per Response: Varies.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,440 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Cost Burden: $0.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

The Standard requires that when aerial lifts are “field modified” for uses other than those intended by the manufacturer, the manufacturer or other equivalent entity, such as a nationally recognized testing laboratory, must certify in writing that the modification is in conformity with all applicable provisions of ANSI A92.2-1969 and the OSHA standard and that the modified aerial lift is at least as safe as the equipment was before modification. Employers are to maintain the certification record and make it available to OSHA compliance officers. This record provides assurance to employers, workers, and compliance officers that the modified aerial lift is safe for use; thereby, preventing failure while workers are being elevated. The certification record also provides the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2021 (86 FR 23434).

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

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

Agency: DOL-OSHA.

Title of Collection: Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms Standard (Aerial Lifts).

OMB Control Number: 1218-0230.

Affected Public: Private Sector: Businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 1,000.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 17 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Art and Literature, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Production Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of U.S. History and Civics, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Production Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of World History, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Production Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Scholarly Communications, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Computation Analysis, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Data Visualization and Spatial Humanities, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Pedagogy and Public Humanities, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Collections and Access, for the Digital Humanities Advancement Grants program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Art and American Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Comparative Literature, Literacy Theory, Middle Eastern Studies, and Migration Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Ancient to Renaissance Literature and Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of U.S. History, Political Science, and Jurisprudence, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Religious Studies and American Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Film, Media, Communication, and Rhetoric, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting—the first of two on this date—will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting—the second of two on this date—will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Philosophy and Ethics, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of U.S. History and Environmental and Science Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Music, Dance, and Theater, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of American Literature and Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting—the first of two on this date—will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting—the second of two on this date—will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting—the first of two on this date—will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting—the second of two on this date—will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Community Colleges grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Initiatives at Community Colleges grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Humanities Initiatives at Historically Black Colleges and Universities grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Conservation Science, for the Research and Development grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Digital Preservation, for the Research and Development grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Race and Gender Studies, for the Digital Projects for the Public: Discovery Grants program, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0146 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2021-0146.

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

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

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2021-0146 in the subject line of your comment submission in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

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

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

By letter dated June 7, 2021 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML21158A193), Duke Energy Carolina, LLC (Duke Energy) submitted to the NRC an application for subsequent license renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for ONS, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, for an additional 20 years of operation. This submission initiated the NRC's proposed action of determining whether to grant the SLR application. The ONS units are pressurized water reactors designed by Babcock & Wilcox and are located in Seneca, South Carolina, approximately 30 miles west of Greenville. The current renewed facility operating license for Unit 1 expires at midnight on February 6, 2033, the current renewed facility operating license for Unit 2 expires at midnight on October 6, 2033, and the current renewed facility operating license for Unit 3 expires at midnight on July 19, 2034. The SLR application was submitted pursuant to part 54 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” and seeks to extend the renewed facility operating license for Unit 1 to midnight on February 6, 2053, the renewed facility operating license for Unit 2 to midnight on October 6, 2053, and the renewed facility operating license for Unit 3 to midnight on July 19, 2054. A notice of receipt and availability of the application was published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2021 (86 FR 33784). A notice of acceptance for docketing of the application and of opportunity to request a hearing was published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2021 (86 FR 40662) and is available on the Federal Rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ) by searching for Docket ID NRC-2021-0127.

This notice informs the public of the NRC's intention to conduct environmental scoping and prepare an EIS related to the SLR application for ONS, and to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process, as defined in 10 CFR 51.29, “Scoping-environmental impact statement and supplement to environmental impact statement.”

The regulations in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination With the National Environmental Policy Act,” allow agencies to use their National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) (NEPA) process to fulfill the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. 300101, et seq. ) (NHPA). Therefore, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC intends to use its process and documentation required for the preparation of the EIS on the proposed action to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA in lieu of the procedures set forth at 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 10 CFR 54.23, Duke Energy submitted an environmental report (ER) as part of the SLR application. The ER was prepared pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” and is publicly available in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML21158A193. The ER will also be available for viewing at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/subsequent-license-renewal.html. In addition, the SLR application, including the ER, is available for public review at the Seneca Branch of the Oconee County Public Library, 300 E. South 2nd Street, Seneca, SC 29678.

The NRC intends to gather the information necessary to prepare a plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023) (GEIS), related to the SLR application for Oconee. The NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.95 to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS in connection with the renewal of an operating license. This notice is being published in accordance with NEPA and the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 51.

The supplement to the GEIS will evaluate the environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal for ONS, and reasonable alternatives thereto. Possible alternatives to the proposed action include the no action alternative and reasonable alternative energy sources.

As part of its environmental review, the NRC will first conduct a scoping process for the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and, as soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft supplement to the GEIS for public comment. Participation in this scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal government agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS will be used to accomplish the following:

a. Define the proposed action that is to be the subject of the supplement to the GEIS;

b. Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth;

c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or are not significant or that have been covered by prior environmental review;

d. Identify any environmental assessments and other ElSs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the supplement to the GEIS under consideration;

e. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action;

f. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the NRC's tentative planning and decision-making schedule;

g. Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the supplement to the GEIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies; and

h. Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used.

The NRC invites the following entities to participate in scoping:

a. The applicant, Duke Energy;

b. Any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved or that is authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;

c. Affected State and local government agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;

d. Any affected Indian Tribe;

e. Any person who requests or has requested an opportunity to participate in the scoping process; and

f. Any person who has petitioned or intends to petition for leave to intervene under 10 CFR 2.309.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26(b), the scoping process for an EIS may include a public scoping meeting to help identify significant issues related to the proposed action and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS.

The NRC is announcing that it will hold a public scoping meeting as an online webinar for the ONS SLR supplement to the GEIS. The webinar will include a telephone line for members of the public to provide comments. A court reporter will transcribe all comments received during the webinar. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or in writing, as discussed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The public scoping webinar will be held on August 25, 2021, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET. Persons interested in attending this online webinar should monitor the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule website at https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg for additional information, agenda for the meeting, and access information for the webinar. Please contact Mr. Lance Rakovan no later than August 18, 2021, if accommodations or special equipment is needed to attend or to provide comments, so that the NRC staff can determine whether the request can be accommodated.

The public scoping meeting will include: (1) An overview by the NRC staff of the environmental and safety review processes, the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS, and the proposed review schedule; and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to submit comments or suggestions on environmental issues or the proposed scope of the ONS SLR supplement to the GEIS.

Participation in the scoping process for the ONS SLR supplement to the GEIS does not entitle participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the supplement to the GEIS relates. Matters related to participation in any hearing are outside the scope of matters to be discussed at this public meeting.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0152, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2021-0152.

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

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

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2021-0152, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject, in your comment submission.

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

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

For the facility-specific amendment requests shown in this notice, the Commission finds that the licensees' analyses provided, consistent with section 50.91 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) “Notice for public comment; State consultation,” are sufficient to support the proposed determinations that these amendment requests involve NSHC. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, operation of the facilities in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed determinations. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determinations.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final NSHC determination for any of these amendments, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take action on any amendment before 60 days have elapsed will occur very infrequently.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

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

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

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

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

If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of NSHC, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of NSHC. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves NSHC, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

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

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

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

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

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

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

Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).

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

The table in this notice provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensees' proposed NSHC determinations. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

During the period since publication of the last monthly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated in the safety evaluation for each amendment.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22 “Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review.” Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated in the safety evaluation for the amendment.

For further details with respect to each action, see the amendment and associated documents such as the Commission's letter and safety evaluation, which may be obtained using the ADAMS accession numbers indicated in the following table. The safety evaluation will provide the ADAMS accession numbers for the application for amendment and the Federal Register citation for any environmental assessment. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

Since publication of the last monthly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendment. The Commission has determined for this amendment that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

Because of exigent circumstances or emergency situation associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing.

For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of NSHC. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its NSHC determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment prior to issuance. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.

Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that NSHC is involved.

The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendments involve NSHC. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to each action. Accordingly, the amendment has been issued and made effective as indicated. For those amendments that have not been previously noticed in the Federal Register , within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the guidance concerning the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2 as discussed in section II.A of this document.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that the amendment satisfies the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for this amendment. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated in the safety evaluation for the amendment.

For further details with respect to these actions, see the amendment and associated documents such as the Commission's letter and safety evaluation, which may be obtained using the ADAMS accession numbers indicated in the following table. The safety evaluation will provide the ADAMS accession number(s) for the application for amendment and the Federal Register citation for any environmental assessment. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0137 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2021-0137.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-M210218B, “Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative Employment, and Small Business, 10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 18, 2021, Video Conference Meeting,” dated April 23, 2021, which provides direction to the staff or this assessment, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML21113A070.

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

The NRC encourages comment submission via email and phone. Please reference Docket ID NRC-2021-0137 in your comment submission.

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

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

The NRC is an independent agency established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 that began operations in 1975 as a successor to the licensing and regulatory activities of the Atomic Energy Commission. The NRC's mission is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of radioactive materials to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the common defense and security and to protect the environment. As part of its licensing and regulatory activities, the NRC conducts safety, security, and environmental reviews.

Specifically, with respect to environmental reviews, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires all Federal agencies to evaluate the impacts of proposed major actions on the human environment. As part of its responsibilities under NEPA, the NRC considers environmental justice. According to the Commission, “[t]he term `environmental justice' refers to the federal policy established in 1994 by Executive Order 12898, which directed federal agencies to identify and address `disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.'” Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), CLI-15-6, 81 NRC 340, 369 (2015).

The NRC, as an independent agency, was requested, rather than directed, to comply with Executive Order 12898, and this Executive Orderdid not, in itself, create new substantive authority for Federal agencies. In a March 31, 1994, letter to President Clinton, NRC Chairman Ivan Selin indicated that the NRC would endeavor to carry out the measures set forth in Executive Order 12898 and the accompanying memorandum as part of the NRC's efforts to comply with NEPA (ADAMS Accession No. ML033210526). As noted in the NRC's 1995 Environmental Justice Strategy (ADAMS Accession No. ML20081K602 (March 24, 1995)), because “the NRC is not a `land management' agency, i.e., it neither sites, owns, or manages facilities or properties,” the NRC determined that Executive Order 12898 would “primarily apply to [NRC] efforts to fulfill” NEPA requirements as part of NRC's licensing process.

On August 24, 2004, following public comment on a draft Policy Statement (68 FR 62642), the Commission issued its “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions” (69 FR 52040). The purpose of this Policy Statement was to set forth a “comprehensive statement of the Commission's policy on the treatment of environmental justice matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions.” Id. at 52,041. The Policy Statement explains that the focus of an environmental justice review “should be on identifying and weighing disproportionately significant and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations that may be different from the impacts on the general population. It is not a broad-ranging or even limited review of racial or economic discrimination.” Id. at 52,047.

The Policy Statement also reiterates guidance on defining the geographic area for environmental justice assessments and identifying low-income and minority communities. Id. In addition, it explains that a scoping process is used to “assist the NRC in ensuring that minority and low-income communities, including transient populations, affected by the proposed action are not overlooked in assessing the potential for significant impacts unique to those communities.” Id. at 52,048. In performing a NEPA analysis, “published demographic data, community interviews and public input through well-noticed public scoping meetings should be used in identifying minority and low-income communities that may be subject to adverse environmental impacts.” Id.

On April 23, 2021, in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (ADAMS Accession No. ML21113A070), the Commission directed the staff to “systematically review how the agency's programs, polices, and activities address environmental justice.” As part of this review, the Commission directed the staff to evaluate recent Executive Orders and assess whether environmental justice is appropriately considered and addressed in the agency's programs, policies, and activities, given the agency's mission. As directed, the staff will consider the practices of other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies and evaluate whether the NRC should incorporate environmental justice beyond implementation through NEPA. The staff will also review the adequacy of the 2004 Policy Statement. The Commission further directed the staff to consider whether establishing formal mechanisms to gather external stakeholder input would benefit any future environmental justice efforts. To carry out the Commission's direction, the staff is seeking to engage stakeholders and interested persons representing a broad range of perspectives. This Federal Register notice is part of this engagement effort.

On July 9, 2021, the NRC published a notice in the Federal Register (86 FR 36307) requesting comments. The comment period was originally scheduled to close on August 23, 2021. The NRC staff has decided to extend the comment period until September 13, 2021, to allow more time for members of the public to submit their comments.

The NRC is interested in obtaining a broad range of perspectives from stakeholders and interested persons. The focus of this request is to gather information to inform a systematic assessment for how the NRC addresses environmental justice in its programs, policies, and activities, considering the agency's mission and statutory authority. The NRC is particularly interested in receiving input on the following questions:

(1) What is your understanding of what is meant by environmental justice at the NRC?

(2) As described in the Commission's 2004 Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), the NRC currently addresses environmental justice in its NEPA reviews to determine if a proposed agency action will have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income communities, defined as environmental justice communities.

(a) When the NRC is conducting licensing and other regulatory reviews, the agency uses a variety of ways to gather information from stakeholders and interested persons on environmental impacts of the proposed agency action, such as in-person and virtual meetings, Federal Register notices requesting input, and dialog with community organizations.

(i) How could the NRC expand how it engages and gathers input?

(ii) What formal tools might there be to enhance information gathering from stakeholders and interested persons in NRC's programs, policies, and activities?

(iii) Can you describe any challenges that may affect your ability to engage with the NRC on environmental justice issues?

(b) How could the NRC enhance opportunities for members of environmental justice communities to participate in licensing and regulatory activities, including the identification of impacts and other environmental justice concerns?

(c) What ways could the NRC enhance identification of environmental justice communities?

(d) What has the NRC historically done well, or currently does well that we could do more of or expand with respect to environmental justice in our programs, policies, and activities, including engagement efforts? In your view, what portions of the 2004 Policy Statement are effective?

(3) What actions could the NRC take to enhance consideration of environmental justice in the NRC's programs, policies and activities and agency decision-making, considering the agency's mission and statutory authority?

(a) Would you recommend that NRC consider any particular organization's environmental justice program(s) in its assessment?

(b) Looking to other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies' environmental justice programs, what actions could the NRC take to enhance consideration of environmental justice in the NRC's programs, policies, and activities?

(c) Considering recent Executive Orders on environmental justice, what actions could the NRC take to enhance consideration of environmental justice in the NRC's programs, policies, and activities?

(d) Are there opportunities to expand consideration of environmental justice in NRC programs, policies, and activities, considering the agency's mission? If so, what are they?