The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss project proposals;

2. Make funding reccomendations on Title II projects;

3. Approve meeting minutes; and

4. Schedule the next meeting.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing by October 10, 2021, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Theresa Davidson, Mark Twain National Forest, 401 Fairgrounds Road, Rolla, Missouri 65401 or by email to theresa.davidson@usda.gov.

Meeting Accommodations: Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

The Economic Development Administration (EDA) leads the Federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. Guided by the basic principle that sustainable economic development should be locally-driven, EDA works directly with communities and regions to help them build the capacity for economic development based on local business conditions and needs. The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA) (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ) is EDA's organic authority and is the primary legal authority under which EDA awards financial assistance. Under PWEDA, EDA provides financial assistance to both rural and urban distressed communities by fostering entrepreneurship, innovation, and productivity through investments in infrastructure development, capacity building, and business development to attract private capital investments and new and better jobs to regions experiencing economic distress. Further information on EDA programs and financial assistance opportunities can be found at www.eda.gov.

To effectively administer and monitor its economic development assistance programs, EDA collects certain information from applications for, and recipients of, EDA investment assistance. The purpose of this notice is to seek comments from the public and other Federal agencies on a request for an extension of an information collection related to a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). A CEDS emerges from a continuing planning process developed and driven by a public sector planning organization by engaging a broad-based and diverse set of stakeholders to address the economic problems and potential of a region. The CEDS should include information about how and to what extent stakeholder input and support was solicited. Information on how the planning organization collaborated with its diverse set of stakeholders (including the public sector, private interests, non-profits, educational institutions, and community organizations) in the development of the CEDS should be included. In accordance with 13 CFR 303.7(b), a CEDS must contain a summary background, a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) Analysis, Strategic Direction/Action Plan, and an Evaluation Framework. In addition, the CEDS must incorporate the concept of economic resilience ( i.e., the ability to avoid, withstand, and recover from economic shifts, natural disasters, etc.). A CEDS is required for an eligible applicant to qualify for an EDA investment assistance under EDA's Public Works program, Economic Adjustment Assistance program, and certain planning programs, and is a prerequisite for a region's designation by EDA as an Economic Development District (see 13 CFR part 303, 13 CFR 305.2, and 13 CFR 307.2). EDA collects information under this information collection to ensure compliance with EDA's CEDS requirements.

This information collection is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2021. EDA is not proposing any changes to the current information collection request.

CEDS are collected primarily through electronic submissions but may also be collected through paper submission.

OMB Control Number: 0610-0093.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission; Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: (1) Cities or other political subdivisions of a state, including a special purpose unit of state or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities; (2) states; (3) institutions of higher education; (4) public or private non-profit organizations or associations; (5) District Organizations; and (6) Indian Tribes.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 527.

Estimated Time per Response: 480 hours for the initial CEDS for a District organization or other planning organization funded by EDA; 160 hours for the CEDS revision required at least every 5 years from an EDA-funded District or other planning organization; 40 hours per CEDS update and performance report; and 40 hours per applicant for EDA Public Works or Economic Adjustment Assistance with a project deemed by EDA to merit further consideration that is not located in an EDA-funded District.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 31,640.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,841,131 (cost assumes application of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics first quarter 2021 mean hourly employer costs for employee compensation for professional and related occupations of $58.19).

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ).

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

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

On October 30, 2020, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of HWR pipes and tubes from Mexico. 1 This review covers 11 producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. Commerce selected two companies, Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero) and Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. (Prolamsa), for individual examination. The producers and/or exporters not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Preliminary Results of the Review” section of this notice.

On May 5, 2021, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce extended the time limit for issuing the preliminary results of this administrative review to September 30, 2021. 2

The products covered by the Order are heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico. 4 Products subject to the Order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item number 7306.61.1000. Subject merchandise may also be classified under 7306.61.3000. Although the HTSUS subheading and ASTM specification are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. On January 28, 2021, Nucor Tubular Products Inc. (Nucor), timely withdrew its requests for an administrative review on the following nine companies: Arco Metal S.A. de C.V.; Forza Steel S.A. de C.V; Industrias Monterrey, S.A. de C.V.; Perfiles y Herrajes LM S.A. de C.V.; PYTCO S.A. de C.V.; Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V.; Ternium S.A. de C.V.; Tuberia Nacional S.A de C.V.; and Tuberias Procarsa S.A. de C.V. No other party requested a review of these nine companies. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act. Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

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

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2019, through August 31, 2020:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice. 5 Interested parties may submit case briefs or other written comments to Commerce no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 6 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the deadline for filing case briefs. 7 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 8 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS. 9

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 10 Hearing requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing. 11

An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise extended. 12

Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 13

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where Maquilacero and Prolamsa reported the entered value of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. Where Prolamsa did not report entered value, we calculated the entered value in order to determine the assessment rate. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Maquilacero or Prolamsa for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 14

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a). If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

For the companies for which we have rescinded this administrative review, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific cash deposit rate published for the most recently completed segment in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 4.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 15 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

This request is for an extension and revision of a current information collection.

Participants in most federally managed fisheries in the NMFS Southeast Region are currently required to keep and submit catch and effort logbooks from their fishing trips. A subset of fishermen on these vessels also provides information on the species and quantities of fish, shellfish, marine turtles, and marine mammals that are caught and discarded or have interacted with the fishing gear. A subset of fishermen on these vessels also provides information about dockside prices, trip operating costs, and annual fixed costs. An intercept survey for vessels with Federal charter vessel/headboat permits is designed to support and validate the electronic logbooks.

The data are used for scientific analyses that support critical conservation and management decisions made by national and international fishery management organizations. Interaction reports are needed for fishery management planning and to help protect endangered species and marine mammals. Price and cost data will be used in analyses of the economic effects of proposed and existing regulations.

Regulatory Amendment 29 effective July 15, 2020 would require at least one descending device to be on board and ready for use on commercial, for-hire, and private recreational vessels while fishing for or possessing snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic. Most recently the Descend Act was passed, which added a new section 321 to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This requires commercial and recreational fishermen to possess a venting tool or descending device that is rigged and ready for use when fishing for reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zone.

Descending devices increase survivability from barotrauma, which is injury caused by internal gas expansion when reeled up from depth. In addition to being asked to report the number of fish released respondents would be asked to report the method used to release fish as part of their current logbook submissions. The purpose of asking respondents to distinguish between fish releases without descending devices, fish released with gas bladders vented, and fish released with descending devices is to provide data needed by NMFS to accurately account for fishing mortality when performing stock assessments.

The information is submitted on paper forms and electronic transmissions. Logbooks are completed daily and submitted on either a per trip, weekly, or monthly basis, depending on the fishery. Fixed costs are submitted on an annual basis. Other information is submitted on a per trip basis.

For the proposed intercept survey, information would be collected through in-person interviews at verified landing locations.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0016.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission—extension and revision of a current information collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations; individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,867.

Estimated Time per Response: Annual fixed-cost report, 45 minutes; discard logbook, 15 minutes; headboat, charter vessel, golden crab, reef fish-mackerel, economic cost per trip, wreckfish, 10 minutes; no-fishing report for golden crab, reef fish-mackerel, charter vessels, and wreckfish, 2 minutes; installation of a vessel monitoring unit, 5 hours; landing location request and power-down exemption request, 5 minutes; trip declaration, 2 minutes; and proposed intercept survey, 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 69,431.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,816,314 in record-keeping or reporting cost.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

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

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

The subject permits and permit modifications are requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

File No. 25870: Harold M. Brundage, Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc., 325 Market Street, Lewes, DE 19958, requests a permit to conduct scientific research on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon in freshwater and estuary areas of the Delaware River. Research objectives include study of abundance, recruitment, temporal-spatial distributions, reproduction, and habitat use in the lower non-tidal Delaware River, tidal Delaware River, and Delaware Bay. Up to 100 adult/sub-adult and 230 juvenile shortnose sturgeon and 100 adult/sub-adult and 230 juvenile Atlantic sturgeon would be captured by gill net or trawl, measured, weighed, biologically sampled (tissue), marked (passive integrated transponder (PIT) and Floy/T-bar tags), and photographed/videoed, annually, prior to release. Sub-sets of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon may be anesthetized and implanted with acoustic transmitters or tethered in a nylon sock for hydro-acoustic testing. The researcher anticipates a total of one incidental mortality of each sturgeon species annually. The permit would be valid for up to 10 years from the date of issuance.

File No. 19641-05: The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (Tom Savoy, Responsible Party), P.O. Box 719, Old Lyme, CT 06371, requests a modification to Permit No. 19641-02. The subject modification to Permit No. 19641-02, issued on June 16, 2020 (85 FR 43820; July 20, 2020) authorizes researchers to determine the presence, status, health, habitat use, and movements of adult, sub-adult, and juvenile Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon in the Connecticut River. Researchers may capture sturgeon using gill nets and trawls, measure, weigh, PIT tag, tissue sample, anesthetize, acoustically tag, fin ray sample, gastric lavage, and photograph individuals prior to release. Early life stages (ELS) of both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon may be lethally sampled to document the occurrence of spawning in the river. During research activities, unintentional mortality of up to one juvenile and adult/sub-adult life stage of each species may occur, annually. Due to an rapidly expanding population of shortnose sturgeon documented in the Connecticut River, the Permit Holder requests authorization to increase take numbers authorized for capture and recapture ( i.e., from 500 to 1,000) of adult and sub-adult shortnose sturgeon, annually. The permit is valid through March 31, 2027.

File No. 20528-08: The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (Responsible Party: Bill Post), 217 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412, proposes to modify Permit No. 20528-02. The subject modification to Permit No. 20528-02, issued on May 28, 2020 (85 FR 35637; June 11, 2020), authorizes researchers to conduct research on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon to determine their presence, status, health, habitat use, and movements in South Carolina waters. Researchers may use gill nets to capture Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon to measure, weigh, PIT tag, tissue sample, acoustically tag, fin ray sample, gonad biopsy, and photograph prior to release. Early life stages of each species may be lethally sampled to document occurrence of spawning in systems. Up to two sturgeon of each species may unintentionally die annually during sampling activities. The permit holder requests authorization to (1) add the objective to perform enhancement activities that include the capture and transport of 20 adult shortnose sturgeon from the Cooper River to the Santee River, annually; (2) increase the number of adult/subadult shortnose sturgeon for capture, mark (dart, PIT), biologically sample (tissue), measure, and weigh from 35 to 200 annually in the Cooper River; (3) increase the annual number of adult/subadult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon from 20 to 100 and 60 to 150, respectively, for capture, mark (dart, PIT), biologically sample(tissue), measure, and weigh in the Santee River; (4) increase the annual number of adult/subadult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon from 15 to 200 and 15 to 150, respectively, for capture, mark (dart, PIT), biologically sample(tissue), measure, and weigh in the Santee River; (5) increase the annual number of adult/subadult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon from 75 to 200 and 5 to 150, respectively, for capture, mark (PIT), biologically sample(tissue), measure, and weigh in Lakes Moultrie and Marion and associated tributaries; and (6) increase the annual number of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon for capture, anesthetize, acoustically tag, biologically sample (tissue), weigh, measure, and photograph/video from 10 to 20, annually, in the Winyah Bay system. The permit is valid through March 31, 2027.

File No. 23200-04: The University of North Carolina, Wilmington (Responsible Party: Frederick Scharf, Ph.D.), 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403, proposes to modify Permit No. 23200. The permit, originally issued on January 31, 2020 (85 FR 7978; February 12, 2020), authorizes researchers to conduct scientific research on adult, sub-adult, and juvenile Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon to determine their abundance, distribution, habitat use, and migration dynamics in the coastal rivers and estuaries of North Carolina basins (Cape Fear, Neuse, Tar/Pamlico, Roanoke/Chowan). Researchers may capture Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon using gill nets, trammel nets, or trawls, measure, weigh, mark (PIT, Floy), biologically sample (tissue), anesthetize, acoustically tag, and photograph/video sturgeon prior to release. The permit holder requests authorization to (1) increase the number of adult/subadult Atlantic sturgeon for capture, anesthetize, acoustically tag, mark (PIT, Floy), biologically sample (tissue), measure, weigh, and photograph/video from 20 to 40, annually, in the Cape Fear, Neuse, and Tar/Pamlico River systems, and (2) conduct sampling of Atlantic sturgeon ELS using egg mats and collect up to 100 ELS annually in each authorized system. The permit is valid through January 25, 2025.

File No. 25864: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Responsible Party, Gregg Poulakis, Ph.D.), Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 585 Prineville Street, Port Charlotte, FL 33954, requests a permit to take smalltooth sawfish (U.S. Distinct Population Segment) in Florida waters and elsewhere within the species' range. The applicant is proposing to conduct studies, monitoring smalltooth sawfish to develop conservation and protective measures and ensure the species' recovery. Researchers are requesting to capture adult and sub-adult and juvenile animals and then measure, weigh, tag ( i.e., internal or external acoustic, satellite, archival, PIT, and rototag), sample ( i.e., genetic, blood, muscle biopsy), and photograph prior to release. The applicant also requests to have access to salvaged animals and parts taken throughout the species range and to import and export parts and samples for analysis, archival and future study. The permit would be valid for 10 years from the date of issuance.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Regional Office, is requesting renewal of a currently approved information collection that contains requirements for the North Pacific Observer Program (Observer Program). A slight revision is requested to change the title of the collection from “Alaska Observer Program” to “North Pacific Observer Program.”

Section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1862) authorizes the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with NMFS, to prepare a fishery research plan for the purpose of stationing observers and electronic monitoring (EM) systems to collect data necessary for the conservation, management, and scientific understanding of the commercial groundfish and Pacific halibut fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) management areas. The Observer Program is implemented by regulations at subpart E of 50 CFR part 679, which authorize the deployment of observers and EM to collect information necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI and GOA groundfish and halibut fisheries. Under the Observer Program, observers and EM systems collect fishery-dependent information used to estimate total catch and interactions with protected species. Managers use this data to manage groundfish and prohibited species catch within established limits and to document and reduce fishery interactions with protected species. Scientists use this data to assess fish stocks, provide data for fisheries and ecosystem research and fishing fleet behavior, assess marine mammal interactions with fishing gear, and characterize fishing impacts on habitat.

All vessels and processors that participate in federally managed or parallel groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska (except catcher vessels delivering unsorted codends to a mothership) are subject to Observer Program requirements and assigned to one of two categories: (1) The full observer coverage category, where vessels and processors obtain observer coverage by contracting directly with observer providers; or (2) the partial coverage category, where NMFS, in consultation with the Council determines when and where observer coverage is needed. Some vessels and processors may be in full coverage for part of the year and partial coverage at other times of the year depending on the observer coverage requirements for specific fisheries. Funds for deploying observers on vessels in the partial coverage category are provided through a system of fees based on the gross ex-vessel value of retained groundfish and halibut. This observer fee is assessed on all landings by vessels that are not otherwise in full coverage. The observer fee is approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0711.

Information in this collection is submitted by observer provider companies and owners and operators of vessels and processors subject to Observer Program requirements. Information submitted by owners and operators includes information on owner identification, vessels, observer coverage category, deck safety, the EM system, fishing trips, and fishing operations. Information submitted by observer provider companies includes information on ownership and operations; observers and observer candidates; observer deployment; insurance coverage; contracts with observers, vessels, and processors; costs for observer services; and other information including possible observer harassment, prohibited actions, safety concerns, observer illness or injury preventing the observer from completing duties, and any information, allegation, or reports regarding observer conflict of interest or breach of the standards of behavior. Observers, observer provider companies, and industry may submit information on improving observer data quality and resolving observer sampling issues.

More information on the Observer Program is provided on the NMFS Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/fisheries-observers/north-pacific-observer-program.

Methods of submittal consist of online web applications, email, email attachments, verbal communication by telephone or in person, and on paper by mail or fax. The Observer Declare and Deploy System (ODDS) is an internet-based system that is used by vessel owners and operators in the partial coverage category. ODDS is available online at https://apps-afsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/ords/f?p=140:1 or by phone at 1-855-747-6377. Copies of observer coverage category request forms are available on the NMFS Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/tool-app/observer-deploy-and-declare-system-odds.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0318.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 875.

Estimated Time per Response: Observer Notification: 2 minutes; Industry Request for Assistance in Improving Observer Data Quality Issues: 30 minutes; Pre-cruise meeting notification: 5 minutes; Catcher/processor request to be placed in Partial Observer Coverage: 30 minutes; Request to be placed in the Full Observer Coverage Category: 5 minutes; Request to be placed in or removed from the EM selection pool: 5 minutes; Observer Declare and Deploy System (ODDS) Log a fishing trip: 15 minutes; Deck Safety Plan—Initial Year: 12 hours; Deck Safety Plan—Annual Renewal: 1 hour; Deck Sorting Safety Meeting: 15 minutes; Vessel Monitoring Plan: 48 hours; Closing EM trips in ODDS: 5 minutes; Submit EM Data to NMFS: 1 hour; Observer Provider Permit Application: 60 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,603 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,185.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory; Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

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

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

Purpose of the Committee: To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities within the field of high energy physics research.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. A webcast of this meeting will be available. Please check the website below for updates and information on how to view the meeting. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact John Kogut, (301) 903-1298 or by email at: John.Kogut@science.doe.gov. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Panel will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel website: https://science.osti.gov/hep/hepap/meetings/.

Background: The Board was established to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the Administration's energy policies; the Department's basic and applied research and development activities; economic and national security policy; and other activities as directed by the Secretary.

Purpose of the Meeting: This is the inaugural meeting of Secretary Jennifer M. Granholm's SEAB.

Tentative Agenda: The meeting will start at 1:00 p.m. on October 28th. The tentative meeting agenda includes: Introduction of SEAB's members, remarks from the Secretary, and remarks from the SEAB Chair. The meeting will conclude at 2:00 p.m.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Individuals who would like to attend must RSVP to Christopher Lawrence no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 27, 2021, by email at: seab@hq.doe.gov.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions may do so during the meeting. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but will not exceed five minutes. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Those wishing to speak should register to do so via email, seab@hq.doe.gov, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 27, 2021.

Those not able to attend the meeting or who have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Christopher Lawrence, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, or email to: seab@hq.doe.gov.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the SEAB website or by contacting Mr. Lawrence. He may be reached at the above postal address or email address, or by visiting SEAB's website at www.energy.gov/seab.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

1. Briefing on Corrective Action Unit 114, Area 25 Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (EMAD) Facility Disposal Options—Work Plan Item #3.

Public Participation: The online virtual meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board via email either before or after the meeting as there will not be opportunities for live public comment during this online virtual meeting. Public comments received by no later than 4:00 p.m. PT on Monday, November 8, 2021, will be read aloud during the virtual meeting. Comments will be accepted after the meeting, by no later than 4:00 p.m. PT on Friday, November 19, 2021. Please submit comments to nssab@emcbc.doe.gov. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individual wishing to submit public comments should email them as directed above.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Barbara Ulmer, NSSAB Administrator, U.S. Department of Energy, EM Nevada Program, 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750, Las Vegas, NV 89106; Phone: (702) 523-0894. Minutes will also be available at the following website: http://www.nnss.gov/nssab/pages/MM_FY22.html.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room is closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone and webform. For further information about the EPA's public docket, Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744.

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

Abstract: Section 7004(b) of RCRA gives EPA broad authority to provide for, encourage, and assist public participation in the development, revision, implementation, and enforcement of any regulation, guideline, information, or program under RCRA. In addition, the statute specifies certain public notices ( i.e., radio, newspaper, and a letter to relevant agencies) that EPA must provide before issuing any RCRA permit. The statute also establishes a process by which the public can dispute a permit and request a public hearing to discuss it. EPA carries out much of its RCRA public involvement at 40 CFR Parts 124 and 270.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are Businesses and other for-profit.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA 7004(b)).

Estimated number of respondents: 46.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 4,375 Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $326,263 (per year), which includes $321,833 annualized labor and $4,430 annualized capital and operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay substantially the same.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov . Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room is closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone and webform. For further information about the EPA's public docket, Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets . The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744.

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

Abstract: Some pharmaceuticals are regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when discarded. This final rule added regulations for the management of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals by healthcare facilities and reverse distributors. Healthcare facilities (for both humans and animals) and reverse distributors now manage their hazardous waste pharmaceuticals under a new set of sector-specific standards in lieu of the existing hazardous waste generator regulations. These regulations are found in 40 CFR 266, Subpart P, and are mandatory. The new requirements include labeling containers holding non-creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals and evaluated hazardous waste pharmaceuticals with the words “Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals”. Healthcare facilities and reverse distributors must also track or manage rejected shipments by sending a copy of the manifest to the designated facility that returned or rejected the shipment. Additionally, healthcare facilities and reverse distributors must submit exception reports for a missing copy of a manifest. Reverse distributors are required to amend their contingency plan under 40 CFR 262 Subpart M. A reverse distributor must submit an unauthorized hazardous waste report if it receives waste it is not authorized to receive.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are the private sector.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA Section 3001).

Estimated number of respondents: 13,373.

Frequency of response: Annual.

Total estimated burden: 43,577 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $2,543,409, which includes $2,543,409 annualized labor costs and $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in Estimates: The burden hours are expected to decrease as some of the burden associated with the rule have been incorporated into other existing ICRs.

This is a summary of the Bureau's Public Notice seeking comment on STIR/SHAKEN implementation extensions granted by the Commission and associated burdens and barriers to the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN in WC Docket No. 17-97, DA 21-1103, released on September 3, 2021. The full text of this document is available for public inspection at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-1103A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( e.g. braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

When Congress directed the Commission to mandate implementation of STIR/SHAKEN in the TRACED Act, it also required the Commission to assess burdens and barriers to implementation, and gave the Commission discretion to extend compliance with the implementation mandate upon a public finding of undue hardship. The Commission performed this assessment and granted three categorical extensions of the STIR/SHAKEN mandate on the basis of undue hardship: (1) Small voice service providers; (2) voice service providers unable to obtain the “token” necessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN; and (3) services scheduled for section 214 discontinuance.

The TRACED Act further requires the Commission to assess burdens and barriers to implementation “as appropriate” after that initial assessment, and directs the Commission to, “not less frequently than annually after the first [extension] is granted,” reevaluate and potentially revise any extensions granted on the basis of undue hardship. It requires the Commission to issue a public notice explaining “why such [extension] remains necessary” and “when the Commission expects to achieve the goal of full participation” in caller ID authentication. To comply with these obligations in the TRACED Act, the Commission directed the Bureau to annually assess burdens and barriers to implementation and reevaluate the Commission's granted extensions and revise or extend them as necessary. In its directions to the Bureau, the Commission permitted the Bureau to further extend an extension to which voice service providers are already subject, but prohibited us from terminating an extension prior to the extension's originally set end date. The Commission did not permit us to grant extensions to any voice service providers or services not already subject to one; should we further extend a granted extension, we are permitted to decrease, but not expand, the scope of entities entitled to that extension based on our assessment of burdens and barriers.

We now seek comment in turn on the Commission's granted extensions and associated burdens and barriers to the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN.

Small Voice Service Provider Extension. We seek comment on the Commission's extension for small voice service providers. The Commission granted a two-year extension for small voice service providers, defined as “a provider that has 100,000 or fewer voice service subscriber lines.” The Commission found that this extension was appropriate because small voice service providers may face substantial costs to implement STIR/SHAKEN—in addition to resource constraints—and that they confront unique equipment availability issues. In May, the Commission released a Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to shorten the extension for small voice service providers that originate an especially large number of calls by one year. It did so due to new evidence indicating that certain small voice service providers are originating a high and increasing share of illegal robocalls relative to their subscriber base.

We seek comment on burdens and barriers to small voice service provider implementation and whether we should revise or extend their extension. Have the burdens or barriers affecting small providers that were originally discussed in the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order changed since adoption, and if so how? Have new burdens or barriers to implementation emerged that affect small providers? Should the Bureau extend the extension beyond its current June 30, 2023 date? If so, why, and is there a reason to extend it at this time and not in next year's annual review? Alternatively, is the extension no longer necessary and should we recommend that the Commission terminate it? If so, why? How should the Commission's recent Third Further Notice and any subsequent order inform or impact our reevaluation of the small voice service provider extension? How close are small voice service providers to “full participation,” and what steps, if any, could the Commission take to promote that goal?

Extension for Voice Service Providers That Cannot Obtain a SPC Token. We seek comment on the Commission's extension for voice service providers that cannot obtain the Service Provider Code (SPC) token necessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN. The Commission granted voice service providers that are incapable of obtaining a SPC token due to Governance Authority policy an extension until they are capable of obtaining said token. The Commission granted this extension because “it is impossible for a voice service provider to participate in STIR/SHAKEN without access to [a SPC token] and because some voice service providers are unable to obtain [one] at this time.”

In May, the Governance Authority revised the STI-GA Token Access Policy to enable token access by some voice service providers previously unable to receive a token. How has this change impacted the barrier presented by an inability to access a SPC token? Has it resolved the token access barrier? Does this change affect the need for the implementation extension and, if so, how? Does the extension remain necessary? Conversely, is this extension no longer necessary and should we recommend it be terminated or revised by the Commission going forward? If so, why? Finally, how does token access affect the TRACED Act goal of full participation in caller ID authentication? Are there steps the Commission could take regarding token access to better promote full participation?

Extension for Services Scheduled for Section 214 Discontinuance. We seek comment on the Commission's extension for services scheduled for section 214 discontinuance. The Commission granted an extension to services which are subject to a pending application for permanent discontinuance of service filed as of June 30, 2021 for one year, until June 30, 2022. Under this extension, a voice service provider has until June 30, 2022, to either discontinue the service subject to the application or, alternatively, implement STIR/SHAKEN on that service. The Commission granted this extension to “obviat[e] the need to upgrade components of a voice service provider's network that will be sunset.” Is there any reason we should lengthen this extension and give affected voice service providers additional time, beyond June 30, 2022, to either discontinue the service or implement STIR/SHAKEN? Is it reasonable for a voice service provider to take longer than one year to complete discontinuance and, if so, how much additional time is appropriate? Alternatively, is a protracted discontinuance evidence of “bad faith” and should we decline to grant any additional time before a voice service provider is obligated to choose between discontinuance and STIR/SHAKEN implementation? To account for bad faith filers while acknowledging potential reasonable delays, should we lengthen the extension but limit the scope of entities entitled to any further extension? Do services scheduled for 214 discontinuance meaningfully impact the goal of full participation in caller ID authentication?

OMB Control Number: 3060-0719.

Title: Quarterly Report of Local Exchange Carriers Listing Payphone Automatic Number Identifications (ANIs).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 400 respondents; 1,600 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 3.5 hours (8 hours for the initial submission; 2 hours per subsequent submission—for an average of 3.5 hours per response).

Frequency of Response: Quarterly reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 215, 218, 219, 220, 226 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 5,600 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the respondents wish confidential treatment of their information, they may request confidential treatment under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's Rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission adopted rules and policies governing the payphone industry under section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) and established “a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call.” Pursuant to this mandate, and as required by section 64.1310(d) of the Commission's rules, Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) must provide to carriers required to pay compensation pursuant to section 64.1300(a), a quarterly report listing payphone ANIs. Without provision of this report, resolution of disputed ANIs would be rendered very difficult. Carriers would not be able to discern which ANIs pertain to payphones and therefore would not be able to ascertain which dial-around calls were originated by payphones for compensation purposes. There would be no way to guard against possible fraud. Without this collection, lengthy investigations would be necessary to verify claims. The report allows carriers to determine which dial-around calls are made from payphones. The information must be provided to third parties. The requirement would be used to ensure that LECs and the carriers required to pay compensation pursuant to 47 CFR 64.1300(a) of the Commission's rules comply with their obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for Telehealth for Women. AHRQ is conducting this technical brief pursuant to Section 902 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a.

The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public ( e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on Telehealth for Women, including those that describe adverse events. The entire research protocol is available online at: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/telehealth-women/protocol .

This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on Telehealth for Women helpful:

A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.

For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, a summary, including the following elements: Study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.

A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.

Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.

Your contribution is very beneficial to the Program. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.

The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program website and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/email-updates.

The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions.

KQ 1: For conditions related to women's reproductive health (including family planning, contraception, and sexually transmitted infection counseling):

(a) What is the evidence of effectiveness of telehealth as a strategy for delivery of health care services for reproductive health?

(b) What are patient preferences and patient choice in the context of telehealth utilization?

(c) What is the effectiveness of patient engagement strategies for telehealth?

(d) What is the impact of COVID-19 on the effectiveness of telehealth and patient engagement?

(e) What are the barriers to and facilitators of telehealth for women's reproductive health in low-resources settings and populations?

(f) What are the harms of telehealth for women's reproductive health?

KQ 2: For interpersonal violence (including intimate partner violence and domestic violence):

(a) What is the evidence of effectiveness of telehealth as a strategy for screening and interventions for interpersonal violence?

(b) What are patient preferences and patient choice in the context of telehealth utilization?

(c) What is the effectiveness of patient engagement strategies for telehealth?

(d) What is the impact of COVID-19 on the effectiveness of telehealth and patient engagement?

(e) What are the barriers to and facilitators of telehealth for screening and interventions for interpersonal violence in low-resources settings and populations?

(f) What are the harms of telehealth for screening and interventions for interpersonal violence?

Contextual Question: What guidelines, recommendations or best practices have been developed for the design and use of telehealth and virtual health technologies for women for any clinical conditions, including on patient preferences, patient choice, patient engagement, and implementation in low-resource settings?

Tables 1 and 2 shows full eligibility criteria to identify studies that address the KQs.

On August 18, 2021, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384 l (14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

This designation became effective on September 17, 2021. Therefore, beginning on September 17, 2021, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384 l (14)(C).

On April 8, 2021, FDA announced the Closer to Zero (C2Z) action plan (available at: https://www.fda.gov/food/metals-and-your-food/closer-zero-action-plan-baby-foods#Introduction ) for reducing exposure to toxic elements from foods for babies and young children (see “FDA Releases Action Plan for Reducing Exposure to Toxic Elements from Foods for Babies, Young Children,” available at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-releases-action-plan-reducing-exposure-toxic-elements-foods-babies-young-children ). We have prioritized reducing exposure to toxic elements from foods for babies and young children because their smaller body sizes and rapid development make them more vulnerable to the harmful effects of these toxic elements. Exposure to toxic elements, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, from foods depends on the levels of the elements in the food and the amount of the food consumed. Nutrient exposures can interact with the uptake of these elements and the nutrient status of children can modulate the effects of these elements. The levels of toxic elements in foods depend on many factors, including:

• The levels of these elements in the air, water, and soil used to grow the crops, which vary depending on factors such as geographical differences and past or current contamination,

• The type of food crop and how much “uptake” there is of specific elements from the environment, and

• Industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural processes.

The C2Z action plan sets forth our approach to reducing exposure to toxic elements in foods commonly eaten by babies and young children to the lowest possible levels. FDA's goal is to reduce the levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury in these foods to the greatest extent possible without setting levels that are not currently feasible and without reducing the availability of nutritious, affordable foods on which many families rely. The C2Z action plan outlines a multi-phase, science-based iterative approach to achieving our goal of getting levels of toxic elements in food closer to zero over time.

Closer to Zero includes research and evaluation of changes in dietary exposures to toxic elements, setting action levels (recommended limits of toxic elements in foods that can be achieved by industry and progressively lowered as appropriate), encouraging adoption of best practices by industry, and monitoring progress.

We are holding our first C2Z action plan meeting to get stakeholder input regarding the plan's scope. We will discuss foods commonly consumed by babies and young children, the impacts of toxic element exposures at different crucial developmental stages, and the interaction of nutrients and nutrient status as co-exposures to lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury on growth and development.

We will outline the C2Z plan including FDA's four-stage approach for continual improvement and additional work related to levels of toxic elements in food. Stakeholder panels will provide perspectives on the various issues needed to fulfill the C2Z plan. We will provide an opportunity for questions as well as an opportunity for open public comment. We expect this meeting to be the first of several regarding the C2Z action plan.

Registration: Registration is free and early registration is recommended. To register to attend the public meeting on “Closer to Zero Action Plan: Impacts of Toxic Element Exposure and Nutrition at Different Crucial Developmental Stages,” by webcast, please register at https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-meetings-conferences-and-workshops by November 12, 2021 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted and will be provided the webcast link.

Table 1 provides information on participation in the public meetings.

Requests for Oral Presentations: During online registration, you may indicate if you wish to present oral comments during the public comment session, and you may indicate which topic(s) you would like to address. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to make public comments. We seek a broad representation of ideas and issues presented at the meeting.

All requests to make oral presentations must be received by November 1, 2021, 11:59 p.m. Eastern time. We urge individuals and organizations with common interests to consolidate or coordinate their presentations and request time for a joint presentation. Following the close of registration, we will determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the approximate time each presentation is to begin, and we will select and notify participants by November 4, 2021. Typically, presentations are between 3 and 5 minutes. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented at the public meeting. Actual presentation times may vary based on how the meeting progresses in real time.

An agenda for the public meeting and any other background materials will be made available at least 5 days before the meeting at https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-meetings-conferences-and-workshops. Those without internet or email access can register and/or request to participate by contacting Juanita Yates (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) no later than November 1, 2021.

Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the public meeting is available, it will be accessible at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-meetings-conferences-and-workshops. You may also view the transcript at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ).

Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice by submitting written data, views, or arguments using the method identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and Docket ID for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and Security notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the “Privacy and Security Notice” link on the homepage of www.regulations.gov. Commenters are encouraged to identify the number of the specific question or questions to which they are responding.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to www.regulations.gov.

The NFIP is a program that makes flood insurance available in those States and communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood risk. The NFIP enables property owners in participating communities to purchase flood insurance to provide financial protection against flood losses. Joining the NFIP is an important step toward reducing a community's risk from flooding and making a faster, more sustained recovery should flooding occur. 1 Participation in the NFIP is voluntary and is contingent on community compliance with NFIP floodplain management regulations. FEMA does not regulate land use and does not haves authority over local development. Rather, it requires participating communities to adopt the minimum NFIP requirements through zoning codes, subdivision ordinances, and/or building codes or adopt special purpose floodplain management ordinances and encourages communities to exceed those requirements and improve long-range land management and use of flood-prone areas. More than 22,500 communities have agreed to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances that meet minimum NFIP requirements and provide building standards designed to reduce flood loss for new and existing development. 2

The NFIP minimum requirements apply to areas designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) by FEMA. The SFHA is the area that would be flooded by the “base flood” (defined as the flood that has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year; also known as the “100-year flood”). The minimum NFIP requirements for participating communities include, but are not limited to: (1) Requiring permits for all proposed construction or other development in the community to determine whether such construction or development will be placed in flood-prone areas; (2) reviewing proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have been received; (3) elevation of new and substantially improved residential structures above the base flood level; (4) elevation or dry floodproofing (made watertight) of new or substantially improved non-residential structures in Zones A;  3 (5) with limited exception, the prohibition of encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway, 4 the central portion of a riverine floodplain needed to carry deeper and faster moving water; and (6) additional requirements to protect buildings in coastal areas from the impacts of waves, high velocity, and storm surge. These requirements have proved to be an effective way to reduce the flood risk to new buildings and infrastructure. 5

In addition to protecting new buildings, the NFIP has substantial improvement and substantial damage requirements that ensure flood protection measures are integrated in structures built before a community adopted its first floodplain management requirements. “Substantial improvement” means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. 6 “Substantial damage” means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 7 When substantial improvement or substantial damage occurs, the community, which makes the determination, must ensure that the NFIP requirements, which the community has adopted, are applied to these structures so that they are protected from future flood damage.

In January 2021, the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) submitted a rulemaking petition request to FEMA seeking, among other things, revisions to the current FEMA floodplain management standards for land management and use regulations. 8 The petition requested the agency consider adopting the higher minimum standards contained in today's nationally applicable consensus model codes and standards from the International Codes Council (I-Codes) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Flood Resistant Design and Construction standard (ASCE-24) as a minimum floodplain management standard, and to develop forward-looking minimum construction and land-use standards for flood-prone areas through regulatory revision. FEMA has previously published excerpts and highlights of the flood resistant provisions of the I-Codes and ASCE-24 which generally address siting, design, construction, and elevation requirements for structures in flood hazard areas to assist communities to understand the application of consensus standards, but FEMA has not adopted these as the agency's floodplain management standards. 9

FEMA is issuing this Request for Information to seek information from the public on the agency's current floodplain management standards to ensure the agency receives public input as part of the agency's regular review of programs, regulations, and policies, and to inform any action to revise the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards.

FEMA also requests input from the public on what measures the NFIP can take to further protect and minimize any adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species and their habitat. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects threatened and endangered species by preserving the ecosystems in which they live and protecting the species from harm. 10 All persons, including individuals and local and state jurisdictions, are required to comply with the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA creates a consultation process between a Federal agency that will undertake an action, including implementing a program, and either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service (or both) to insure that the action does not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or result in the adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(1) mandates Federal agencies to use their authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species and minimize any adverse impact to them. 11

The NFIP floodplain regulations are designed to encourage the adoption of adequate State and local floodplain management measures for land development. 12 This creates an opportunity for the NFIP not only to work towards its goal of reducing flood risk but simultaneously works toward the conservation of federally threatened and endangered (T&E) species and critical habitat. Conserving the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain and reducing flood risk can work in tandem with the ESA requirement of conserving T&E species and critical habitat. Often, measures taken to conserve T&E species and their habitat in the floodplain benefit people by reducing the risk of flooding and the harm that can result to their person and property, while also conserving the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain.

The agency is seeking input from the public on the floodplain management standards that communities should adopt to result in safer, stronger, and more resilient communities and also to promote protection of T&E species and their habitats. Specifically, FEMA is seeking input on opportunities for the agency to improve the minimum floodplain management standards for land management and use which better align the NFIP with the current understanding of flood risk and flood risk reduction approaches. FEMA has not revised current floodplain management standards for flood-prone area regulations since they were implemented in 1976. The agency is considering revision to these regulations based on its current understanding of flood risk and flood risk reduction approaches and is now undertaking a thorough review of the floodplain management standards, along with prior published studies and reports, to determine how these standards can best meet FEMA and stakeholder needs. 13

FEMA also plans to re-evaluate the implementation of the NFIP under the ESA at the national level to complete a revised Biological Evaluation  14 re-examining how NFIP actions influence land development decisions; the potential for such actions to have adverse effects on T&E species and critical habitats; and to identify program changes that would prevent jeopardy to T&E species and/or destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats as well as to promote the survival and recovery of T&E species. Public feedback will help FEMA with this process.

It is important to note that FEMA continually evaluates its programs and policies, as well as the regulatory program for regulations that are candidates for modification, streamlining, expansion, or repeal. FEMA does so through legally mandated review requirements ( e.g., Unified Agenda reviews and reviews under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act  15  ) and through other informal and long-established mechanisms ( e.g., use of Advisory Councils, feedback from FEMA field personnel, input from internal working groups, and outreach to regulated entities and the public). This Federal Register notice supplements these existing extensive FEMA regulatory and program review efforts.

Because the impacts and effects of Federal regulations and policies tend to be widely dispersed in society, members of the public are likely to have useful information, data, and perspectives on the benefits and burdens of FEMA's existing programs, regulations, information collections, and policies. Given the importance of public input, FEMA is seeking broad public feedback to facilitate FEMA's review and revision of existing floodplain management regulations.

This notice contains a list of questions, the answers to which will assist FEMA in reviewing existing floodplain management standards and also assessing the influence of NFIP implementation on local floodplain development, which subsequently has the potential to impact threatened and endangered species and their habitats. FEMA encourages public comment on these questions and seeks any other data commenters believe are relevant to FEMA's efforts. The type of feedback that is most useful to the agency includes feedback that identifies specific information that the agency should consider. For example, feedback that simply states that a stakeholder feels strongly that FEMA should change the floodplain management standards regulation but does not contain specific information on how the proposed change would impact the costs and benefits of the regulation, is much less useful to FEMA. FEMA is looking for new and/or specific information, data, and perspectives to support any proposed changes.

Commenters should consider these principles as they answer and respond to the questions in this notice.

• Commenters should identify, with specificity, appropriate minimum floodplain management standards and/or measures for increased flood risk reduction.

• Commenters should identify, with specificity, appropriate measures the agency can take to promote the conservation of T&E species and their habitats.

• Commenters should provide specific data that document the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing requirements to the extent they are available. Commenters might also address how FEMA can best obtain and consider accurate, objective information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits of the minimum floodplain management standards for increased flood risk reduction and increased species/habitat protection and whether there are existing sources of data that FEMA can use to evaluate the effects of the minimum floodplain management standards and increased protection of T&E species and their habitats over time.

• Particularly where comments relate to the costs or benefits of minimum floodplain management standards and protection of T&E species and their habitats, comments will be most useful when there are data available and communities have experience utilizing the minimum floodplain management standards and/or species/habitat protection to ascertain the actual impact.

The below non-exhaustive list of questions is meant to assist members of the public in the formulation of comments and is not intended to restrict the issues that commenters may address:

(1) FEMA has addressed risk to existing or non-conforming construction (buildings not constructed to current minimum floodplain management standards) in the regulations through the “substantial improvement/substantial damage” requirements. These requirements have largely been tied to the definitions of “substantial improvement” and “substantial damage.” Is “substantial improvement/substantial damage” the best way to address risk for non-conforming buildings? If so, should FEMA consider the use of cumulative “substantial improvement” and/or “substantial damage” requirements over a given time period as a requirement? Should “substantial improvement” and/or “substantial damage” use an assessment cost value or a replacement cost value, or are there other valuation methods that may be more appropriate? Should the regulations provide more detail on how the “substantial improvement” and/or “substantial damage” determinations should be made?

(2) The elevation of structures above expected base flood levels, called “freeboard,” is an important precept of floodplain management. “Freeboard” is usually expressed in feet above a base flood elevation for purposes of floodplain management. NFIP communities must require new, “substantially improved,” or “substantially damaged” structures in the SFHA to be elevated to the height of the one percent annual chance flood level, also referred to as the Base Flood Elevation or BFE. Some States and communities require newly constructed buildings to be built higher than the base flood elevation to further reduce the risk of flood damage with freeboard requirements set to a specific height to provide the additional margin of risk reduction above the BFE. The NFIP has strongly encouraged but not required higher elevation standards, such as those included in the I-Codes and ASCE 24. Should FEMA update flood elevation requirements for SFHAs by setting higher freeboard levels? If so, what should FEMA consider for the higher elevation levels for freeboard? What data exists to support higher elevation levels for freeboard or methods that provide a more consistent level of protection? Will freeboard elevation generally raise the market value of properties in SFHAs and if so how would the increase in market value compare to the cost of elevation? Are there other technology advancements or building standards in design and construction that should be considered beyond freeboard levels? If so, do they address other floodplain management criteria ( e.g., reasonably safe from flooding; adequately anchored; methods and practices that minimize or are resistant to flood damage; water load values; wind load values; substantially impermeable)?

(3) FEMA has not developed higher minimum floodplain management standards for structures and facilities that perform critical actions as defined in 44 CFR 9.4. These structures and facilities must currently comply with the same minimum requirements as non-critical structures and facilities except for structures and facilities that are covered by Executive Order (E.O.) 11988, Floodplain Management. 16 Should FEMA develop higher standards for these structures and facilities? If so, why? Should FEMA consider differences between certain structures and facilities, such as use, occupancy, operational size, or public and private operators in developing higher standards? Should FEMA consider differences such as use, occupancy, operational size, or public and private operators in developing higher standards for structures and facilities performing critical actions?

(4) Recurring flooding events provide evidence that areas adjacent to the SFHA experience significant flooding and unacceptable levels of disaster suffering, yet the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards do not extend to these locations. How can the NFIP take a more risk-informed approach to defining flood hazard? Is there a need for FEMA's NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to be extended by establishing specific requirements for the areas immediately adjacent to the SFHA? If so, what specific floodplain management standards could be successful to reduce losses and hardship? What approaches would be effective for identifying these areas for communities to regulate? Would new zones or overlays depicted with the SFHA via the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL)  17 serve this need or are there other tools that could be more effective? Should FEMA expand the SFHA generally from the 1 percent annual chance flood area to a 0.2 percent or a 0.1 percent area, and what decision rule should FEMA use to choose the appropriate area? Should the SFHA be expanded from a certain percent annual chance area to the flood of record (or whichever is higher)? Similarly, what standards or restrictions should be considered for high risk flood areas that are within the SFHA ( e.g., flash flood, mudslide, erosion prone, high velocity)? Alternatively, should FEMA be aware of and/or use a different metric to identify flood risk?

(5) In the past 30 years, 1 of every 6 dollars paid out in NFIP claims has gone to a building with a history of multiple floods. 18 What steps should FEMA take to reduce the disproportionate financial impact the multiple loss properties have on the NFIP? Should FEMA consider regulatory changes for properties that have repetitive losses?  19 If so, what should the minimum NFIP floodplain management standards be for those properties? Should these properties be targeted for managed retreat? How should the NFIP consider issues of equity when deciding how to address these properties?

(6) FEMA must ensure that the implementation of the NFIP does not jeopardize T&E species and does not result in the destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitats. FEMA must also ensure the NFIP is effective in meeting its goals of providing flood insurance, mitigating flood loss, reducing flood risk, and encouraging responsible development. What additional considerations should FEMA incorporate into the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to promote the protection and conservation of T&E species and their designated habitat? In what ways could the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards be amended to more explicitly or comprehensively protect the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains to recognize their intrinsic value and benefits to floodplain management, T&E species, and the environment generally? How do current Federal environmental requirements and standards work within NFIP participating State, local, Tribal, and territories to identify and address impacts to T&E species and their habitats? If there are State-specific environmental requirements and/or standards, how could changes to the NFIP support or interfere with the current State regulatory environment?

(7) How could one or more of the following specific changes to the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards benefit T&E species and their habitats while furthering the goal of improving resilience to flooding? What would the potential impact be on the NFIP participating communities?:

(a) Limiting construction in any identified riparian buffer zone;

(b) Requiring compensatory storage to have no net increase in projected flooding levels for all development in the SFHA;

(c) Requiring a more restrictive regulatory floodway standard;  20

(d) Requiring compensatory conservation credits/areas for all development in portions of the SFHA that provide natural and beneficial functions;

(e) Requiring low impact development standards and/or permeable surfaces that may benefit T&E species and habitat; and/or

(f) Prohibiting or limiting construction in any portion of the SFHA.

How should the suggested changes listed above be prioritized to best benefit T&E species while also furthering the goals of the NFIP? Are there additional changes that should be considered and if so, what are they and what is their prioritization in comparison to the changes listed?

(8) NFIP participating communities can also improve protection of T&E species and their critical habitats through their floodplain management activities. In what ways can NFIP participating communities demonstrate to FEMA that permitted floodplain development does not adversely impact T&E species and their habitats? What changes are required to existing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to allow NFIP participating communities to better demonstrate no adverse impact? What ways, such as technical assistance or other means, could FEMA assist NFIP participating communities to help protect T&E species and their habitats?

(9) Local floodplain managers are often tasked with enforcement of NFIP minimum floodplain management standards. In what ways can FEMA strengthen the NFIP participation and increase enforcement of NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to build community resilience? How can FEMA better assist communities to mitigate flood loss and reduce risk? In what ways could FEMA better support local floodplain managers to effectively enforce the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards?

(10) While the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards are broadly applicable nationwide and provide a sound basis from which communities can improve their floodplain management programs, there may be floodplain uses, occupancies, and flooding characteristics that call for more specific regulatory initiatives. Are there any NFIP minimum floodplain management standards that currently cause hardship, conflict, confusion or create an economic or financial burden? If so, what are they and how can they be modified to reduce the burdens while still meeting the objectives of mitigating flood loss and reducing risk? Some structures in a community may be exempted from the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards through a variance. Are there changes that can be made to variance requirements to help reduce the burdens while still meeting the objectives of mitigating flood loss and reducing risk? Are there specific types of development or uses that should be considered for exemption from NFIP minimum floodplain management standards or should different standards apply? If so, what are they, why should specific types of development or uses be considered for exemption, and what different standards should be applicable?

(11) There have been recent proposals regarding disclosure of flood risk, 21 recommending development of an affirmative obligation on the part of sellers or lessors of residential properties to disclose information about flood risk to prospective buyers or lessees. These proposals would require States and communities to establish flood risk reporting requirements for sellers and lessors as a condition of participation in the NFIP. Should States and/or local governments be required to establish minimum flood risk reporting requirements for sellers and lessors as a condition for participation in the NFIP? Should there be an affirmative obligation on the part of sellers and/or lessors of residential properties to disclose information about flood risk to prospective buyers or lessees? If so, what is the most effective way to require this disclosure? Should the process be modeled on requirements for sellers to disclose details on environmental hazards, such as lead-based paint hazards? What details should be included in the disclosure, such as knowledge of past floods and/or flood damage, a requirement to maintain flood insurance, knowledge the property is located in a SFHA at the time of offering, and the cost of existing flood insurance?

(12) The United States is experiencing increased flooding and flood risk from climate change. 22 Climate change may exacerbate the risk of flooding to homeowners. Should FEMA base any NFIP minimum floodplain management standard changes on future risk and specifically on projections of climate change and associated impacts, such as sea level rise? What equity considerations should be factored into such decisions if climate change disproportionately harms underserved and vulnerable areas? What other considerations should be factored into an analysis involving climate change? Should the NFIP better distinguish NFIP minimum floodplain management standards between riverine and coastal communities? Should the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards incorporate pluvial (surface/urban) flooding concerns? Are there specific measures and standards that should be taken to ensure structures can withstand the greater intensity, duration, frequency and geographic distribution of flooding events? If so, what are they and how can those measures and standards ensure structures and communities can readily adapt and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change?

(13) The current NFIP minimum floodplain management standards can be found at 44 CFR part 60 subpart A—Requirements for Floodplain Management Regulations. As part of this Request for Information seeking input on new and even transformative reforms to the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards, FEMA also is exploring potential revisions to current regulatory provisions that are unnecessarily complicated, create unintended inequities or could be streamlined. Are there current regulatory provisions that create duplication, overlap, complexity, or inconsistent requirements or unintended inequities with other FEMA or other Federal programs? Are there current regulatory provisions that present recurring difficulties for local and State officials implementing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards and if so, what improvements should be made?

(14) Are there technological advances, building standards, or standards of practice that could help FEMA to modify, streamline, or improve existing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards? If so, what are they and how can FEMA leverage those technologies and standards to achieve the agency's statutory and regulatory objectives?

(15) FEMA recognizes the vital role that State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments play in floodplain management and that they may have innovative solutions to complex floodplain management challenges. What successful mitigation policies, building design standards, building construction standards, T&E species protections, and/or other floodplain management approaches to mitigate flood loss and reduce risk have been taken by State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments? In what ways do the current NFIP minimum floodplain management standards present barriers or opportunities to the successful implementation of those approaches? What capabilities and capacity impacts should FEMA address as it considers changes to the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards and to strengthen NFIP protection of T&E species and their habitats?

(16) As FEMA undertakes an analysis of potential effects of the NFIP on T&E species, the agency must consider the NFIP's effect on floodplain development and the extent to which NFIP actions influence land development decisions. “Development” means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures; mining; dredging; filling; grading; paving; excavation, or drilling operations; or storage of equipment or materials. 23 Is information available on the NFIP's influence on floodplain development? If so, provide or identify any data or materials identifying the NFIP's influence. How can FEMA measure the NFIP's effect on floodplain development? Are there specific NFIP regulations, policies and/or development standards that currently influence State, local, Tribal, and/or territorial governments in their development decisions that may have a positive or negative impact on T&E species and their habitats? If so, what are they and how do they influence development decisions that impact T&E species and their habitats? Are there changes to those regulations, policies and/or standards that, if made, would have a positive impact on T&E species and their habitats? If so, what are those changes?

(17) FEMA is developing a national programmatic framework for nationwide compliance with the ESA and is re-examining the extent to which NFIP actions may have adverse effects on T&E species and their habitats. Should FEMA reconsider its mapping practices, including the issuance of Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-Fs)? Should the placement of fill material, defined as material used to raise a portion of a property to or above the Base Flood Elevation within the SFHA, be prohibited by NFIP minimum floodplain management standards? What would the impact of this change be on T&E species and NFIP participating communities?

(18) Hazard mitigation planning reduces loss of life and property by minimizing the impact of disasters, including floods. It begins with State, local, and Tribal governments identifying natural disaster risks and vulnerabilities that are common in the area and then developing long-term strategies for protecting people and property from similar events. Mitigation plans are key to breaking the cycle of disaster damage and reconstruction. How should FEMA consider integrating mitigation planning with other Federal, State, or local mitigation planning such as community planning, economic planning, coastal zone planning, and other types of planning activities to improve the overall effectiveness of mitigation planning and floodplain management activities? Are there planning best practices, processes, or data that could better inform planning decision-making and the development and implementation of floodplain management standards?

FEMA notes that this notice is issued solely for information and program-planning purposes. Responses to this notice do not bind FEMA to any further actions related to the response.

PLO No. 7873 withdrew approximately 694,838.84 acres of Federal land in Churchill, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, and Pershing Counties, Nevada, for up to four years from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including location and entry under the United States mining laws, and leasing under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights. The purpose of the proposed withdrawal extension is to maintain the current environmental baseline, relative to mining, mineral exploration and development, and geothermal energy development for land management evaluation purposes. The petition/application also includes the proposed withdrawal extension of 68,809.44 acres of Federal land in the Dixie Valley Training Area from the mineral leasing laws (not currently withdrawn from these laws under Section 3016 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. 106-65), to maintain the current environmental baseline, relative to mineral exploration and development for land management evaluation purposes, subject to valid existing rights.

Including the 8,722.47 acres of Department of the Navy (DON) lands, the total Federal land included in the withdrawal extension is 772,370.75 acres. Non-Federal lands totaling 66,160.53 acres are described within the withdrawal area. Any current or future Federal estate interest in these non-Federal lands is subject to this withdrawal.

The BLM and the DON are engaged in the evaluation of issues relating to possible future legislative transfer of the subject land to the jurisdiction of the DON in connection with the DON's modernization of Naval Air Station Fallon, Fallon Range Training Complex, Nevada (FRTC). While the DON requested legislative expansion of its existing withdrawal at FRTC, the NDAA for FY2021 extended the existing FRTC withdrawal for an additional 25 years but did not include the additional public lands requested for the FRTC Modernization. The DON anticipates again asking for a legislative withdrawal of these additional lands and requested that the BLM file a petition/application for extension of the existing four-year withdrawal. PLO No. 7873 is included by reference (83 FR 44654). In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the BLM Carson City District Office, Carson City, Nevada, anticipates completion of Categorical Exclusion documentation for the proposed withdrawal extension. A complete description, along with all other records pertaining to the extension, can be examined in the BLM Carson City District Office at the address shown above. Comments on the proposed 4-year withdrawal should be received on or before January 10, 2022.

In addition, a virtual public meeting will be held December 9, 2021, 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time (U.S. and Canada). The Zoom link for the Bureau of Land Management—Carson City Land Management Evaluation Withdrawal Extension—Virtual Public Meeting is as follows:

Register in advance for this webinar: https://empsi.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_D_Kw02L0TuSrS6we67_LdQ .

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

The withdrawal extension application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.

For a period until January 10, 2022 all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension may present their views in writing to the BLM Nevada State Director at the address indicated above. 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.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 19, 2021 (86 FR 38123). No comments were received.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract: Section 523 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 requires that a Federal lands program be established to govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands. The information is needed to assist the regulatory authority to determine the eligibility of an applicant to conduct coal mining on Federal lands.

Title of Collection: General Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations on Federal Lands.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0027.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Businesses and state governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 10.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 10.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 1 hour to 244 hours, depending on activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,121.

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

Frequency of Collection: One time.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $0.

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

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

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 18, 2019, United States Pharmaceopeial Convention, 7135 English Muffin Way, Frederick, Maryland 21704, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to import the bulk control substance for analytical testing purposes. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration.

Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of the Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.

This notification focuses on press publishers in particular, reflecting Congress's request that the Office study developments in foreign jurisdictions regarding their rights. It also includes a number of questions about publishers in other sectors, authors, and the public, to assist in evaluating the appropriate scope and definitions for any possible new protections.

The internet has ushered in an era of disruption and transformation for the press-publishing ecosystem. After rising steadily between 1970 and 2006, 1 newspaper ad revenues plummeted 62% between 2008 and 2018. 2 Total newspaper circulation, already declining before the internet-era, in 2020 fell to its lowest point since 1940. 3 Digital distribution exposed city papers that once enjoyed close to local monopolies to national competition from well-heeled newsrooms like The New York Times. The combination of increased competition, dwindling revenue, and high debt overhangs led to a wave of bankruptcies, consolidations, 4 and leveraged buyouts. 5 From 2008 to 2019, the number of newspaper newsroom employees dropped by more than 40%, 6 and one in five papers closed. 7

Over the two decades during which press publishers' revenues have declined, a new set of distributors has arisen in the form of online news aggregators. 8 This umbrella term covers a number of distinct services that vary according to the sources they use, the topics they cover, who performs the aggregation, and whether they add original commentary, but in general refers to an online service that collects links to and sometimes snippets of third-party articles and makes them available to its readers. 9 While some news aggregators focus primarily or solely on the distribution of news content, others may aggregate such content only as one part of a wider-ranging social media service, for example by allowing users to share news stories or promoting “trending topics” or “news” tabs and links. News aggregators may or may not seek licenses for the third-party content they use.

News aggregators, including search engines and social media, have now become the preferred or initial source of news for a majority of digital news consumers. 10 Some commenters suggest that these sources create a “substitution effect” by allowing readers to get the news (or at least its gist) without visiting the press publishers' websites. 11 Others assert that news aggregators expand the market by helping readers to discover new websites and tempting them to click on more articles than they would otherwise read. 12

Empirical data available to date on the relationship between aggregators and news sites is thin. Aggregators appear to drive a significant amount of traffic to news websites, and therefore their activities may serve to expand the market for press publishers. 13 But their referrals may lead to a relatively narrow range of news sites, 14 and they tend to drive traffic to individual articles rather than homepages. 15 So it is also possible that their offerings substitute to some degree for the market for newspapers as a whole, even while stimulating traffic to specific articles. This concern has spurred policymakers in several countries to consider legislation aimed at maintaining the viability of their news industry, including by expanding press publishers' rights in the content they publish.

Current U.S. copyright law gives publishers several means to protect their news content. First, a press publisher typically owns the copyright in the collective work, such as the print issue as a whole or the website containing individual news articles. 16 Second, the press publisher may own or be able to assert rights in individual articles that it publishes, through the work-made-for-hire doctrine, 17 assignments of rights, or exclusive licenses. 18

When a press publisher owns a copyright in either a collective work  19 or in an individual article, it has the exclusive right to do or authorize the reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution, public performance, and public display of that work. 20

These exclusive rights are not absolute. Under U.S. law, several legal doctrines allow the use of news content in certain circumstances without permission or payment. 21 Most fundamentally, facts and ideas are not copyrightable. 22 Nor are titles and short phrases, including headlines. 23 Where there are only a few, limited ways of expressing an idea, the merger doctrine bars protection for the expression in order to avoid giving a backdoor monopoly in the idea itself. 24 Even where the content used is protectable, the fair use doctrine provides considerable scope for quotation and allows certain other reasonable uses. 25

Applying the fair use doctrine, courts have approved some forms of aggregation of news content but not others. For example, fair use has been found to permit the aggregation of copyrighted text or images by search engines or other indexing processes where those services used only snippets or low-resolution images that were unlikely to substitute for the original copyrighted works. 26 By contrast, the Second Circuit has held that the aggregation of television news content into a searchable index was not fair use, to the extent that the service enabled users to watch and share ten-minute clips. 27 Some news aggregators have sought licenses instead of relying on a fair use defense, presumably either because their use was more extensive than that permitted by fair use or because they wanted to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigating. 28

Separate from copyright, U.S. press publishers have at times asserted “hot news” misappropriation claims to protect against the taking of their time-sensitive news items. This cause of action, established by the Supreme Court in International News Service v. Associated Press   29 during World War I, bars free riding on a competitor's investment at the moment in time when the competitor was poised to reap the rewards. 30 Because International News Service was based on no-longer extant federal common law  31 and pre-dated the 1976 Copyright Act and modern First Amendment jurisprudence, 32 this tort's continued viability is unclear. In one of the first modern cases to consider a hot news misappropriation claim under New York state law, the Second Circuit in NBA v. Motorola held that only a narrow version of the theory survived preemption by the Copyright Act. 33 Indeed, most courts faced with hot news misappropriation claims since Motorola have found them to be either preempted or insufficiently proven. 34 For example, in Barclays Capital, Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., the Second Circuit held that the Copyright Act preempted a hot news misappropriation claim under New York law based on the defendant's publication of plaintiff's time-sensitive stock recommendations, notwithstanding the fact that the recommendations at issue may not have been copyrightable. 35 This holding suggests that even if a hot news misappropriation claim could be brought against a news aggregator, it would face a significant hurdle in avoiding preemption by the Copyright Act.

Citing concerns for the continued viability of their news industries, several national and regional legislatures have considered or enacted new forms of legal protection for press publishers in recent years. These generally fall into one of two models: An extension of copyright or copyright-like protections, or regulation of the terms of competition and negotiation between the publishers and online intermediaries.

In 2019, as part of the Directive on Copyright in the Single Digital Market (“CDSM Directive”), the European Union required Member States to grant press publishers an “ancillary” right in the content of their press publications. 36 The EU's approach took inspiration from laws previously adopted in Germany and Spain. The German law, enacted in 2013 and later invalidated on procedural grounds, provided press publishers an exclusive right to make their work available to the public for commercial purposes. 37 The Spanish law, by contrast, grants press publishers a non-waivable right of remuneration. 38

PIIA recodifies the DNP Initiative that was already under way across the Federal Government. 1 The DNP Initiative includes multiple resources that are designed to help Federal agencies, the judicial and legislative branches of the Federal Government, and certain State agencies review payment and award eligibility for purposes of identifying and preventing improper payments. As part of the DNP Initiative, OMB designated Treasury to host the Working System, which is the primary system through which DNP customers can verify payment and award eligibility.

Pursuant to PIIA, 2 OMB has the authority to designate additional databases for inclusion in the DNP Initiative. 3 Appendix C to OMB Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control, 4 provides guidance related to PIIA and states that OMB “may designate other databases that substantially assist” in preventing improper payments. 5

All Treasury Working System users and administrators are required to sign rules of behavior stipulating their responsibilities to minimize risks and support DNP's mission to “conduct a thorough review of databases and help verify eligibility and prevent [improper and unknown payments] prior to the release of Federal funds.” Treasury has also dedicated resources to establish a privacy program based on applicable requirements, the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs), and industry best practices. Treasury's privacy program supports various internal controls in collaboration with Treasury leadership and legal counsel. Projects are vetted through a data usage governance process to ensure compliance with privacy requirements in law and policy and manage risk associated with the use of specific data to reduce improper payments for Treasury's customers and Government agencies.

Risk mitigation measures for Treasury's Working System include maintaining a current and compliant Security Accreditation and Authorization (SA&A) package, in accordance with Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requirements. Additionally, to reduce the likelihood of unauthorized access, login to Treasury's Working System requires public key infrastructure (PKI) or personal identity verification (PIV) credentials.

OMB proposes to designate NAPHSIS EVVE FOD for inclusion in Treasury's Working System. As the most comprehensive private provider of state vital records and a partner of state vital records offices, NAPHSIS can provide information to researchers, organizations, and government organizations to facilitate the verification of birth and death records.

Treasury's Working System would benefit from more comprehensive verification of death records from state agencies. Currently, Treasury's Working System provides verification of death records to its customers using several databases, but is limited in its ability to verify the existence of a death certificate reported by a state. Designation of EVVE FOD as a database in Treasury's Working System would improve and streamline access for Working System customers to verify death certificates. Currently, customers must access state vital records from each state office. Access to EVVE will centralize access to many states' offices through a single portal.

Use of EVVE FOD within Treasury's Working System would also allow for its users to access state death records that are available in the Social Security Administration's Full Death Master File (DMF), which would otherwise be restricted from use for many programs by statute. 6 The DMF includes state death records and other information. Agencies are not prohibited from obtaining death information directly from state vital records offices or through commercial portals like EVVE. 7 Death data from state vital records offices are the authoritative source for death information. Including EVVE FOD will also allow the Treasury Working System to examine the quality of existing and potential data sources that provide death data by using an authoritative source.

OMB has considered Treasury's recommendation and assessment of the suitability of EVVE FOD Data for designation of inclusion within Treasury's Working System. OMB proposes to designate EVVE FOD Data for inclusion in Treasury's Working System. Treasury's suitability assessment, which evaluates the suitability of EVVE FOD Data, is attached. Treasury's assessment considers factors identified in OMB Circular A-123 Appendix C section (IV)(E) established by OMB M-18-20, which has been superseded by OMB M-21-19. Appendix C requires that “OMB-established procedures and criteria will be followed to determine whether database are designated into the Treasury Working System or included in the Initiative outside of the Treasury Working System.” As OMB prepares guidance on those procedures and criteria, OMB will still apply pre-existing guidance and criteria from M-18-20, because M-18-20's guidance and criteria is derived from similar statutory provisions in IPERIA, the predecessor to PIIA.

Accordingly, for this request, OMB is considering the same factors as listed in M-18-20. These factors are: (1) Statutory or other limitations on the use and sharing of specific data; (2) privacy restrictions and risks associated with specific data; (3) likelihood that the data will strengthen program integrity across programs and agencies; (4) benefits of streamlining access to the data through the central DNP Initiative; (5) costs associated with expanding or centralizing access, including modifications needed to system interfaces or other capabilities in order to make data accessible; and (6) other policy and stakeholder considerations, as appropriate:

1. Statutory or other limitations on the use and sharing of specific data: There are no statutory or other limitations that would prevent including the EVVE FOD database within Treasury's Working System for the purposes of verifying payment, award eligibility, and analytical projects.

2. Privacy restrictions and risks associated with specific data: Treasury assessed privacy restrictions and risks in discussions with NAPHSIS. When Treasury initiates matching with EVVE, DNP will only receive matching results on data provided to DNP ( i.e., data on individuals already existing within the working system). Treasury will receive matched data from NAPHSIS with the deceased individual's Social Security Number, name, date of birth and date of death information. EVVE data is taken directly from State Vital Statistics Databases and is not owned by NAPHSIS. Data is gathered through an Application Programming Interface (API) and is not altered prior to displaying results to the user at the agency. Policies, practices and procedures relating to the monitoring, auditing, or evaluation of the accuracy of personally identifiable information are determined by the State that owns the record. EVVE FOD currently has agreements in place with each State to address data correction. Treasury evaluated EVVE FOD in various areas, including a data quality assessment at the attribute level, and at the level of the source as a whole. Per-data element measures include quantifications of accuracy, coverage, and conformity. Whole-source measures include assessments of the freshness, completeness, and uniqueness of all records. These six assessments factors, some of which are multi-part, reduce to six quantitative scores, and these six scores are combined into an overall data source quality benchmark. The quality assessment was performed on a snapshot of the data source compared to payment data from August 2020 to February 2021.

EVVE FOD contains information only on deceased individuals. Deceased individuals are not afforded Privacy Act protections. Therefore, the data gathered from state vital records offices and the information on individuals are not covered by the Privacy Act.

Treasury has also not identified any additional Privacy Act restrictions or risks for DNP to make this commercial database available in Treasury's Working System. Treasury's use of the EVVE FOD matching results does not include information on survivors of the deceased individual and no other involved parties will have any information disclosed. Treasury will also receive only limited information about the deceased, namely, the Social Security Number, name, date of birth and date of death information. Treasury already receives similar information in verifying death data when using other databases within the DNP Initiative. Upon reviewing the privacy restrictions and risks of EVVE FOD, Treasury has determined that the limited information disclosed and the controls supporting this database are sufficient to address any privacy concerns.

3. Likelihood that the data will strengthen program integrity across programs and agencies: Designating EVVE FOD would strengthen program integrity. Including EVVE FOD would allow Treasury's Working System to provide access to state records that are not currently included in the Social Security Administration's Limited Access Death Master File (LADMF). Since a significant number of improper payments are made to deceased individuals each year, providing the Working System's customers access to these additional records could help them identify additional potentially improper payments. Additionally, EVVE FOD provides an independent source of death data which will reduce the amount of time for agencies to decide on a payment to a deceased individual. EVVE FOD data can also be used for data quality evaluations and to assist with data standardization to ensure accuracy of records. Each of these benefits will help assure citizens that Treasury and the Government are acting as good-faith stewards of taxpayer dollars. The results of a Treasury analysis of EVVE FOD were applied to the payments currently being screened against other DNP death databases and found that, after applying assumptions to account for false positives, EVVE FOD is estimated to save the government roughly $489.9 million over a ten-year period.

4. Benefits of streamlining access to the data through the central DNP Initiative: It would be beneficial to streamline access to EVVE FOD through its inclusion in Treasury's Working System. Some of DNP's customers are agencies that issue payments to beneficiaries. Including EVVE FOD in Treasury's Working System will allow for faster and more accurate execution of such payments. Benefit-paying agencies, and other payment-issuing DNP customers, would be able to check EVVE FOD along with the other databases in Treasury's Working System. This will enable agencies to make more informed payment decisions and payment verifications, which will increase efficiency and strengthen internal controls.

5. Costs associated with expanding or centralizing access, including modifications needed to system interfaces or other capabilities in order to make data accessible: There will be some additional costs associated with expanding or centralizing access to EVVE FOD. Currently, EVVE FOD costs $8,750 per month for an annual cost of $105,000. Adjusting for inflation it is estimated that over a ten-year period, EVVE will cost the Government $1.15 million. However, Treasury has performed a trial assessment with respect to EVVE FOD, which compared nearly 10 million death and payment records with EVVE FOD in order to determine which payments would result in matches. Agency-specific business rules identified in Treasury's current processes were then applied to reduce false positives. The results of this assessment were applied to the payments currently being screened against other DNP death databases and found that, after applying assumptions to account for false positives, EVVE FOD is estimated to save the government roughly $489.9 million over a ten-year period. Accounting for the purchase of death certificates from State Vital Statistics Databases, this amounts to a potential ROI of over 42,613%.

6. Other policy and stakeholder considerations: No additional stakeholder considerations were identified.

We invite public comments on the proposed designation of the database described in this notice.

This meeting will be open to the public. The meeting will take place telephonically and via WebEx. Any interested person must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may call the USA toll free number 1-877-939-1570, or toll number 1-210-234-0110, passcode 9775739 followed by the # sign to participate in this meeting by telephone on both days. The WebEx link is https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/; the meeting number is 2762 919 5180 and the password is OctHPAC2021! (case sensitive).

The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

• Heliophysics Program Annual Performance Review According to the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act.

• Heliophysics Division Update.

By letter dated June 1, 2021, as supplemented on September 14, 2021, WEC requested exemptions and an associated license amendment to License SNM-1107, issued for the operation of the CFFF located in Hopkins, South Carolina pursuant to section 20.2002 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). By letter dated September 14, 2021, USEI incorporated the supplemented WEC application in its request for corresponding exemptions. The requests are for NRC authorization for an alternate disposal of NRC-licensed byproduct and SNM from the CFFF. As required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted an EA. Based on the results of the EA that follows, the NRC has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, preparation of an environmental impact statement for the exemption request is not required and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, issuance of a FONSI is appropriate.

WEC submitted a 10 CFR 20.2002 Alternate Disposal Request (ADR) on May 8, 2020 with a corresponding exemption request from USEI on May 11, 2020. NRC staff reviewed and approved the request on December 9, 2020, along with the corresponding exemptions for USEI. Following approval, WEC determined that the volume of material considered was incorrect. To resolve the issue WEC submitted a second request, dated February 8, 2021. NRC staff performed a review of the second request and issued an updated safety evaluation report (SER) evaluating both requests on March 11, 2021. On June 1, 2021, WEC submitted another ADR for the disposal of additional material from CFFF. On September 14, 2021, in a response to an NRC staff request for additional information (RAI), WEC supplemented and narrowed its June 1, 2021 request for the disposal of calcium fluoride (CaF 2 ) sludge containing byproduct material and SNM. WEC stated that the other waste material types discussed in the June 1, 2021 request will be addressed in the response to the NRC staff's RAI at a later time and are not considered here.

This ADR considers the remainder of the CaF 2 sludge pile from which the CaF 2 sludge evaluated in the amended request approved on March 11, 2021 originated. The previous review only approved a portion of the CaF 2 sludge pile for disposal. The staff's review of the request is documented in its SER.

WEC and USEI requested NRC approval for a 10 CFR 20.2002 alternate disposal request, exemptions to 10 CFR part 70.3 and 10 CFR 30.3, and a conforming WEC license amendment to allow WEC to transfer 133,000 ft 3 of CaF 2 sludge containing byproduct material and SNM from CFFF for disposal at the USEI disposal facility. The CaF 2 to be disposed of is generated from CFFF site operations and previously stored in onsite lagoons. The lagoons are periodically dredged and the resulting CaF 2 sludge is placed in piles on the site for drying prior to disposal. The CaF 2 sludge considered under this request is contaminated with SNM (low enriched uranium {<5wt% U-235}).

As proposed, this waste would be transported from CFFF in South Carolina to the USEI facility near Grand View, Idaho. The USEI facility is a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal facility permitted by the State of Idaho. The USEI site has both natural and engineered features that limit the transport of radioactive material. The natural features include a low precipitation rate [ i.e., 18.4 cm/year (7.4 in./year)] and a long vertical distance to groundwater ( i.e., 61-meter (203-ft) thick on average unsaturated zone below the disposal zone). The engineered features include an engineered cover, liners, and leachate monitoring systems. Because the USEI facility is not licensed by the NRC, this proposed action requires the NRC to exempt USEI from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and NRC licensing requirements with respect to USEI's requested receipt and disposal of this material.

The need for the proposed action is to authorize a safe and appropriate method of disposal for the CaF 2 sludge generated during day-to-day activities and currently being stored at the CFFF. The proposed action would also conserve low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity at licensed low-level radioactive disposal sites while ensuring that the material being considered is disposed of safely in a regulated facility.

The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by WEC to support their 10 CFR 20.2002 alternate disposal request and for USEI's specific exemptions from 10 CFR 30.3 and 10 CFR 70.3 in order to dispose of the CaF 2 waste. Under the 10 CFR 20.2002 criteria, a licensee may seek NRC authorization to dispose of licensed material using procedures not otherwise authorized by NRC regulations. The licensee's supporting analysis must show that the radiological doses arising from the proposed 10 CFR 20.2002 disposal will be as low as reasonably achievable and within the 10 CFR part 20 dose limits.

As documented in the SER, the NRC staff concluded that the requested alternate disposal of 133,000 ft 3 of CaF 2 sludge is acceptable under 10 CFR 20.2002. Details provided in this request, in combination with past reviews considering similar material from the same site, provide an adequate description of the waste and the proposed manner and conditions of waste disposal. As documented in the SER and consistent with the NRC staff's review of WEC's February 8, 2021 request, a dose assessment concluded that potential doses to members of the public, including transportation workers and USEI workers involved in processing and disposing of the waste upon its arrival at USEI, are less than 1 mrem/y, well within the “few mrem” criteria that the NRC established (see NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 2). NRC staff also notes that the request is also subject to regulation under RCRA.

NRC staff also considered non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action. NRC staff concludes that approval of the proposed request would not have significant environmental impacts on non-radiological effluents, air quality, or noise. In addition, approval of the proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents associated with the transport and disposal of the CaF 2 sludge.

Therefore, due to the very small amounts of radioactive material involved, the evaluation previously noted, and the NRC staff's analysis in the SER, the NRC staff finds that the environmental impacts of the proposed action are not significant.

As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered the no-action alternative in which the NRC staff would deny the disposal request. Denial of the request would require WEC to find another disposal pathway for this material and would ultimately only change the location of the disposal site. All other factors would remain the same or similar. Therefore, the no-action alternative was not further considered.

In accordance with its stated policy, on September 29, 2021, the staff consulted with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The State officials concurred with the EA and FONSI.

The proposed action consists of NRC approval of (a) WEC's and USEI's alternate disposal requests under 10 CFR 20.2002, (b) WEC and USEI's exemption request under 10 CFR 30.11(a) and 10 CFR 70.17(a), the issuance of a conforming license amendment to WEC. Based on this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed action and a FONSI is appropriate.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0185 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-2021-0185.

• 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 “Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Kewaunee Power Station Application for Order Approving Transfer of Control of [Kewaunee] License and Conforming License Amendments,” dated May 10, 2021, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML21131A141 and the “Notification of Amended Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (Revision 2) for Kewaunee Power Station,” dated May 13, 2021, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML21145A083.

• 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-2021-0185 in your comment submission.

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

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

The NRC is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 and 72.50 approving the indirect transfer of control of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-43 for Kewaunee and the general license for the Kewaunee ISFSI from Dominion, the parent entity of the licensee, to Energy Solutions. As part of the proposed transfer, the name of the licensee would be changed to Kewaunee Solutions. The NRC is also considering amending the renewed facility operating license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.

According to the application, Energy Solutions would acquire 100 percent ownership of the licensee, the same legal entity would remain the Kewaunee licensee, but its name would change to Kewaunee Solutions, and Kewaunee Solutions would operate under new management and be directly and wholly owned by Energy Solutions.

No physical changes to Kewaunee are being proposed in the application.

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

Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.

As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility or to the license of an ISFSI, which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration and no genuine issue as to whether the health and safety of the public will be significantly affected. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.

Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 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 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 20 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. 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).

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

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

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings including 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 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 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 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 Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.

For further details with respect to this application, see the application dated May 10, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21131A141), as supplemented on May 13, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21145A083).

Any person who desires access to proprietary, confidential commercial information that has been redacted from the application should contact the applicant by telephoning Craig Sly at 804-273-2784 or 804-241-2473 for the purpose of negotiating a confidentiality agreement or a proposed protective order with the applicant. If no agreement can be reached, persons who desire access to this information may file a motion with the Secretary and addressed to the Commission that requests the issuance of a protective order.

The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4), requires federal agencies such as OSHRC to publish in the Federal Register notice of any new or modified system of records.

In accordance Executive Order 13869, “Executive Order on Transferring Responsibility for Background Investigations to the Department of Defense” (April 24, 2019), the Department of Defense's Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency will conduct personnel background investigations for OSHRC. This function was previously performed by the Office of Personnel Management. The system-of-records notice, OSHRC-7, has been revised to account for this change.

In addition, OSHRC recently revised its Privacy Act regulations, 29 CFR part 2400, which resulted in the renumbering of its regulatory provisions. 85 FR 65222 (Oct. 15, 2020). OSHRC is therefore revising the following elements in this system-of-records notice to reference the correct sections of the agency's Privacy Act regulations: Record Access Procedures, Contesting Record Procedures, and Notification Procedures.

The notice for OSHRC-7, provided below in its entirety, is as follows.

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

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

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

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

1. Docket No(s).: MC2022-2 and CP2022-2; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Parcel Select Contract 48 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: October 5, 2021; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: October 13, 2021.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .