The Administrative Conference of the United States makes recommendations to federal agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the improvement of administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 594). The membership of the Conference, when meeting in plenary session, constitutes the Assembly of the Conference (5 U.S.C. 595). For further information about the Conference and its activities, please visit www.acus.gov.

Agenda: The Assembly will receive updates on past, current, and pending Conference initiatives. In addition, pending final action by the Conference's the Council, five proposed recommendations will be considered. Summaries of the recommendations appear below:

Public Access to Agency Adjudicative Proceedings. This proposed recommendation identifies best practices regarding when and how federal agencies provide public access to adjudicative proceedings.Within the legal framework established by federal law, it identifies factors agencies should consider when determining whether to open or close particular proceedings. It also offers best practices to promote public access to proceedings that agencies open to the public and recommends that agencies make the policies governing public access readily available.

Public Availability of Inoperative Agency Guidance Documents. This proposed recommendation identifies for agencies best practices for maintaining public access to agency guidance documents that are no longer in effect—that is, inoperative guidance documents. It addresses factors agencies should consider in deciding whether to include certain types of inoperative guidance documents on their websites; steps agencies can take to make it easier for members of the public to find the inoperative guidance documents in which they are interested; and what labels and explanations agencies should use to ensure that the public can readily understand the context and significance of particular inoperative guidance documents.

Quality Assurance Systems in Agency Adjudication. This proposed recommendation identifies best practices for agencies when devising and implementing systems to assess and improve the quality of decisions in adjudicative programs. It emphasizes cutting-edge techniques (including artificial intelligence) to structure the capture and analysis of data; the selection, role, and institutional placement of personnel; the use of performance metrics; efforts to ensure fairness, impartiality, efficiency, and other important institutional objectives; and the relationship between quality-assurance review and conventional appellate review.

Regulation of Representatives in Agency Proceedings. This proposed recommendation recommends that agencies consider adopting rules governing attorney and non-attorney representatives in adjudicative proceedings in order to promote the accessibility, fairness, integrity, and efficiency of those proceedings. It provides guidance on the topics that rules might cover and recommends that agencies consider whether greater harmonization of different bodies of rules is desirable and ensure that their rules are readily accessible to representatives and the public.

Technical Reform of the Congressional Review Act. This proposed recommendation offers technical reforms of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that clarify certain procedural aspects of the CRA while reducing administrative burdens on executive-branch agencies and congressional offices. Specifically, the proposed recommendation suggests phasing out the requirement that agencies submit paper copies of certain rulemaking materials to Congress in favor of an electronic process; making it easier to ascertain key dates and time periods relevant to review of agency rules under the CRA; and formalizing a procedure by which Members of Congress can initiate congressional review of rules that agencies conclude are not covered by the CRA.

Additional information about the proposals and the agenda, as well as any changes or updates to the same, can be found at the 76th Plenary Session page on the Conference's website prior to the start of the meeting: https://www.acus.gov/meetings-and-events/event/76th-plenary-session.

Public Participation: The Conference welcomes the virtual attendance of the public at the meeting, subject to bandwidth limitations. Members of the public who wish to view the meeting are asked to RSVP online at the 76th Plenary Session web page shown above, no later than two days before the meeting, in order to ensure adequate bandwidth. For anyone who is unable to view the live event, an archived video recording of the meeting will be available on the Conference's website shortly after the conclusion of the event: https://youtube.com/channel/UC1Gu44Jq1U7XsGdC9Tfl_zA.

Written Comments: Persons who wish to comment on any of the proposed recommendations or official statement may do so by submitting a written statement either online by clicking “Submit a comment” on the 76th Plenary Session web page shown above or by mail addressed to: December 2021 Plenary Session Comments, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036. Written submissions must be received no later than 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Friday, December 10, 2021, to ensure consideration by the Assembly.

Authority: 5. U.S.C. 595.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is modifying an existing system of records notice, LabWare Laboratory Information Management System (LabWare LIMS), USDA/APHIS-19, which was last published in its entirety in the Federal Register on October 1, 2013 (78 FR 60245-60248, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0039). 1 APHIS is modifying the system of records notice to rename the system as “National Veterinary Services Laboratories' Laboratory Information Management System (NVSL-LIMS).” (Note that references to the system may appear as LIMS, Veterinary Services (VS) LIMS, or NVSL-LIMS.) APHIS is also expanding the system to include records of activities conducted by regulated entities and the agency pursuant to those activities authorized by the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ) and the regulations issued thereunder.

APHIS is making the following changes to the system of records notice:

• Updating the system location;

• Updating the purposes of the system;

• Expanding the categories of individuals to include any approved non-USDA veterinarian coordinating with USDA to protect animal health. This includes, but is not limited to State, Tribal, and local government veterinarians. We are also specifying the USDA employees who enter data as those who are NVSL employees;

• Expanding the categories of records to include reference to USDA employees in addition to NVSL employees; identification of sample collector; specific information identifying the animal being tested; relevant dates (dates of collection, testing, submission, etc.); tracking of agents, toxins or reagents); and other information as required depending on the tests being conducted and sample source(s). For instance, tuberculosis sample information will include the names of the food inspector, veterinarian, and market buyer; the market buyer's address, city, State, Zip code, and country; the lot number and number in the lot; number of lesions; and slaughter date;

• Updating the policies and practices for storage, retrievability, and retention and disposal of records in the system;

• Updating the system safeguards;

• Updating the notification, record access, and contesting record procedures;

• Revising, deleting, redesignating, and establishing routine uses as follows:

○ Revising current routine use 1 for clarity;

○ Revising current routine use 2. The changes are editorial and intended to more accurately describe the referral of records to appropriate law enforcement agencies, entities, and persons;

○ Revising current routine use 3. The changes are editorial and conforming changes;

○ Revising current routine use 4. The changes are editorial and intended to more accurately describe the disclosure of records to a court or adjudicative body;

○ Revising current routine use 5 for disclosure to appropriate agencies, entities and persons of information necessary to respond to a suspected or confirmed breach of the system of records in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-12, Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information (January 3, 2017);

○ Redesignating current routine use 6 as routine use 9, and revising to more accurately reflect where record management inspections may occur;

○ Establishing a new routine use 6 for disclosure to another Federal agency or entity of information reasonably necessary to assist in responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy harm, in accordance with OMB Memorandum M-17-12 (Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information);

○ Establishing a new routine use 7 for disclosure to contractors and other parties assisting in administering the program, analyzing data, information management systems, Freedom of Information Act requests, and audits to assist in the performance of a service related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity; and

○ Establishing a new routine use 8 to describe disclosure to a Congressional office in response to an inquiry made to that Congressional office at the written request of the individual to whom the record pertains.

A report on the modified system of records, required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), as implemented by OMB Circular A-108 was sent to the Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate; the Chairwoman, Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of Representatives; and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1612(a) and 36 CFR part 216, Public Notice and Comment for Standards, Criteria and Guidance Applicable to Forest Service Programs, the Forest Service publishes for public notice and comment Agency directives that formulate standards, criteria, or guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs. Agency procedures for providing public notice and opportunity to comment are specified in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1109.12, Chapter 30, Providing Public Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Directives.

The Forest Service has no proposed or interim directives planned for publication for public comment from October 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021.

The following proposed or interim directives have been published for public comment but not yet finalized:

No proposed or interim directives that were previously published for public comment have been issued since July 1, 2021.

Title of Collection: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Lifecycle Certification.

OMB Control Number: 4040-001.

Expiration Date of Current Approval: 12/31/2022.

Type of Request: Notice of intent to extend and revise a currently approved information collection. The burden for this collection remains unchanged.

NIFA is requesting a one-year extension for the current collection entitled “Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Lifecycle Certification.”

NIFA asks recipients of SBIR grants to submit the Lifecycle Certification form as part of their required interim and final reports. NIFA is also proposing updates to the existing Certification form to match the language provided for this form in the 2020 “SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive ,” October 1, 2020. These changes are in response to the recommendation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its SBIR Fraud Waste and Abuse Review, completed on June 30, 2021.

Abstract: The SBIR program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) makes competitively awarded grants to qualified small businesses to support high quality, advanced concepts research related to important scientific problems and opportunities in agriculture that could lead to significant public benefit if successful.

The objectives of the SBIR Program are to: Stimulate technological innovations in the private sector; strengthen the role of small businesses in meeting Federal research and development needs; increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from USDA-supported research and development efforts; and foster and encourage participation by women-owned and socially and economically disadvantaged small business firms in technological innovations. The USDA SBIR program is carried out in three separate phases:

1. Phase I awards to determine, insofar as possible, the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas that appear to have commercial potential.

2. Phase II awards to further develop work from Phase I that meets particular program needs and exhibits potential for commercial application.

3. Phase III awards where commercial applications of SBIR- funded R(Research)/R&D (Research and Development) are funded by non-Federal sources of capital; or where products, services or further research intended for use by the Federal Government are funded by follow-on non-SBIR Federal Funding Agreements. The USDA SBIR Program is administered by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) of the USDA. NIFA exercises overall oversight for the policies and procedures governing SBIR grants awarded to the U.S. small business community, representing approximately 2.5% to 2.8% of the USDA extramural R/R&D budget. This represents approximately $201M in Phase II grants awarded to the U.S. small business community from 1994 to 2014. In 1982, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Grants Program (Pub. L. 97-219, 96 stat. 217), 15 U.S.C. 638, was authorized, and in 2016, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), enacted on December 23, 2016, reauthorized the SBIR and STTR programs through September 30, 2022.

The Lifecycle Certification form is used by USDA to ensure Small Business Concerns continue to meet specific program requirements during the life of the Funding Agreement. The GAO determined that the previously approved form currently in use has material deviations from the Small Business Administration (SBA) model language. NIFA is proposing minor changes to two of the questions on the form. The proposed changes contain clarifying language intended to address the GAO's recommendation that the language on the Lifecycle Certification form should match the model SBA language.

Estimate of Burden: The annual public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average one (1) hour per response. Respondents include businesses or other for-profit concerns.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 110.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.

Estimated Burden per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 500 hours.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Obtaining a Copy of the Information Collection: A copy of the information collection and related instructions may be obtained free of charge by contacting Robert Martin as directed above.

Title: Reporting Requirements for State Plans of Work for Agricultural Research and Extension Capacity Grants.

OMB Number: 0524-0036.

Expiration Date of Current Approval: September 30, 2022.

Type of Request: Notice of intent to extend, for one year, a currently approved information collection. The burden for this collection remains unchanged.

The agency is building a new reporting system, the “NIFA Reporting System,” (NRS) that will consume the “Reporting Requirements for Research, Education, and Extension project reporting tool (REEport)” and this collection upon completion. At the appropriate time, NIFA will request approval for a new information collection to include all competitive and capacity programs. In addition, NIFA will work with university partners in extension and research to review and identify measures to further streamline the submission, reporting under, and implementation of plan of work requirements under USDA extension and research capacity programs, as required by section 7505 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246 (7 U.S.C. 7614b). The adoption of new technology and elimination of data fields that are not required by law or are not used by NIFA for informational purposes, will reduce the burden of collecting and reporting information to our grantees. At that time, we will be better able to estimate the actual burden.

In addition to the Plan of Work requirements described below, NIFA seeks to collect two digital identifiers to assist with collecting information on publications that result from NIFA-funded projects. The first digital identifier is the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) assigned to journal articles by publishers. The DOI will allow NIFA to eliminate the manual entry of publication data by grantees. NIFA also seeks to collect the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID). The ORCID is a persistent digital identifier, available to individuals at no cost. Increasingly, researchers are placing their ORCIDs in publication metadata. Together, the DOI and ORCID will help NIFA improve the robustness of its publication data and be better positioned to demonstrate the value of its investments.

NIFA also seeks to collect information from its grantees in support of its key performance indicator (KPI), Workforce Development. NIFA, in collaboration with the Office of Chief Scientist, defines the KPI as the number of students trained as part of a NIFA-funded project or program. This data is currently collected from a segment of NIFA's programs. The Agency seeks to expand this to all relevant programs as they are brought over to the NIFA Reporting System.

Abstract: The purpose of this collection of information is to continue implementing the requirement that a plan of work must be submitted by each institution and approved by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) before formula funds may be provided to the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions.

The formula funds are authorized under the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a-i) for agricultural research activities at the 1862 land-grant institutions, under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341-349) for the extension activities at the 1862 land-grant institutions, and under sections 1444 and 1445 of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 3221-3222) for research and extension activities at the 1890 land-grant institutions. The requirement for the submission of a plan of work may be found in 7 U.S.C. 344(c) for the Smith-Lever Act, in 7 U.S.C. 361g(d) for the Hatch Act, and in 7 U.S.C. 3221(d)(3) and 3222(c)(2) respectively for Research and Extension at the 1890 Institutions. The plan of work must address critical agricultural issues in the State and describe the programs and projects targeted to address these issues using the NIFA formula funds. The plan of work also must describe the institution's multistate activities and include their integrated research and extension activities.

This collection of information also includes the reporting requirements of section 102(c) of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7612(c)) for the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions. This section requires the 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant institutions, and Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities receiving agricultural research, education, and extension formula funds from NIFA of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish and implement processes for obtaining input from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, extension, or education concerning the use of such funds.

Section 102(c) further requires that the Secretary of Agriculture promulgate regulations that prescribe what the institutions must do to meet this requirement and the consequences of not complying with this requirement. The Stakeholder Input Requirements for Recipients of Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Formula Funds (7 CFR 3418) final rule (65 FR 5998, Feb. 8, 2000) applies not only to the land-grant institutions and Hispanic-serving agricultural college and universities receiving formula funds but also to the veterinary and forestry schools that are not land-grant institutions but receive forestry research funds under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a1-7) and animal health and disease research funds under section 1433 of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3195(a)).

Failure to comply with the requirements of this rule may result in the withholding of a recipient institution's formula funds and redistribution of its share of formula funds to other eligible institutions. The institutions are required to annually report to NIFA: (1) The actions taken to seek stakeholder input to encourage their participation; (2) a brief statement of the process used by the recipient institution to identify individuals and groups who are stakeholders and to collect input from them; and (3) a statement of how collected input was considered. There is no legislatively prescribed form or format for this reporting requirement. However, the 1862 and 1890 land- grant institutions and Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities are required to report on their Stakeholder Input Process annually as part of their Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results.

Section 103(e) of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7613(e)) requires that the 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant institutions, as well as Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities, establish a merit review process to obtain agricultural research and extension funds. Section 104 of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 361c(h)) further stipulated that for research conducted pursuant to the Hatch Act, a scientific peer review process be established for research programs funded under section 3(c)(3) of the Hatch Act (commonly referred to as Hatch Multistate Research Funds), which should be used in lieu of the merit review requirement in section 7613(e).

Estimate of Burden: The Initial 5-Year Plan of Work was submitted for the FY 2020-2024 Plan of Work in 2019. Thus, this reporting burden has been satisfied and will no longer be collected. Consequently, the total reporting and record keeping requirements for the submission of the “Initial 5- Year Plan of Work” is estimated to average 0 hours per response.

The revised Plan of Work includes six components: “Critical Issues,” Extension Program and Research project Initiations in the NRS platform,” “Stakeholder Input Process,” “Merit Review Process,” “Multistate Activities,” and “Integrated Activities.” The total reporting and record keeping requirements for the initial submission was estimated to average 64 hours per response.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.

Estimated Number of Responses: 150.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 9,600 hours.

Frequency of Responses: Annually.

Estimate of the Burden: The total reporting and record keeping requirements for the submission of the “Annual Update to the 5-Year Plan of Work” is estimated to average 64 hours per response. There are five components of this “5-Year Plan of Work”: “Planned Programs,” “Stakeholder Input Process,” “Program Review Process,” “Multi state Activities,” and “Integrated Activities.”

Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.

Estimated Number of Responses: 150.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 9,600 hours.

Frequency of Responses: Annually.

The Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results will contain summaries of projects and programs for which key activities have produced outcomes. Projects and programs are organized by Critical Issue. Project summaries include four components: The issue and its significance; key activities undertaken to achieve the goals and objectives; changes in knowledge, behavior, or condition resulting from the project's activities; and who benefited and how.

Estimate of the Burden: The total annual reporting and record keeping requirements of the “Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results” is estimated to average 260 hours per response.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.

Estimated Number of Responses: 150.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 39,000 hours.

Frequency of Responses: Annually.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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. Comments should be sent to the address stated in the preamble.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

On June 3, 2021, Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review. 1 On September 23, 2021, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results to November 30, 2021. 2 For a summary of events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3

Commerce published the Preliminary Results on August 2, 2021. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. For a complete description of the events that occurred after the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The product covered by this Order is strontium chromate from France. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The sole issue raised in the parties' case and rebuttal briefs is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and is listed in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on the comments received from interested parties and record information, we made one modification to our preliminary dumping margin calculation for SNCZ. The modification did not result in a change to the dumping margin. For a discussion of this change, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

As a result of this review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether an importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rate is de minimis, we calculated an estimated entered value. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 4

Commerce's “reseller policy” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review 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. 5

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

The following 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 SNCZ will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review ( i.e., 14.65 percent); (2) for merchandise exported by a producer or exporter not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will continue to be 32.16 percent ad valorem, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 6 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

Background: The Secretary of Commerce established the REEEAC pursuant to discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), on July 14, 2010. The REEEAC was re-chartered most recently on June 5, 2020. The REEEAC provides the Secretary of Commerce with advice from the private sector on the development and administration of programs and policies to expand the export competitiveness of U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency products and services. More information about the Committee, including the list of appointed members for this charter, is published online at http://trade.gov/reeeac.

On December 9, 2021, the REEEAC will hold the fifth meeting of its current charter term. The Committee, with officials from the Department of Commerce and other agencies, will discuss major issues affecting the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, covering four broad themes: trade promotion and market access, global decarbonization, clean energy supply chains, and technology and innovation. The Committee will also review recommendations developed by subcommittee in these areas. To receive an agenda please make a request to REEEAC DFO Cora Dickson per above. The agenda will be made available no later than December 3, 2021.

The Committee meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATE caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to fill.

A limited amount of time before the close of the meeting will be available for oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two to five minutes per person (depending on number of public participants). Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact REEEAC DFO Cora Dickson using the contact information above and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed participant, by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, December 3, 2021. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a copy of their oral comments by email to Cora Dickson for distribution to the participants in advance of the meeting.

Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the REEEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted via email to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o: Cora Dickson, DFO, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce; Cora.Dickson@trade.gov. To be considered during the meeting, public comments must be transmitted to the REEEAC prior to the meeting. As such, written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, December 3, 2021. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

Copies of REEEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days following the meeting.

Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders with October anniversary dates.

All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . All submissions must be filed electronically at https://access.trade.gov, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. 1 Such submissions are subject to verification, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on Commerce's service list.

In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted within seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments within five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( e.g., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this AD proceeding ( e.g., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review, or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (Q&V) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. 2 Section 773(e) of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial responses to section D of the questionnaire.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding  3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name, 4 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Application will be available on Commerce's website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Applications are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Exporters and producers must file a timely Separate Rate Application or Certification if they want to be considered for respondent selection. Furthermore, exporters and producers who submit a Separate Rate Application or Certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than October 31, 2022.

None.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an AD order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), Commerce, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether AD duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant “gap” period of the order ( i.e., the period following the expiry of provisional measures and before definitive measures were put into place), if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures ( e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the Final Rule, 9 available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 10

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the Final Rule. 11 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable certification requirements.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. 12 In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) Q&V questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This policy also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which Commerce will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Please review the Final Rule, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

On June 1, 2021, Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain steel nails (steel nails) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman). 1 For a history of events that have occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2

The merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order is certain steel nails. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. These issues are identified in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made one change to the margin calculation for Oman Fasteners since the Preliminary Results. We have recalculated the constructed value (CV) profit ratio for the final results. 3

As a result of this administrative review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margin for the period July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020:

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

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this administrative review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, Commerce calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). 4 Where Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, Commerce will direct CBP to assess importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates. 5 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis ( i.e., 0.50 percent), Commerce will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation. 6 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 7

In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR that were produced by Oman Fasteners for which the respondent did not know that its merchandise was destined to the United States, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate of 9.10 percent, 8 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of steel nails from Oman entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results in the Federal Register , as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rates listed above in the section “Final Results of Review”; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in a completed segment for the most recent period of review; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 9.10 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation. 10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

The Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) mission of ONMS is to restore injuries to sanctuary resources caused by the release of hazardous substances or oil under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C., 9601 et seq. ) or the Oil Pollution Action of 1990 (OPA; 33 U.S.C., 2701 et seq. ), or physical injuries under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. ). ONMS conducts NRDAs as a basis for recovering damages from responsible parties and uses the funds recovered to restore injured sanctuary resources.

When addressing NRDA incidents, the costs of the damage assessment are recoverable from individuals and organizations who are potentially liable for an incident. Total costs include both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are costs for activities that are clearly and readily attributable to a specific case or other program products. In contrast, indirect costs reflect the costs for activities that collectively support ONMS' mission and operations. For example, indirect costs include general administrative support overheads. Although indirect costs may not be readily traced back to a specific direct activity, indirect costs may be allocated to direct activities using an indirect cost distribution rate.

Consistent with standard Federal accounting requirements, ONMS is required to account for and report the full costs of its programs and activities. Further, ONMS is authorized by law to recover reasonable costs of damage assessment and restoration activities under CERCLA, OPA and the NMSA. Within the constraints of these laws, ONMS has the discretion to develop indirect cost rates subject to its requirements.

NOAA contracted Empirical Concepts Incorporated (Empirical), who subcontracted with the public accounting firm Cotton and Company LLP to: (1) Evaluate the cost accounting system and allocation practices; (2) recommend the appropriate indirect cost allocation methodology; and (3) determine the indirect cost rates for the organizations that comprise ONMS.

Empirical concluded that the cost accounting system and allocation practices of ONMS component organizations are consistent with Federal accounting requirements. Empirical also determined that the most appropriate indirect allocation method was the Direct Labor Cost Base for all ONMS component organizations. The Direct Labor Cost Base is computed by allocating total indirect costs over the sum of direct labor dollars plus the application of NOAA's leave surcharge and benefits rates to direct labor. Empirical further assessed that the indirect cost rates for the ONMS component organizations were fair and equitable. A report on Empirical's assessment and their determination can be obtained from the person identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

ONMS will apply the indirect cost rate for FY2014 as recommended by Empirical for each of the ONMS component organizations as provided in the following table:

The ONMS indirect rates increased from the FY2010 rates of 67.95 percent for all ONMS sites (except Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)) and 82.35 percent for FKNMS because ONMS had less direct case work and more indirect work during FY2014. The indirect rates are inversely proportional to direct costs.

ONMS will apply the FY2014 rates identified in this notice to all damage assessment and restoration case costs incurred from October 1, 2014 until present, using the Direct Labor Cost base allocation methodology. For cases that have settled and for cost claims paid prior to the effective date of the fiscal year in question, ONMS will not re-open any resolved matters for the purpose of applying the rates in this notice. For cases not settled and cost claims not paid prior to the effective date of the fiscal year in question, ONMS will calculate costs using the rates in this notice. ONMS will use the FY2014 rates for future fiscal years until year-specific rates are developed.

The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404. and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.

I. Articles comprising a resistor comprising core shell liquid metal encapsulates and methods of detecting an impact on an article using a resistor comprising core shell liquid metal encapsulates are disclosed. Such core shell liquid metal encapsulates enable simple but robust impact sensors as such encapsulates comprise a highly electrically resistant metal oxide shell that prevents such encapsulates from coalescing. Yet when such shell is ruptured, the highly conductive bulk liquid metal is released. Such liquid metal changes electrical properties of a sensor comprising core shell liquid metal encapsulates which in turn is evidence of the aforementioned impact.

Intellectual property:

II. The present invention relates to core shell liquid metal encapsulates comprising multi-functional ligands, networks comprising such encapsulates and processes of making and using such encapsulates and networks. When subjected to strain, such network's conductivity is enhanced, thus allowing the network to serve as a healing agent that restores at least a portion of the conductivity in an adjacent conductor.

Intellectual property:

III. The present invention relates to articles comprising core shell liquid metal encapsulate networks and methods of using core shell liquid metal encapsulate networks to control AC signals and power. Such method permits the skilled artisan to control the radiation, transmission, reflection and modulation of an AC signal and power. As a result, AC system properties such as operation frequency, polarization, gain, directionality, insertion loss, return loss, and impedance can be controlled under strain.

Intellectual property:

IV. The present invention relates to substrates comprising a network comprising core shell liquid metal encapsulates comprising multi-functional ligands and processes of making and using such substrates. The core shell liquid metal particles are linked via ligands to form such network. Such networks volumetric conductivity increases under strain which maintains a substrate's resistance under strain. The constant resistance results in consistent thermal heating via resistive heating. Thus allowing a substrate that comprises such network to serve as an effective heat provider.

Intellectual property:

V. The present invention relates to architected liquid metal networks and processes of making and using same. The predetermined template design technology of such architected liquid metal networks provides the desired spatial control of electrical, electromagnetic, and thermal properties as a function of strain. Thus, resulting in improved overall performance including process ability.

Intellectual property:

Title and OMB Number: 2022 Election Administration and Voting Survey; OMB Number Pending.

The EAC issues the EAVS to meet its obligations under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to serve as a national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information with respect to the administration of Federal elections; to fulfill both the EAC and the Department of Defense Federal Voting Assistance Program's (FVAP) data collection requirements under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA); and meet its National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) mandate to collect information from states concerning the impact of that statute on the administration of Federal elections. In addition, under the NVRA, the EAC is responsible for collecting information and reporting, biennially, to Congress on the impact of that statute. The information the states are required to submit to the EAC for purposes of the NVRA report are found under Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations. States that respond to questions in this survey concerning voter registration-related matters will meet their NVRA reporting requirements under 52 U.S.C. 20508 and EAC regulations. Finally, UOCAVA mandates that FVAP work with the EAC and chief state election officials to develop standards for reporting UOCAVA voting information (52 U.S.C. 20302) and that FVAP will store the reported data and present the findings within the congressionally-mandated report to the President and Congress. Additionally, UOCAVA requires that “not later than 90 days after the date of each regularly scheduled general election for Federal office, each state and unit of local government which administered the election shall (through the state, in the case of a unit of local government) submit a report to the EAC on the combined number of absentee ballots transmitted to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters for the election and the combined number of such ballots which were returned by such voters and cast in the election, and shall make such a report available to the general public.” States that complete and timely submit the UOCAVA section of the survey to the EAC will fulfill their UOCAVA reporting requirement under 52 U.S.C. 20302. In order to fulfill the above requirements, the EAC is seeking information relating to the period from the Federal general election day 2020 +1 through the November 2022 Federal general election. The EAC will provide the data regarding UOCAVA voting to FVAP after data collection is completed. This data sharing reduces burden on local election offices because FVAP does not have to conduct its own data collection to meet its reporting requirements.

Affected Public (Respondents): State or local governments, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Affected Public: State or local government.

Number of Respondents: 56.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Burden per Response: 235 hours per collection, 117.5 hours annualized.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 13,160 hours per collection, 6,580 hours annualized.

Frequency: Biennially.

Executive Order 14017 “America's Supply Chains” directs the Secretary of Energy to “submit a report on supply chains for the energy sector industrial base (as determined by the Secretary of Energy)” within one year of the date of the order 86 FR 11849 (February 24, 2021). This RFI seeks public input to inform DOE on approaches and actions needed to build resilient supply chains for the energy sector. Resilient supply chains as defined by the Executive Order 14017 means “supply chains that are secure and diverse—facilitating greater domestic production, a range of supply, built-in redundancies, adequate stockpiles, safe and secure digital networks, and a world-class American manufacturing base and workforce.”

DOE recognizes that meeting U.S. jobs, economic, and emissions goals (which include a 50-52% reduction in emissions by 2030 from a 2005 baseline and net zero greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050), will require a significant number of clean energy (and clean energy enabling) technologies to be deployed at a dramatically increasing scale at a time when other countries are expanding their clean energy sectors. DOE has identified technologies and crosscutting topics for analysis in the timeframe set by the Executive Order. The list of the selected technology sectors includes solar photovoltaic (PV); wind; electric grid, including transformers and high-voltage direct current (HVDC); energy storage; hydropower, including pumped storage hydropower (PSH); nuclear energy; fuel cells and electrolyzers; semiconductors; neodymium magnets; platinum group metals and other catalysts; and carbon capture materials. Crosscutting topics include cybersecurity and digital components, and commercialization and competitiveness. DOE has additional ongoing supply chain analysis on other technologies and topics as well. For this effort, DOE is reviewing the full supply chain—from raw materials, processed materials, subcomponents, final products, to end-of-life material recovery and recycling—for each technology. DOE is taking an in-depth assessment in each of the selected technologies, including:

○ Mapping the supply chains;

○ Identifying existing and future threats, risks, and vulnerabilities;

○ Identifying major barriers, including financial and commercial, scientific, technical, regulatory and market;

○ Identifying conditions needed to help incentivize energy sector companies and communities to both transfer energy manufacturing back to and scale up supply chains in the United States.

○ Identifying areas where collaboration between the government and private sector, as well as between government entities (federal, state, local, and Tribal), is necessary to expand the energy industrial base, what private sector leadership might look like in this area, and where or how government can help; and

○ Identifying specific actions to address threats, risks, and vulnerabilities and help build resilient supply chains.

This RFI seeks input from all stakeholders involved directly and indirectly in the supply chains of energy and energy efficiency technologies—including but not limited to U.S. industry, researchers, academia, local governments, labor organizations, and civil society. This stakeholder input will inform the Department's efforts to build an energy sector industrial base that is diverse, resilient, and competitive while meeting economic, national security, and climate objectives.

This RFI seeks responses on the energy sector industrial base and individual technologies as well as crosscutting topics. Specifically, DOE is interested in gathering information relevant to the following topic areas:

This RFI is an initial step in improving DOE understanding of interests, concerns, challenges, and policy needs of the private sector and communities at large, with respect to manufacturing supply chains of the evolving energy sector industrial base. This RFI is a general solicitation for public input, which sets forth topics for discussion and comment. Specific questions to which responses are requested for each focus area are listed below. Respondents may provide input regarding any or all the topic areas and may address any or all the questions.

The concept of the “energy sector industrial base” as a defined group of critical industry partners does not currently exist in the same way that it does for the Defense Industrial Base. The one-year reports responding to Executive Order 14017 present an opportunity to define the energy sector industrial base.

This section targets crosscutting/technology neutral input; for technology specific comments, please respond in the respective technology in Area 2 to Area 13.

1. How would you define the energy sector industrial base? For the purposes of informing comprehensive supply chain policies—including promoting supply chain resilience—what entities are included or not included in the energy sector industrial base?

2. For adoption of clean energy technologies in the United States, what are the crosscutting vulnerabilities and gaps in the supply chain and manufacturing capabilities given the likely ramp-up in demand for these technologies?

3. What are opportunities to expand domestic energy-related manufacturing in the United States? What conditions will lead manufacturers to reshore or expand domestic clean energy manufacturing?

4. How can the government partner with the private sector and communities to build domestic energy manufacturing capabilities? What investments and other policy mechanisms are needed to enable these partnerships?

5. How can policies and programs that support domestic energy manufacturing also support workforce opportunities and the creation of competitive, long-term manufacturing careers, especially for communities impacted by energy transition?

1. What are the current and future supply chain gaps and vulnerabilities as we scale up the adoption and use of solar PV technologies? Of these gaps and vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and focus on and why?

2. Where in the solar PV supply chain does it make sense for the U.S. to focus and prioritize its efforts both in the short-term and the long-term, and why? Where in the supply chain do you see opportunities for the U.S. to build durable domestic capabilities of solar PV manufacturing? For areas in the supply chain where U.S. opportunities to build domestic manufacturing capabilities are limited, which foreign countries or regions should the U.S. government prioritize for engagement to strengthen/build reliable partnerships, and what actions should the government take to help ensure resilience in these areas of the supply chain?

3. What challenges limit the U.S.'s ability to realize opportunities to build domestic solar PV manufacturing? What conditions are needed to help incentivize companies involved in the solar PV supply chains to build and expand domestic manufacturing capabilities?

4. How can government (federal, state, local, and Tribal) help the private sector and communities involved in solar PV manufacturing build and expand domestic solar PV manufacturing in the U.S.? What investment and policy actions are needed to support domestic manufacturing of solar PV?

5. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support the solar PV manufacturing supply chain? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the solar PV workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

6. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

The following questions may have different applicability to land-based wind and offshore wind. In your response, please note whether the response is applicable to land-based wind, offshore wind, or both.

1. What are the current and future supply chain vulnerabilities as we scale up the adoption and use of wind energy technologies? Of these vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and focus on and why?

2. Where in the wind energy technology supply chain does it make sense for the U.S. to focus and prioritize its efforts both in the short-term and the long-term, and why? Where in the supply chain do you see opportunities for the U.S to build domestic capabilities of wind energy technology manufacturing? What areas of the supply chain should the U.S. not prioritize for attraction or expansion of domestic manufacturing capabilities, and why? For areas in the supply chain where U.S. opportunities to build domestic manufacturing capabilities are limited, which foreign countries or regions should the U.S. government prioritize for engagement to strengthen/build reliable partnerships, and what actions should the government take to help ensure resilience in these areas of the supply chain?

3. What challenges limit the U.S.'s ability to realize these opportunities to attract or expand land-based or offshore wind energy technology manufacturing in the U.S.? What conditions are needed to help incentivize companies involved in the wind energy technology supply chains to both attract and expand wind energy technology manufacturing in the U.S.?

4. How can the federal government help the private sector and interested communities attract and expand land-based or offshore wind energy technology manufacturing in U.S.? What investment and policy actions are needed to support domestic manufacturing of wind energy technologies?

5. In implementing policy to support expansion of the domestic wind energy technology supply chain, how should the federal government prioritize tier 1 (major components such as nacelles, blades, towers, or offshore foundations) and lower-tier (other components, subcomponents, raw and processed material inputs) manufacturing? Do you agree with this tiering? If not, why?

6. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support wind (onshore and offshore) energy technology manufacturing supply chains? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the wind energy workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

7. How can the federal government most effectively expand and improve logistics networks for large wind energy technology components, both land-based and offshore? For land-based wind energy technology, how could the federal government ease transportation of large components across jurisdictions ( e.g., R&D to modularize components, funding for permit harmonization, funding for specific infrastructure improvements to allow for greater throughput and/or movement of larger components)? For offshore wind energy technology, how can the federal government best support the development of Jones Act-compliant vessels and necessary port infrastructure?

8. How can the federal government most effectively support increasing circularity (collection and reuse, remanufacturing or refurbishing, and recycling) in wind energy technologies and supply chains, especially for rare-earth element magnets and hard-to-recycle components such as blades?

9. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

1. What are the current and future supply chain vulnerabilities as we scale up the adoption and use of energy storage technologies? Of these vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and focus on and why?

2. Which storage technologies have the greatest chance of achieving long-duration storage targets (>10 hours) and what specific supply chain vulnerabilities are present for these technologies?

3. Where in the energy storage technology supply chain does it make sense for the U.S. to focus and prioritize its efforts both in the short-term and long-term, and why? Where in the supply chain do you see opportunities for the U.S to build domestic capabilities of energy storage technology manufacturing? What areas of the supply chain should the U.S. not prioritize for attraction or expansion of domestic manufacturing capabilities, and why? For areas in the supply chain where U.S. opportunities to build domestic manufacturing capabilities are limited, which foreign countries or regions should the U.S. government prioritize for engagement to strengthen/build reliable partnerships, and what actions should the government take to help ensure resilience in these areas of the supply chain?

4. What challenges limit the U.S.'s ability to realize these opportunities to build domestic energy storage technology manufacturing? What conditions are needed to help incentivize companies involved in the energy storage technology supply chains to build and expand domestic manufacturing capabilities?

5. How can government help the private sector and communities involved in energy storage technology manufacturing build and expand domestic manufacturing? What investment and policy actions are needed to support domestic manufacturing of energy storage technologies?

6. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support the energy storage technology manufacturing supply chain? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the energy storage technology workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

7. How can the government help increase the market demand for responsibly sourced materials ( e.g., sustainable or recycled) for energy storage technologies? What mechanisms exist to encourage the use of these materials and recycling/reuse solutions? How can the federal government most effectively support increasing circularity (collection, reuse or processing, and recycling) in energy storage technologies and supply chains?

8. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

1. What are the current and future supply chain vulnerabilities given the anticipated growth in demand for electric grid technologies to support decarbonization, particularly large power transformers (LPT) and high-voltage, direct current technology (HVDC)? Of the vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and focus on and why?

2. Where in the supply chain does it make sense for the U.S to focus and prioritize its efforts both in the short-term and the long-term, and why? Where in the supply chain do you see opportunities for the U.S to build domestic capabilities of LPT and HVDC manufacturing? What areas of the supply chain should the U.S. not prioritize for attraction or expansion of domestic manufacturing capabilities, and why? For areas in the supply chain where U.S. opportunities to build domestic manufacturing capabilities are limited, which foreign countries or regions should the U.S. government prioritize for engagement to strengthen/build reliable partnerships, and what actions should the government take to help ensure resilience in these areas of the supply chain?

3. What challenges limit the U.S.'s ability to realize these opportunities to build domestic LPT and HVDC manufacturing? What conditions are needed to help incentivize companies involved in the LPT and HVDC supply chains to build and expand domestic manufacturing capabilities?

4. How can government help the private sector and communities involved in energy storage manufacturing build and expand domestic manufacturing capabilities? What investment and policy actions are needed to support domestic manufacturing of LPT and HVDC?

5. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support the LPT and HVDC manufacturing supply chain? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the LPT and HVDC workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

6. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

* Hydropower refers to hydropower and pumped storage hydropower.

1. What are the current and future supply chain vulnerabilities given the anticipated growth in demand for hydropower technology to support decarbonization? Of these vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and focus on and why?

2. Are there any hydropower generation plant components that are critical to operations and depend on extended supply chains ( e.g., long time needed to procure a replacement for the component)? Do any of the critical-to-operation components with extended supply chains have a high risk of failure or the potential to negatively impact entire plant operations? Which components are harder to procure domestically (meaning domestically manufactured) and typically need to be imported?

3. Do you have concerns about “extinct” supply chains where components need to be produced on an ad hoc basis from bespoke component developers? Are there components that have a long lead time because they have to be fabricated? Are components ( e.g., programmable logic controllers (PLCs)) being replaced before the end of their useful life because of supply chain risks ( e.g., manufacturers no longer supporting certain legacy equipment, not producing replacement parts for it anymore)?

4. For components that are not unique to hydropower plants ( e.g., batteries, transformers), have there been shortages or difficulties for hydropower plants to secure the components due to competition from other uses within the electric generation sector ( e.g., wind and solar generation, batteries for grid storage)?

5. Where in the supply chain does it make sense for the U.S to focus and prioritize its efforts both in the short-term and long-term, and why? Where in the supply chain do you see opportunities for the U.S. to build the domestic supply chain of hydropower technology component manufacturing? What areas of the supply chain should the U.S. not prioritize for attraction or expansion of domestic manufacturing capabilities, and why? For areas in the supply chain where U.S. opportunities to build domestic manufacturing capabilities are limited, which foreign countries or regions should the U.S. government prioritize for engagement to strengthen/build reliable partnerships, and what actions should the government take to help ensure resilience in these areas of the supply chain?

6. What challenges limit the U.S.'s ability to realize these opportunities for domestic hydropower technology component manufacturing in the U.S.? What conditions are needed to help incentivize companies involved in the hydropower technology components manufacturing to build and expand operations in the U.S.?

7. How can government help the private sector and communities involved in hydropower components manufacturing onshore and scale up hydropower components manufacturing in the U.S.? What investment and policy actions are needed to support domestic manufacturing of hydropower technology component manufacturing?

8. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support the hydropower technology manufacturing supply chain? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the hydropower workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

9. How are hydropower plant components disposed of at the end of their operational life? Are there practices already in place or being considered to contribute to a circular economy  1 approach involving recycling? What barriers are associated with recycling and reuse of hydropower components? How can the federal government most effectively support increasing circularity (collection, reuse or processing, and recycling) of hydropower components?

10. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

1. What are the current and future supply chain vulnerabilities as we continue operation of existing commercial nuclear reactors and accelerate the deployment of new reactor technologies? Of these vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and focus on and why?

2. Where in the supply chain does it make sense for the U.S. to focus and prioritize its efforts both in the short-term and long-term, and why? Where in the supply chain do you see opportunities for the U.S. to build domestic capabilities of nuclear energy technology manufacturing? What areas of the supply chain should the U.S. not prioritize for attraction or expansion of domestic manufacturing capabilities, and why? For areas in the supply chain where opportunities to build domestic manufacturing capabilities are limited, which foreign countries or regions should the U.S. government prioritize for engagement to strengthen/build reliable partnerships, and what actions should the government take to help ensure resilience in these areas of the supply chain?

3. What challenges limit the U.S.'s ability to realize these opportunities to build the domestic nuclear energy technology supply chain? What conditions are needed to help incentivize companies involved in the nuclear energy technology supply chain to build and expand domestic manufacturing capabilities?

4. How can government help the private sector and communities involved in nuclear energy technology manufacturing build and expand domestic manufacturing? What investment and policy actions are needed to support onshoring the nuclear energy supply chain?

5. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support the nuclear energy technology supply chain? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the nuclear energy technology workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

6. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

1. What are the current and future supply chain vulnerabilities for fuel cells and electrolyzers? Of these vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and focus on and why?

2. Where in the fuel cell and electrolyzer supply chain does it make sense for the U.S to focus and prioritize its efforts in the short-, medium-, and long-term and why? Where in the supply chain do you see opportunities for the U.S. to build domestic capabilities of fuel cell and electrolyzer manufacturing? What areas of the supply chain should the U.S. not prioritize for attraction or expansion of domestic manufacturing capabilities, and why? For areas in the supply chain where U.S. opportunities to build domestic manufacturing capabilities are limited, which foreign countries or regions should the U.S. government prioritize for engagement to strengthen/build reliable partnerships, and what actions should the government take to help ensure resilience in these areas of the supply chain?

3. What challenges limit the ability to expand domestic fuel cell and electrolyzer manufacturing capacity?

4. What conditions (economic drivers, policies, or investment) are needed to help incentivize companies involved in the fuel cell and electrolyzer supply chains to build and expand domestic manufacturing capabilities? What will be needed to double and eventually increase manufacturing capacity by an order of magnitude?

5. What conditions (economic drivers, policies, or investment) are needed to ensure the long-term health of domestic fuel cell and electrolyzer supply chains? What will be needed to prevent future issues in that supply chain?

6. How can the U.S. government help the fuel cell and electrolyzer industry build and expand domestic manufacturing capabilities? What economic drivers, investment, and policy actions will help accelerate domestic fuel cell and electrolyzer manufacturing?

7. What conditions (economic drivers, policies, or investment) are needed to increase recycling/re-use of critical materials and components for fuel cells and electrolyzers and minimize supply disruptions? How can the U.S. government facilitate the reduction of critical material requirements and increase recyclability at end-of-life for fuel cells and electrolyzers?

8. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support the fuel cell and electrolyzer supply chain? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the fuel cell and electrolyzer technology workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

9. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

1. What is the current state of U.S. and global supply chains for both conventional semiconductors used in data and sensor applications related to the energy sector and wide bandgap semiconductors used for controlling power flow in power electronics applications? What are the current and future semiconductor supply chain vulnerabilities as we scale up our efforts to transform the energy sector (energy supply, energy efficiency, demand technologies, grid, fuels, etc.) to support decarbonization? Of these vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and focus on and why?

2. For both conventional and wide bandgap semiconductors used in the energy sector, where in the supply chain does it make sense for the U.S. to focus and prioritize its efforts both in the short-term and the long-term, and why? Where in the supply chain do you see opportunities for the U.S. to build domestic capabilities for semiconductors manufacturing? What areas of the supply chain should the U.S. not prioritize for attraction or expansion of domestic manufacturing capabilities, and why? For areas in the supply chain where U.S. opportunities to build domestic manufacturing capabilities are limited, which foreign countries or regions should the U.S. government prioritize for engagement to strengthen/build reliable partnerships, and what actions should the government take to help ensure resilience in these areas of the supply chain?

3. What challenges limit the U.S.'s ability to realize opportunities to build domestic semiconductor manufacturing? What conditions are needed to help incentivize companies involved in the semiconductor supply chains to build domestic manufacturing capabilities and scale up manufacturing? How do these challenges and conditions differ between conventional and wide bandgap semiconductors?

4. How can government help private sector and communities involved in semiconductor manufacturing build domestic manufacturing capabilities and scale up semiconductor manufacturing? What specific government policies or investments will be most important in supporting semiconductor manufacturing and supply chain resilience?

5. What are opportunities for improving energy efficiency in semiconductors? How can the government help the private sector achieve competitive advantages in domestic manufacturing of more energy efficient semiconductors?

6. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support semiconductor manufacturing? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the semiconductor technology workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

7. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

1. What are the current and future supply chain vulnerabilities as we scale up our efforts to the transform the energy sector to support decarbonization (such as significant increases in demand for magnets in direct drive or hybrid wind turbines and traction motors for electric vehicles)? Of these vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and focus on and why? Are there supply chain vulnerabilities associated with manufacturing equipment, and, if so, what are they?

2. Where in the supply chain does it make sense for the U.S. to focus and prioritize its efforts both in the short-term and long-term and why? Where in the supply chain do you see opportunities for the U.S. to build domestic capabilities for manufacturing neodymium magnets—with an emphasis on the manufacturing of sintered neodymium-iron-boron magnets used in electric vehicle traction motors and wind turbine drives? What areas of the supply chain should the U.S. not prioritize for attraction or expansion of domestic manufacturing capabilities, and why? For areas in supply chain where U.S. opportunities to build domestic manufacturing capabilities are limited, which foreign countries or regions should the U.S. government prioritize for engagement to strengthen/build reliable partnerships, and what actions should the government take to help ensure resilience in these areas of the supply chain?

3. What challenges limit the U.S.'s ability to realize these opportunities to build domestic neodymium magnets manufacturing? What conditions are needed to help incentivize companies involved in the neodymium magnets supply chains to build and expand domestic manufacturing capabilities?

4. What factors are necessary to promote resiliency in different stages of the magnet supply chain for neodymium magnets, and how can the U.S. government incentivize these factors?

5. How can government help the private sector and communities involved in neodymium magnet manufacturing build and expand domestic manufacturing capabilities? What specific government policies or investments will be most important in supporting neodymium magnets manufacturing and supply chain resilience?

6. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support magnet manufacturing? How long does it take to train this workforce? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the magnet technology workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

7. What happens to neodymium magnets when associated end products reach the end-of-life? What barriers, if any, exist in collection of magnets containing products for eventual recycling or recovery? How can the federal government most effectively support increasing circularity (collection, reuse or processing, and recycling) of neodymium magnets?

8. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

1. What are the current and future supply chain vulnerabilities of platinum group metals (PGM) catalysts as we scale up the adoption and use of industrial decarbonization technologies and energy storage technologies, including fuel cell, electrolyzer, and chemical manufacturing technologies?

2. Where in the PGM catalysts supply chain does it make sense for the U.S. to focus and prioritize its efforts both in short-term and long-term and why?

3. If the U.S. had domestic PGM separation capacity, to what extent would this improve the ability of domestic mines (or secondary producers) to be competitive? To what extent would this improve the ability of domestic catalyst producers to be more competitive?

4. How can government help private sector and communities scale up the production of PGM catalysts needed for manufacturing in the U.S.? What specific government policies or investments will be most important in supporting PGM catalysts manufacturing for industrial decarbonization technologies, energy storage applications, and supply chain resilience?

5. How do the compositions and manufacturing processes of PGM catalysts for fuel cells and electrolyzers differ from those of PGM catalysts used in catalytic converters? How difficult is it for catalyst manufacturing facilities to produce multiple types of catalysts?

6. What is the recovery and reuse potential of PGM used in catalytic converter, fuel cell, electrolyzer, and chemical manufacturing technologies? What technological challenges exist to recover PGM from catalysts and incorporate PGM into different applications of catalysts? What are the areas of opportunities for the U.S. to onshore the supply chain of PGM manufacturing for catalytic applications, including catalytic converters, fuel cells, electrolyzer technologies, and chemical manufacturing?

7. What happens to PGM catalysts when fuel cells and electrolyzers reach the end-of-life? Are there any known barriers to recycling materials from electrolyzers and fuel cells at the end-of-life? How does recycling of PGM from electrolyzers and fuel cells differ from recycling PGM from catalytic converters? How can the federal government most effectively support increasing circularity (collection, reuse or processing, and recycling) of PGM catalysts?

8. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support PGM catalyst manufacturing? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the PGM catalyst workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

9. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

1. Which materials do you consider critical for carbon capture, conversion, transport, and storage technologies? Will this change as the U.S. scales up deployment over the next 30 years? Are there substitutes for these materials, and can they be ready for large scale deployment in 10, 20 years? What policies or government actions can help incentivize domestic production of these critical materials as well as production of substitutes?

2. For carbon capture, what materials are needed for the commercial and emerging separation process and balance of plant? What is the current domestic and global capacity to manufacture these materials, and is growth reasonable to meet demand in the next 10 to 20 years?

3. For carbon conversion, what materials are necessary for the transformation of CO 2 into other products? Are catalysts and reactants readily available in the market? Are there known barriers to the availability or scaling up for the market to provide the materials if adopted at scales necessary to decarbonize?

4. For transport, are there specific critical materials necessary for the coating and compressors for pipeline infrastructure systems? Are there supply chain issues related to obtaining these materials?

5. For carbon storage, what are the specific critical materials necessary for non-reactive cements and well bore casings necessary to meet the existing underground injection control regulations? Are there barriers to increasing supply and manufacturing capacity for rapid deployment of carbon capture and storage?

6. What are the current and future supply chain vulnerabilities as the U.S. scales up the adoption and use of the carbon capture and conversion technologies needed to transform the energy and manufacturing sectors to a low carbon future? Of these vulnerabilities, which are the most crucial for the U.S. to address and why?

7. Which carbon capture, conversion, transport, and storage materials should the government focus and prioritize its efforts on both in the short-term and the long-term, and why?

8. What specific skills are needed for the workforce to support production of carbon capture, conversion, transport, and storage materials or critical materials production in general? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the carbon capture and utilization technology workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

9. What other input should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of this technology?

For purposes of this supply chain review, digital components in the energy sector industrial base include firmware, software, virtual platforms and service, data, and industrial control systems. Please include any comments on this scoping in your response.

1. How should the government approach hardening of digital component supply chains for the energy sector industrial base against physical and virtual tampering and national security threats? How should the federal government prioritize protection of digital component supply chains?

2. Cyber threats to the critical infrastructure, including an explosion in Ransomware attacks, is a growing national security concern that can be enabled through digital component supply chain vulnerabilities, and there are several national initiatives underway to counter this threat. Are there energy sector-specific considerations or priorities the government should consider to support hardening of digital component supply chains against cyber threats including the use of ransomware?

3. What steps should the government take to improve the trustworthiness of digital components in the energy sector industrial base and reduce reliance on untrusted software suppliers, integrators, and maintenance?

4. Global digital component supply chains are highly dynamic and complex. What policies should the government pursue to illuminate provenance of digital components in energy sector systems? For example, who developed software, or hosts digital platforms, or curated data sets, and in what country? Who maintains these digital assets (if anyone) and who may have continuing access for maintenance? How should the government approach prioritizing digital components and/or systems to illuminate or examine components to manage supply chain risk?

5. Providers of digital components may not have the same supply chain security requirements as asset owners in the energy sector. Given the interconnected nature and transitive risk among different digital components that comprise energy sector systems, how should the government address gaps and/or ensure consistency for supply chain security requirements for digital components?

6. An increasing trend in the energy sector is remote operation of systems. What policy steps should the government take to ensure the supply chain security of platforms and services used to operate critical functions in the energy sector?

7. Aggregated and curated data has become a valuable global commodity ( e.g., data as a service) and is now a critical part of global digital supply chains. Data presents a cyber supply chain risk similar to that posed by software; specifically, malicious manipulation can cause significant and nearly impossible-to-detect system failures. With the increasing application of artificial intelligence/machine learning capabilities to energy sector systems, what policy steps could the government take to manage the cyber supply chain risk of data?

8. How can the government encourage and/or incentivize private sector owners and operators of energy sector critical infrastructure to include more national security risk considerations in their business risk decisions?

9. What specific skills are needed to develop and increase the workforce to support building, operating, and maintaining secure digital components for the energy sector industrial base? For example, is there a skills gap and/or supply gap in the workforce that develops and maintains software for industrial control systems? Of those skills, which ones are lacking in current education/training programs? What resources (including time) and structures would be needed to train the cybersecurity workforce? What worker groups, secondary education facilities, and other stakeholders could be valuable partners in these training activities? What new education programs should be included (developed?) to prepare the workforce?

10. What other input the should the federal government be aware of to support a resilient supply chain of cybersecurity and digital components?

1. What data, methodologies, and metrics can help assess current and future competitive advantages for clean energy technologies?

2. What existing economic and market analysis do you rely on to assess current and projected technology market demand?

3. Where do you see opportunities for government actions to shift business-as-usual investment and market trends in a way that is supportive of resilient domestic supply chains?

4. For what clean technologies and applications does the U.S. currently have a competitive advantage over other countries?

5. For what clean technologies and applications is the U.S. significantly at a disadvantage over other countries? What moves are other governments making to increase their advantage over the U.S.?

6. Where might additional federal investment or policy support U.S. leadership in particular clean technology categories or sectors in the next ten years? What specific investment or policy action will be needed to support these technologies?

7. What frameworks can help assess the relative competitiveness and commercialization potential of various clean technologies?

8. What do you see as important nascent markets and technologies that may see significant growth in the next 10-15 years? What specific policies can help support U.S. leadership in these technologies and sectors?

9. Given the complexity of global supply chains, how do you assess the costs and benefits of various global supply chain patterns and dynamics, including concentrations of supply and demand?

10. How do U.S. trade policies impact the commercialization and competitiveness of clean technologies in the U.S.? Where might changes to trade policy positively impact U.S. competitiveness in clean tech sectors?

11. What new and innovative actions can the government take to encourage commercialization of U.S. innovation and increase U.S. competitiveness?

12. What non-economic and non-financial factors are most significant in determining U.S. competitiveness in a given clean technology sector?

Submit all electronic public comments to this RFI to www.regulations.gov/docket/DOE-HQ-2021-0020. Click on the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. If you are unable to submit online, you may submit by email to supplychain@hq.doe.gov. Responses must be received by 5:00 p.m. on January 15, 2022, for immediate consideration. Only electronic responses will be accepted. Comments and documents submitted will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov.

Please identify your answers by responding to a specific question or topic, if applicable. Please clearly state the specific question to which you are responding. All assumptions, including any assumed government support, shall be clearly identified. All proprietary and restricted information shall be clearly marked. Respondents may answer as many or as few questions as they wish. DOE will not respond to individual submissions. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed.

Submitting comments via email. Please include in the subject line “RFI: Supply Chain Review.”

Responses must be provided as attachments to an email.

It is recommended that attachments with file sizes exceeding 25MB be compressed ( i.e., zipped) to ensure message delivery; however, no email shall exceed a total of 45MB, including all attachments. Responses must be provided as a Microsoft Word (.docx) or Portable Document Format (.pdf) attachment to the email, and no more than 10 pages in length, 12-point font, 1-inch margins. Please provide the following information in a cover letter:

If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

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

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

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

DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov before posting. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

This RFI is not a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), prize, or any other type of solicitation; therefore, DOE is not accepting applications at this time. DOE may issue a FOA or other solicitation in the future based on or related to the content and responses to this RFI; however, DOE may also elect not to issue a FOA or solicitation. There is no guarantee that a FOA or solicitation will be issued as a result of this RFI. Responding to this RFI does not provide any advantage or disadvantage to potential applicants if DOE chooses to issue a FOA regarding the subject matter. Final details, including the anticipated award size, quantity, and timing of DOE funded awards, will be subject to Congressional appropriations and direction.

Any information obtained as a result of this RFI is intended to be used by the Government on a non-attribution basis for planning and strategy development. This RFI does not constitute a formal solicitation for proposals or abstracts. Your response to this notice will be treated as information only. DOE will review and consider all responses in its formulation of program strategies for the identified materials of interest that are the subject of this request. DOE will not provide reimbursement for costs incurred in responding to this RFI. Respondents are advised that DOE is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do not bind DOE to any further actions related to this topic.

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

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

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on November 18, 2021, by Carla Frisch, Acting Executive Director and Principal Deputy Director, Office of Policy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

1. Title: Application for Consent to Exercise Trust Powers.

OMB Number: 3064-0025.

Form Number: 6200-09.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks wishing to exercise trust powers.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: FDIC regulations (12 CFR 333.2) prohibit any insured State nonmember bank from changing the general character of its business without the prior written consent of the FDIC. The exercise of trust powers by a bank is usually considered a change in the general character of a bank's business if the bank did not exercise those powers previously. Therefore, unless a bank is currently exercising trust powers, it must file a formal application to obtain the FDIC's written consent to exercise trust powers. State banking authorities, not the FDIC, grant trust powers to their banks. The FDIC merely consents to the exercise of such powers. Applicants use form FDIC 6200/09 to obtain FDIC's consent. There is no change in the methodology or substance of this information collection. The decrease in total estimated annual burden from 168 hours in 2018 to 72 hours currently is due to economic factors as reflected in the decrease in estimated number of respondents.

2. Title: Recordkeeping and Confirmation Requirements for Securities Transactions

OMB Number: 3064-0028.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: FDIC-Insured Institutions and Certain Employees of the FDIC-Insured Institutions.

Burden Estimate:

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 8,983 hours.

General Description of Collection: The collection of information requirements are contained in 12 CFR part 344. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that purchasers of securities in transactions affected by insured state nonmember banks are provided with adequate records concerning the transactions. The regulation is also designed to ensure that insured state nonmember banks maintain adequate records and controls with respect to the securities transactions they effect. Finally, this regulation requires officers and employees of FDIC-supervised institutions to report to the FDIC supervised institution certain personal securities trading activity.

Sections 344.4, 344.5, and 344.6 refer to reporting and third party disclosure burdens associated with confirmation of securities transactions. The FDIC assumes that banks automate notifications to customers of securities transactions, and would automate these notifications even if 12 CFR 344 were not in place. The automation includes the recordkeeping and disclosure of the confirmation of securities transactions. As such, FDIC believes that the activities associated with sections 344.4, 344.5, and 344.6 are all done in the ordinary course business, and do not represent PRA burden.

Potential respondents to this IC are all FDIC-supervised institutions that effect securities transactions for customers. Respondents include institutions that conduct securities transactions themselves or that conduct securities transactions through a broker/dealer. To estimate the annual number of respondents, FDIC referenced the number of FDIC-supervised institutions that reported exercising fiduciary powers as of the first quarter of 2021, 1 which is reported on item 2 of Call Report Schedule RC-T.

As of March 31, 2021, 691 FDIC-supervised institutions reported exercising fiduciary powers. 2 These 691 entities are subject to the PRA requirements in 12 CFR 344.8. Thus, FDIC estimates 691 respondents to the line items corresponding to this section. In the previous renewal of this information collection, the FDIC estimated 680 respondents to this IC; this estimate was derived by counting the number of FDIC-supervised institutions with income from securities brokerage activity. The increase in the estimated number of respondents from 680 to 691 is a result of a change in estimation methodology due to a change in the call report reporting requirements. 3

The line item corresponding to 12 CFR 344.9 applies to officers and employees of FDIC-supervised institutions who “make investment recommendations or decisions for the accounts of customers; participate in the determination of such recommendations or decisions; or in connection with their duties, obtain information concerning which securities are being purchased or sold or recommend such action.”  5 Excluded from this requirement are “transactions for the benefit of the officer or employee over which the officer or employee has no direct or indirect influence or control; transactions in registered investment company shares; transactions in government securities; and all transactions involving in the aggregate $10,000 or less during the calendar quarter.”  6 The FDIC does not currently have access to data on how many officers or employees are required to report trading activities in which they have a beneficial interest in accordance with Section 344.9. In the estimate for the previous ICR, it was assumed that five officers or employees per FDIC-supervised institution affected by this IC who would respond to this line item. Based on supervisory experience, FDIC believes that most of the smaller FDIC-supervised institutions do not have any personnel subject to Section 344.9. 7 Accordingly, FDIC has reduced the assumed number of officers or employees per FDIC-supervised institution who would respond to this line item from five to three. FDIC therefore estimates 2,073 respondents per year to this line item. 8 This estimate constitutes a decrease of 1,327 in the estimated annual number of respondents to this IC.

Section 344.8 requires FDIC-supervised institutions to establish processes and procedures for assigning responsibility for supervising employees and officers who are involved with processing, documenting, and executing securities transactions for customers, and for ensuring equitable treatment of parties to a security transaction, and of customers who submit orders for the same security or securities at approximately the same time. Policies and procedures are generally reviewed and updated annually. FDIC therefore estimate one response per respondent to this line item as FDIC believes that institutions are more likely to update their policies and procedures annually rather than monthly. This estimate represents a decrease of 11 responses per respondent.

FDIC has also revised its estimate of the time required to respond to the requirements of Section 344.8 to one hour per response. This estimate represents an increase of 0.75 hours per response from the estimate included in the 2018 renewal and is based on the FDIC's experience with this information collection. FDIC estimates one hour per response for the burden related to Section 344.9. This estimate represents a decrease of 0.5 hours per response from the estimate included in the 2018 renewal and is also based on the FDIC's experience with this information collection.

The total estimated annual burden for this information collection is 8,983 hours, which is a decrease of 56,297 hours from the estimate included in the previous renewal.

3. Title: Customer Assistance Forms.

OMB Number: 3064-0134.

Form Numbers: 6422-04; -6422/11; 6422/15.

Affected Public: Individuals, Households, Business or Financial Institutions.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 1,468 hours.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: This collection facilitates the collection of information from customers of financial institutions that have inquiries or complaints about service. Customers or businesses may document their complaints or inquiries to the FDIC using a letter or optional forms (Form 6422/04; Form 6422/11; Form 6422/15). The Forms are used to facilitate online completion and submission of the complaints or inquiries and to shorten FDIC response times by making it easier to identify the nature of the complaint and to route the customer or business inquiry to the appropriate FDIC contact. There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is the result of economic fluctuation.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Proposal to amend the following currently approved collection of information:

1. Title: Information Collection for Innovation Pilot Programs.

OMB Number: 3064-0212.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: FDIC-supervised and -insured institutions and other members of the public that provide information to innovators in connection with innovation pilot programs.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: The FDIC seeks to engage and collaborate with innovators in the financial, non-financial, and technology sectors to, among other things, identify, develop and promote technology-driven innovations among community and other banks in a manner that ensures the safety and soundness of FDIC-supervised and -insured institutions. An innovation pilot program framework will provide a regulatory environment in which the FDIC, in conjunction with individual proposals collected from innovators, will provide tailored regulatory and supervisory assistance, when appropriate, to facilitate the testing of innovative and advanced technologies, products, services, systems, or activities.

The FDIC anticipates that products developed as part of innovation pilot programs will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of bank operations, and eventually, examinations, while increasing transparency and ultimately reducing the cost of regulatory compliance for participating institutions. In addition, the FDIC anticipates that proposals provided in connection with the innovation pilot programs will involve cutting-edge innovations and novel approaches or applications involving a banking product, service, system, or activity that benefits and can lead to better outcomes for consumers.

As part of an innovation pilot program, innovators may request information from banks and other members of the public outside of their normal course of business. Any information provided by banks and other members of the public will be provided on a voluntary basis. FDIC staff may similarly request information on a voluntary basis from banks or other members of the public to evaluate the products or services developed in the pilot programs. This information is intended to allow banks and the FDIC to analyze the health of the overall banking system, critical financial sectors, or national, regional or local economic conditions ( i.e., horizontal analysis). Additionally, bank specific information may be collected in order to allow for better insights into current and escalating risks across all aspects of banking. In particular, innovators may request from banks and other members of the public general ledger information about all products and services, or a subset of products and services, systems or activities. Information requested will not contain any personally identifiable information (PII) as defined in OMB Circular A-130 or include the disclosure of any financial records or information which is identified with or identifiable as being derived from the financial records of a particular customer.

The annual burden for this information collection is estimated to be 40,000 hours. This represents an increase of hours from the current burden estimate and also a change in focus. In particular, when this information collection was first obtained, it included the burden imposed on the innovators and partner banks. In review of this information collection, the FDIC has decided to transfer the burden imposed on innovators to existing information collection 3064-0072 entitled, “Acquisition Services Information Requirements,” which is related to the FDIC's procurement process. The remaining hours in this information collection, which have been updated and increased, reflect the burden imposed on banks and other members of the public in connection with innovation pilot programs.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will meet in open session for a special meeting:

Location: Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage ( www.asc.gov ) and access the provided registration link in the What's New box. You MUST register in advance to attend this Meeting.

Date: December 8, 2021.

Time: 11:00 a.m. ET.

Status: Open.

Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage ( www.asc.gov ) and access the provided registration link in the What's New box. The meeting space is intended to accommodate public attendees. However, if the space will not accommodate all requests, the ASC may refuse attendance on that reasonable basis. The use of any video or audio tape recording device, photographing device, or any other electronic or mechanical device designed for similar purposes is prohibited at ASC Meetings.

Background: The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines that have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction, which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC.

The Advisory Board's charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and rechartered under Executive Order 13889 on March 22, 2020, and will terminate on March 22, 2022.

Purpose: The Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. SDRR was established to aid the Advisory Board in carrying out its duty to advise the Secretary, HHS, on dose reconstruction.

Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on the following dose reconstruction program quality management and assurance activities: Dose reconstruction cases under review from Sets 29 and 30, possibly including cases involving: Nevada test Site, Oak Ridge Institute for Science Education, Rocky Flats Plant, Idaho National Laboratory, Y-12 Plant, Clarksville Modification Center, Pantex Plant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10), Albuquerque Operations Office, General Atomics, Area IV of the Santa Susanna Field Laboratory, Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25), Savannah River Site (SRS), Hanford, SRS, X-10, Y-12 Plant, and General Steel Industries. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

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

Description: This descriptive study aims to provide insight into the models that have been used to centralize services; organizations' history of and impetus for centralizing services; the benefits, challenges, and costs of centralizing services from the perspectives of staff and clients; and how organizations have coordinated their centralized services virtually. This project will include site visits to three centralized community resource centers (CCRCs). The proposed information collection activities include interviews with staff, including leadership and administrative staff, frontline staff, finance staff, and IT/data staff, and focus groups with clients. The research team will also conduct observations of program activities.

Respondents: Respondents will include leadership and administrative staff at the CCRC, staff who manage finances at the CCRC, staff who manage data and/or technology at the CCRC, staff who provide services directly to clients at the CCRC, and clients who have accessed services at the CCRC.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 146.

Authority: Authorized by the Social Security Act 1110 [42 U.S.C. 1310], appropriated by the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2019.

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

The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and in fields of use that may be limited to treatment of limited number of monogenic inherited retinal diseases that affect the photoreceptors and/or retinal pigmented epithelium.

The above-listed patent portfolio covers inventions directed to gene therapy and specifically, expression vectors and therapeutic methods of using such vectors.

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

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

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

The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

In accordance with the PRA 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 June 28, 2021 (86 FR 34036). 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: This notice identifies an information collection activity that the Office of Financial Management has submitted to OMB for approval for the Department and its Bureaus and Offices to continue to collect information from proposed donors relative to their relationship(s) with the Department. The Department and its individual Bureaus and Offices have gift acceptance authorities. In support of the variety of donation authorities in the Department and increasing numbers of donations, in accordance with the Department of the Interior Donations Policy 374 DM 6, those proposing to donate gifts valued at $25,000 or more must provide information regarding their relationship with the Department. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the acceptance of a gift does not create legal or ethical issues for the Department, its Bureaus and Offices, or potential donors. The information will be gathered through the use of a form that collects information relevant to the acceptability of the proposed donation in conformance with the Department's donations policy. The Donor Certification form (DI-3680) is completed and certified by the prospective donor then submitted to the Department or its Bureau or Office for review. Having the donor certify their interactions with the Department gives the staff vetting the proposed donation basic information to be verified, resulting in a more efficient and timely donation review process.

Title of Collection: Donor Certification Form.

OMB Control Number: 1090-0009.

Form Number: DI-3680.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or households, Businesses, Not-for-profit institutions, Tribal governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 250.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 250.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 20 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 83 hours.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: Once per prospective donor per fiscal year.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

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

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

In accordance with the PRA 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 June 14, 2021 (86 FR 31523). 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: Regulations at 42 U.S.C. 4601, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, require Federal agencies acquiring real estate interests to provide relocation benefits to individuals and businesses displaced as a result of the acquisition. Forms DI-381, Claim For Relocation Payments—Residential, and DI-382, Claim For Relocation Payments—Nonresidential, along with the associated Schedules A, B, C, and D, permit the applicant to present allowable moving expenses and certify occupancy status, after having been displaced because of Federal acquisition of their real property.

The information required is obtained through application made by the displaced person or business to the funding agency for determination as to the specific amount of monies due under the law. The forms, through which application is made, require specific information since the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act allows for various amounts based upon each actual circumstance. Failure to make application to the agency would eliminate any basis for payment of claims. With this renewal we are making a small revision to item 3 of Schedule D (Reestablishment Expenses—Nonresidential). The form used to require a listing of expenses that are eligible for reimbursement under the law, and now we have provided an itemized list.

Title of Collection: Claim for Relocation Payments—Residential, DI-381 and Claim for Relocation Payments—Nonresidential, DI-382.

OMB Control Number: 1084-0010.

Form Number: Forms DI-381 and DI-382, associated Schedules A, B, C, and D.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and businesses who are displaced because of Federal acquisitions of their real property.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 24.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 24.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 50 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20 Hours.

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

Frequency of Collection: As needed.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: This collection does not have a nonhour cost burden.

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

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

The concession contracts listed in Table 1 below will expire by their terms on or before October 31, 2022. Under 36 CFR 51.23, the National Park Service proposes to extend each contract until the date shown in the “Extension Date” column or until the effective date of a new contract, whichever comes first. The National Park Service has determined that the proposed extensions are necessary to avoid an interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such an interruption. The extension of the existing contracts does not confer or affect any rights with respect to the award of new contracts.

The concession contracts listed in Table 2 below have been extended for the maximum time allowable under 36 CFR 51.23. Under the provisions of the existing contracts and pending the issuance of prospectuses and the completion of the public solicitation process to award new concession contracts, the National Park Service intends to continue the existing contracts for a period not to exceed one year beginning on January 1, 2022. Except for their expiration dates, the terms and conditions of the existing contracts will remain unchanged. The continuation of the existing contracts does not confer or affect any rights with respect to the award of new concession contracts.

The National Park Service proposes awarding temporary concession contracts, in accordance with 36 CFR 51.24(a), to provide the visitor services currently provided under the contracts listed in Table 3 below. Each temporary contract will have a term not to exceed three years, and each will be awarded to a qualified person. The National Park Service anticipates that the temporary contracts will be effective on the dates shown in the “Effective Date” column. This notice is not a request for proposals.

The publication of this notice reflects the intent of the National Park Service but does not bind the National Park Service to extend, continue, or award any of the contracts listed below.

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:

The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation. The ALJ recommended the issuance of a general exclusion order (“GEO”) directed to certain electric shavers and components and accessories thereof, with an explicit carveout to exempt the products of terminated respondents Benepuri LLC and Nukun Technology Co., Ltd. In the alternative, the ALJ recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) as to subject products imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by each defaulting respondent: (1) Suzhou Kaidiya Garments Trading Co., Ltd.; (2) Yiwu City Qiaoyu Trading Co., Ltd. (“Yiwu City”); (3) Wenzhou Wending Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.; (4) Shenzhen Aiweilai Trading Co., Ltd.; (5) Shenzhen Junmao International Technology Co., Ltd.; (6) Shenzhen Wantong Information Technology Co., Ltd.; (7) Yiwu Xingye Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yiwu Xingye”); and (8) Bald Shaver Inc. (“Bald Shaver”). 1 Regardless of whether a GEO or LEO issues, the ALJ also recommended the issuance of cease and desist orders as to defaulting respondents Yiwu City and Yiwu Xingye, based on findings that they, and not the other defaulting respondents, maintain a commercially significant inventory of subject products in the United States. The ALJ further recommended that bond during the Presidential review period be set at one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of subject products. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).

The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's ID/RD. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on December 18, 2021.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1230”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. ( See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf. ) Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 4, 2021, IsoSciences, LLC, 340 Mathers Road, Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002-3420, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 3, 2021, Patheon API Manufacturing, Inc., 309 Delaware Street, Greenville, South Carolina 29605-5420, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances as an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) for distribution to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 30, 2021, Pisgah Laboratories Inc., 3222 Old Hendersonville Highway, Pisgah Forest, North Carolina 28768, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

Corrections

In the Federal Register of March 2, 2021 (86 FR 12209-12217), correct the standard paragraph number as described below.

1. On page 12212, in the third column, in the section titled “III. Description of Conditions Specified for the Permanent Variance”, in the paragraph beginning “As previously indicated in this notice,” change “paragraph 1910.147(d)(4)(iii)” to “paragraph 1910.147(d)(3)”.

2. On page 12212, in the third column, in the section titled “III. Description of Conditions Specified for the Permanent Variance”, in the paragraph beginning “During the period starting with the August 5, 2020,” change “paragraph 1910.147(d)(4)(iii)” to “paragraph 1910.147(d)(3)”.

3. On page 12212, in the third column, in the section titled “III. Description of Conditions Specified for the Permanent Variance”, in the paragraph beginning “This section describes the conditions that comprise”, change “29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(iii)” to “29 CFR 1910.147(d)(3)”.

4. On page 12214, in the third column, in the section titled “IV. Decision”, in the paragraph beginning “As described earlier in this notice,” change “paragraphs 1910.147(d)(4)(iii)” to “paragraph 1910.147(d)(3)”.

5. On page 12214, in the third column, in the section titled “IV. Decision”, in the paragraph beginning “Further, under section 6(d) of the OSH Act”, change “paragraph 1910.147(d)(4)(iii)” to “paragraph 1910.147(d)(3)”.

6. On page 12215, in the first column, in the section titled “V. Order”, in the paragraph beginning “OSHA issues this final order” change “paragraphs 1910.147(d)(4)(iii)” to “paragraph 1910.147(d)(3)”.

The permanent variance granted to Gestamp remains in effect. This correction is being issued to clarify that the permanent variance is granted to paragraph 1910.147(d)(3) of the lockout/tagout standard, “ Machine or equipment isolation. All energy isolating devices that are needed to control the energy to the machine or equipment shall be physically located and operated in such a manner as to isolate the machine or equipment from the energy source(s).” The conditions and scope of the permanent variance remain unchanged.

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 655(d), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.5.

OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of SGS of North America, Inc. (SGS), as a NRTL. SGS's expansion covers the addition of five test standards to its scope of recognition. Additionally, OSHA announces the addition of one test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.

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

SGS submitted an application on February 5, 2020 (OSHA-2006-0040-0067), to expand its scope of recognition to include the addition of five test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.

OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing SGS's expansion application and proposed addition to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards in the Federal Register on August 24, 2021 (86 FR 47336). The agency requested comments by September 8, 2021, but it received no comments in response to the preliminary notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of SGS's scope of recognition.

To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to SGS's applications, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040 contains all materials in the record concerning SGS's recognition.

OSHA staff examined SGS's expansion application, the capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on a review of this evidence, OSHA finds that SGS meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of the recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of SGS's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of SGS's scope of recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1.

In this notice, OSHA also announces the addition of one new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2, below, lists the test standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA has determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and will include it in the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

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

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standard listed above as an American National Standard. However, for convenience, OSHA may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 01-00-004, Chapter 2, Section VIII), only standards determined to be appropriate test standards may be approved for NRTL recognition. Any NRTL recognized for an appropriate test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of SGS, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above. OSHA also adds one new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, September 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

The NITRD Program is the Nation's primary source of federally funded IT R&D, critical to promoting and protecting American leadership in science and technology (S&T) innovation. The NITRD Program focuses its work on addressing strategic IT R&D imperatives that lead to cutting-edge computing, networking, and information technologies that support U.S. national security, economic competitiveness, and individual health and well-being. One of the key parts of the 1991 legislation was to establish a mechanism to lead the coordination and planning of multiagency and multisector HPC R&D to maximize the effectiveness of the Federal Government's R&D investments and the transition of discoveries to societal benefit. This vital mission has expanded over the years to include coordination of Federal agencies' R&D broadly across critical computing- and IT-related topics in advanced wireless technologies, artificial intelligence, big data, cybersecurity, health IT, networked physical systems, privacy protection, robotics, and software productivity and sustainability. Through NITRD, Federal agencies exchange information; collaborate on research activities such as testbeds, workshops, strategic planning, and cooperative solicitations; and focus their R&D resources on common goals of making new discoveries and/or developing new technology solutions to address our Nation's most critical priorities. As an example, NITRD-linked HPC and IT R&D underpinned U.S. leadership in fighting COVID-19, not only to speed discovery of therapeutics and vaccines but also to support Americans in conducting their education, healthcare, personal relationships, and businesses remotely wherever possible. The increased national commitment to IT R&D has been reflected in the growth in combined investment by NITRD's Federal member agencies from less than $500 million in 1991 to nearly $6.5 billion for FY2021. For more information about the NITRD Program, please visit our website: https://www.nitrd.gov/about/.

Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on November 19, 2021.

Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3 (HBPP, Unit 3 or the facility), was a 65- Megawatt electric Boiling Water Reactor, which was last operated in 1976, and was permanently defueled in 1984.

The HBPP, Unit 3 is located about four miles true southwest of the city of Eureka, Humboldt County, California, and consists of approximately 113 acres of land. PG&E, the licensee, is operating Humboldt Bay Generating Station, a new dual fueled (natural gas and diesel) power plant, on the Humboldt Bay site adjacent to the south side of the facility. The Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) is located on site approximately 600 feet northwest of the Humboldt Bay Generating Station.

On May 4, 2016, in response to PG&E's application dated May 3, 2013, as supplemented on February 14, March 31, April 2, and August 13, of 2014, and March 16, 2015, the Commission issued license Amendment No. 45. Among other things, this license amendment approved HBPP, Unit 3's License Termination Plan (LTP), incorporated it into HBPP, Unit 3's license, specified limits to the changes the licensee could make without prior NRC approval. Since the issuance of Amendment No. 45 and the approval of the HBPP, Unit 3 LTP, the NRC staff has reviewed Final Status Survey Reports (FSSRs) of several survey units associated with HBPP, Unit 3. During its review, the NRC staff noted that the licensee had not accounted for either all its Radionuclides of Concern (ROCs) or its insignificant radionuclides in a manner consistent with the LTP. When asked about these issues, the licensee responded with additional data. By letter dated February 8, 2021, as supplemented on April 29, and May 20, 2021, PG&E also submitted a request to amend License No. DPR-7 for HBPP, Unit 3 to change how it assesses insignificant/hard-to-detect (HTD) ROCs. The NRC approved the amended LTP by a license amendment, dated June 24, 2021, as corrected on July 8, 2021.

The licensee conducted decommissioning activities at HBPP, Unit 3 in accordance with the approved LTP from May 2016 to July 2021. In accordance with the approved LTP, the licensee conducted Final Status Surveys (FSSs) to demonstrate that site, excluding the ISFSI, meet the criteria for unrestricted release as presented in Section 20.1402 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). Details of the FSS results were submitted to the NRC FSSRs. These reports are listed in Table 2 of the SER.

PG&E submitted a request for termination of the HBPP, Unit 3 Facility Operating License, No. DPF-7, on October 21, 2021. The application states that PG&E has completed the remaining radiological decommissioning and FSSs of the HBPP, Unit 3 site in accordance with the NRC approved LTP, and that the FSSs demonstrate that the site (entire site, excluding the ISFSI), meet the criteria for decommissioning and release of the site for unrestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR part 20, subpart E.

The NRC conducted performance-based in-process inspections of the licensee's FSS program, identified in Table 1 of the SER, during the decommissioning process. The purpose of the inspections was to verify that the FSSs were being conducted in accordance with the commitments made by the licensee in the LTP, and to evaluate the quality of the FSSs by reviewing the FSS procedures, methodology, equipment, surveyor training and qualifications, document quality control, and survey data supporting the FSSRs. In addition, the NRC conducted numerous independent confirmatory surveys to verify the FSS results obtained and reported by the licensee. Confirmatory surveys consisted of surface scans for beta and gamma radiation, direct measurements for total beta activity, and collection of smear samples for determining removable radioactivity levels.

The NRC staff reviewed the FSS report and concludes that: (i) The remaining dismantlement has been performed in accordance with the approved LTP; (ii) the FSSs and associated documentation, including an assessment of dose contributions associated with parts released for use before approval of the LTP, demonstrate that the entire site, excluding the ISFSI, have met the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E; and (iii) PG&E has met the 10 CFR part 30, 40, and 70 requirements for forwarding specific records to NRC prior to license termination. Therefore, NRC is terminating HBPP, Unit 3 Facility Operating License No. DPR-7.

The text of the exemption is attached.

The Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) is a pressurized-water reactor located in Van Buren County, Michigan. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee) holds Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 for PNP. The license provides that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.

By letter dated January 4, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17004A062), as supplemented by letters dated September 28, 2017, and October 19, 2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17271A233 and ML17292A032), the licensee submitted notification to the NRC indicating that it would permanently shut down the PNP no later than May 31, 2022. Once Entergy certifies that it has permanently defueled the PNP reactor vessel and placed the fuel in the spent fuel pool (SFP), pursuant to Section 50.82(a)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the PNP renewed facility operating license will no longer authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel. However, the licensee will still be authorized to possess, and store irradiated nuclear fuel. Irradiated fuel is currently being stored onsite in the SFP and in independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) dry casks. The irradiated fuel will be stored in the ISFSI until it is shipped off-site. When the reactor is defueled, the reactor, the reactor coolant system, and the secondary system will no longer be in operation and will have no function related to the safe storage and management of irradiated fuel.

By letter dated June 15, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21167A108), Entergy submitted a partial exemption request for NRC approval from the record retention requirements of: (1) 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, “Quality Assurance Records,” which requires certain records ( e.g., results of inspections, tests, and materials analyses) be maintained consistent with applicable regulatory requirements; (2) 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), which requires that records of changes in the facility must be maintained until termination of a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR part 50; and (3) 10 CFR 50.71(c), which requires certain records to be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification (TS), or retained until termination of the license if not otherwise specified.

The licensee requested the partial exemptions because it wants to eliminate: (1) Records associated with structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and activities that were applicable to the nuclear unit, which are no longer required by the 10 CFR part 50 licensing basis because the SSCs and activities have been removed from the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) or TSs by appropriate change mechanisms; and (2) records associated with the storage of spent nuclear fuel in the SFP once all fuel has been removed from the SFP and the PNP license no longer allows storage of fuel in the SFP. The licensee cites record retention partial exemptions granted to Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111260277), Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML15344A243), San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15355A055), Kewaunee Power Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML17069A394), Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML18122A306), Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML19087A152), and Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20236J852) as examples of the NRC granting similar requests.

Records associated with residual radiological activity and with programmatic controls necessary to support decommissioning, such as records associated with security and quality assurance, are not affected by the partial exemption request; these will be retained as decommissioning records, as required by 10 CFR part 50, until the termination of the PNP license. In addition, the licensee did not request an exemption associated with any other recordkeeping requirements for the storage of spent fuel at its ISFSI under 10 CFR part 50 or the general license requirements of 10 CFR part 72. Lastly, no exemption was requested from the decommissioning records retention requirements of 10 CFR 50.75 or from any other requirements of 10 CFR part 50 applicable to decommissioning and dismantlement.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. However, the Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances, described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present.

The licensee plans to leave in place PNP reactor facility SSCs that are not required for safe storage of SFP and SSCs that are no longer operable or maintained. These retired SSCs will remain in place until dismantlement. Following permanent removal of fuel from the SFP, those SSCs required to support safe storage of spent fuel in the SFP will also be abandoned. In its June 15, 2021, partial exemption request, the licensee stated that the basis for eliminating records associated with reactor facility SSCs and activities is that these SSCs have been or will be removed from service per regulatory change processes, dismantled or demolished, and released from any function regulated by the NRC.

The licensee recognizes that some records related to the nuclear unit will continue to be under NRC regulation primarily due to residual radioactivity. The radiological and other necessary programmatic controls (such as controls for security, quality assurance, etc.) for the facility and the implementation of controls for the defueled condition and the decommissioning activities are and will continue to be appropriately addressed through the license and current plant documents such as the UFSAR and TSs. Except for future changes made through the applicable change processes defined in the regulations ( e.g., 10 CFR 50.48(f), 10 CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 50.90, 10 CFR 50.54(a), 10 CFR 50.54(p), 10 CFR 50.54(q), etc.), these programmatic elements and their associated records are unaffected by the requested partial exemption.

Records necessary for SFP SSCs and activities will continue to be retained until the SFP is no longer needed for safe storage of irradiated fuel. Analogous to other plant records, once the SFP is permanently emptied of fuel, there will be no need for retaining SFP related records.

Entergy's general justification for eliminating records associated with PNP SSCs that have been or will be dismantled, demolished, or otherwise removed from service under the NRC license is that these SSCs will not in the future serve any PNP functions regulated by the NRC. The decommissioning plans for PNP are described in the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report dated December 23, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20358A075) and are contingent on the approval of the pending license transfer (ADAMS Accession No. ML21011A067). The proposed decommissioning process involves evaluating SSCs with respect to the current facility safety analysis; progressively removing them from the licensing basis where necessary through appropriate change mechanisms ( e.g., without prior NRC approval under 10 CFR 50.59 or via a license amendment under 10 CFR 50.90, as applicable); revising the defueled safety analysis report and/or UFSAR as necessary; and then proceeding with an orderly dismantlement.

Entergy intends to retain the records required by its license as the facility's decommissioning transitions. However, equipment abandonment will obviate the regulatory and business needs for maintenance of most records. As the SSCs are removed from the licensing basis, Entergy asserts that the need for their records is, on a practical basis, eliminated. Therefore, Entergy is requesting partial exemptions from the associated records retention requirements for SSCs and historical activities that are no longer relevant. Entergy is not requesting to be exempt from any recordkeeping requirements for storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI under 10 CFR part 50 or the general license requirements of 10 CFR part 72.

As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from 10 CFR part 50 requirements if it makes certain findings, including a finding that special circumstances are present. As described here and in the sections below, the NRC has made the requisite findings. In addition, granting the licensee's proposed partial exemptions will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, other laws, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the granting of the partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) is authorized by law.

As SSCs are prepared for safe storage operation activities and eventual decommissioning and dismantlement, they will be removed from NRC licensing basis documents through appropriate change mechanisms, such as without prior NRC approval through the 10 CFR 50.59 screening process or through a license amendment request approved by the NRC. These change processes involve either a licensee determination or an NRC determination that the affected SSCs no longer serve any safety purpose regulated by the NRC. Therefore, the removal of the SSCs would not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. In turn, elimination of records associated with these removed SSCs would not adversely affect public health and safety.

The granting of a partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for the records described is administrative in nature and will have no impact on any remaining decommissioning activities or on radiological effluents. The granting of the partial exemption request will only advance the schedule for disposition of the specified records. Because these records contain information about SSCs associated with reactor operation and contain no information needed to maintain the facility in a safe condition when the facility is permanently defueled and the SSCs are dismantled, the elimination of these records on an advanced timetable will have no reasonable possibility of presenting any undue risk to public health and safety.

The elimination of the recordkeeping requirements does not involve information or activities that could potentially impact the common defense and security of the United States. Upon dismantlement of the affected SSCs, the records would have no functional purpose relative to maintaining the safe operation of the SSCs, maintaining conditions that would affect the ongoing health and safety of workers or the public, or informing decisions related to nuclear security.

Rather, the partial exemptions requested are administrative in nature in that they would only advance the current schedule for disposition of the specified records. Therefore, the partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for the types of records described is consistent with the common defense and security.

Paragraph 50.12(a)(2) of 10 CFR states, in part:

The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever— . . . (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted . . . .

Criterion XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR part 50, states, in part: “Sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality.”

Paragraph 50.59(d)(3) states, in part: “The records of changes in the facility must be maintained until the termination of an operating license issued under this part . . . .”

Paragraph 50.71(c) of 10 CFR states, in part:

Records that are required by the regulations in this part or part 52 of this chapter, by license condition, or by technical specifications must be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification. If a retention period is not otherwise specified, these records must be retained until the Commission terminates the facility license . . . .

In the Statement of Considerations for the final rulemaking, “Retention Periods for Records” (53 FR 19240; May 27, 1988), in response to public comments received during the rulemaking process, the NRC stated that records must be retained “for NRC to ensure compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment and for the NRC to accomplish its mission to protect the public health and safety.” The Commission also explained that requiring licensees to maintain adequate records assists the NRC “in judging compliance and noncompliance, to act on possible noncompliance, and to examine facts as necessary following any incident.”

These regulations apply to licensees in decommissioning. During the decommissioning process, safety-related SSCs are retired or disabled and subsequently removed from NRC licensing basis documents by appropriate means. Appropriate removal of an SSC from the licensing basis requires either a licensee or NRC determination that the SSC no longer has the potential to cause an accident, event, or other problem which would adversely impact public health and safety.

The records identified for removal in this partial exemption request are associated with SSCs that had been important to safety during power operation or operation of the SFP, but are no longer capable of causing an event, incident, or condition that would adversely impact public health and safety, as evidenced by their appropriate removal from the licensing basis documents. Therefore, because the SSCs no longer have the potential to cause an event, incident, or condition that would adversely impact public health and safety, the records associated with these SSCs would not reasonably be necessary to assist the NRC in determining compliance and noncompliance, taking action on possible noncompliance, and examining facts following an incident. Therefore, their retention would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule.

In addition, once removed from the licensing basis documents ( e.g., UFSAR or TS), SSCs are no longer governed by the NRC's regulations, and therefore, are not subject to compliance with the safety and health requirements that apply to the nuclear environment. As such, retention of records associated with SSCs that are or will no longer be part of the facility serves no safety or regulatory purpose, nor does it serve the underlying purpose of the rule of maintaining compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment and for the NRC to accomplish its mission. Accordingly, special circumstances are present which the NRC may consider, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), to grant the requested partial exemption.

Records which continue to serve the underlying purpose of the rule—that is, to maintain compliance and to protect public health and safety in support of the NRC's mission—will continue to be retained pursuant to the regulations in 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. Retained records that are not subject to the proposed partial exemption include those associated with programmatic controls, such as those pertaining to residual radioactivity, security, and quality assurance, as well as records associated with the ISFSI and spent fuel assemblies.

The special circumstance of an unintended, significant undue burden also justifies the consideration of this exemption. The retention of records required by 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) provides assurance that records associated with SSCs will be captured, indexed, and stored in an environmentally suitable and retrievable condition. Given the volume of records associated with the SSCs, compliance with the records retention rule results in a considerable cost to the licensee. Retention of the volume of records associated with the SSCs during the operational phase is appropriate to serve the underlying purpose of determining compliance and noncompliance, taking action on possible noncompliance, and examining facts following an incident, as discussed.

However, the cost effect of retaining operational phase records beyond the operations phase until the termination of the license was not fully considered or understood when the records retention rule was put in place. For example, existing records storage facilities are eliminated as decommissioning progresses. Retaining the capability to store or maintain records associated with SSCs and activities that no longer serve a safety or regulatory purpose could therefore result in an unnecessary financial and administrative burden. As such, compliance with the rule would result in an undue cost in excess of that contemplated when the rule was adopted. Accordingly, special circumstances are present which the NRC may consider, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), to grant the partial exemption request.

In 10 CFR 51.22, the Commission determined that certain NRC actions are eligible for categorical exclusion from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because each action category does not individually or cumulative have a significant effect on the human environment. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and (c)(25), the granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation in Chapter I of 10 CFR meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion provided that: (1) There is no significant hazards consideration; (2) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (3) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (4) there is no significant construction impact; (5) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (6) the requirements from which an exemption is sought involve, as stated in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(A), recordkeeping requirements. Under 10 CFR 50.92(c), there is no significant hazards consideration if the action does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The grant of the partial exemptions requested is administrative in nature in that it would remove requirements to retain and maintain certain records until license termination. The grant of partial exemptions has no effect on SSCs and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform its design function. The partial exemptions would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC. The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased, since most previously analyzed accidents will no longer be able to occur and the probability and consequences of the remaining fuel handling accident are unaffected by the partial exemption request. Therefore, the partial exemptions do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The grant of partial exemptions does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment associated with the partial exemption request. Similarly, the partial exemptions do not authorize any physicals changes in any SSCs involved in the mitigation of any accidents. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the partial exemptions do not create the possibility of a new accident as a result of new failure modes associated with any equipment or personnel failures. No changes are being made to parameters within which the plant is normally operated, or in the setpoints which initiate protective or mitigative actions, and no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the partial exemptions do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The grant of the partial exemptions would not authorize alteration of the design basis or any safety limits for the plant. The exemptions would not impact station operation or any plant SSC that is relied upon for accident mitigation. Therefore, the partial exemptions do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

For these reasons, the NRC has determined that approval of the partial exemptions requested involves no significant hazards consideration because granting a partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) at the decommissioning PNP does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Likewise, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure because the exemptions grant relief from recordkeeping requirements for retired SSCs and activities that are no longer needed after the permanent defueling of the reactor or the after placement of irradiated nuclear fuel in dry storage.

The exempted regulations are not associated with construction, so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulations do not concern the source term ( i.e., potential amount of radiation involved in an accident) or accident mitigation; therefore, there is no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. Allowing partial exemptions from the record retention requirements for which the exemption is sought involves recordkeeping requirements.

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(vi)(A), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of the partial exemption requests.

The NRC has determined that the granting of a partial exemption from the recordkeeping ( i.e., record retention and maintenance) requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), which will allow the licensee to discontinue records that are no longer required to support the licensed activities after permanent cessation of operations or after placement of irradiated fuel in dry storage, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The destruction of the identified records will not impact remaining decommissioning activities; plant operations, configuration, and/or radiological effluents; operational and/or installed SSCs that are quality-related or important to safety; or nuclear security. The NRC staff determined that the destruction of the identified records is administrative in nature and does not involve information or activities that could potentially impact the common defense and security of the United States.

The purpose for the recordkeeping regulations is to assist the NRC in carrying out its mission to protect the public health and safety by ensuring that the licensing and design basis of the facility is understood, documented, preserved and retrievable in such a way that will aid the NRC in determining compliance and noncompliance, taking action on possible noncompliance, and examining facts following an incident. Since the PNP SSCs that were safety-related or important to safety have been or will be removed from the licensing basis and removed from the plant, the NRC staff finds that the records identified in the exemption request will no longer be required to achieve the underlying purpose of the records retention rule.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the partial exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Entergy a partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for PNP only to the extent necessary to allow the licensee to advance the schedule to remove records associated with SSCs that have been or will be removed from NRC licensing basis documents by appropriate change mechanisms ( e.g., 10 CFR 50.59 or via NRC-approved license amendment request, as applicable).

The exemptions are effective upon submittal of the licensee's certification of permanent fuel removal, under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1).

SNC, Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, and the City of Dalton, Georgia are the holders of facility COL Nos. NFP-91 and NPF-92, which authorize the construction and operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4. The facilities consist of two Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse) AP1000 pressurized-water reactors located in Burke County, Georgia. The licenses are subject to the rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC.

Paragraphs 52.79(a)(35) and (a)(36) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” require a COL applicant, including for VEGP Units 3 and 4, to include in its final safety analysis report a physical security plan, a safeguards contingency plan, a training and qualifications plan, and a cyber security plan that describes how the applicant will meet the applicable security requirements of 10 CFR part 73 and how the applicant will implement these plans. Vogtle satisfied these requirements in its COL application. For applicants or licensees under 10 CFR part 52, these security plans must carry out the requirements in § 73.55, including the requirements in § 73.55(a)(4) governing physical protection at the site and the requirements in § 73.56, including the requirements in § 73.56(a)(3) governing access authorization at the site.

For VEGP Units 3 and 4, SNC applied for and was issued licenses under 10 CFR part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material,” as part of the COLs. These Part 70 licenses authorize possession and use of special nuclear material (SNM) in the forms and for the purposes specified in the COL. As relevant to this exemption, the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COLs (1) authorize the licensee to receive and possess, but not use, SNM as reactor fuel prior to the Commission's finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) that the acceptance criteria in the COL are met for a particular unit, and (2) authorize the licensee to use the SNM as reactor fuel, after the Commission has made the § 52.103(g) finding for the unit. After the § 52.103(g) finding is made, the licensee may begin operation, including loading of fuel, in accordance with the conditions of the license.

As required by § 70.22(k), COL applicants seeking to possess SNM of moderate strategic significance (also known as a Category II quantity of SNM) or 10 kg or more of SNM of low strategic significance (also known as a Category III quantity of SNM), as defined in § 70.4, “Definitions,” must have a security plan that identifies how the licensee will meet the applicable security requirements in §§ 73.67(d), (e), (f), and (g) for the protection of the SNM ( e.g., unirradiated reactor fuel, intermediate range detectors, etc.). Therefore, SNC developed, and the NRC approved, a physical security plan for VEGP Units 3 and 4 that demonstrates how SNC will meet the applicable security requirements in § 73.67, “Licensee fixed site and in-transit requirements for the physical protection of special nuclear material of moderate and low strategic significance.”

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, “Specific exemptions,” by letter dated November 1, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21305B797), SNC requested a schedular exemption from the requirements of §§ 73.55(a)(4) and 73.56(a)(3) to allow VEGP Units 3 and 4 to implement the requirements of a physical protection program in accordance with § 73.55, and the associated personnel access authorization program requirements in accordance with § 73.56, for each unit after the Commission makes its finding under § 52.103(g) for the unit and prior to the start of that unit's initial fuel load into the reactor. As SNC's exemption request indicates, the requested exemption would expire when SNC implements the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 and 73.56.

As required by 10 CFR 73.55(a)(4), “holders of a combined license under the provisions of 10 CFR part 52 of this chapter, shall implement the requirements of this section before fuel is allowed onsite (protected area).” The 2009 Power Reactor Security Requirements Final Rule states, “Section 73.55(a)(4) establishes when an applicant's physical protection program must be implemented. The Commission concluded that the receipt of [SNM] in the form of fuel assemblies onsite, i.e., in the licensee's protected area, is the event that subjects a licensee to the requirements of § 73.55. It is the responsibility of the applicant/licensee to implement an effective physical protection program before SNM in the form of fuel assemblies is received in the protected area” (74 FR 13936, March 27, 2009). Similarly, 10 CFR 73.56(a)(3) requires, in part, that “each holder of a combined license under the provisions of part 52 of this chapter, shall implement the requirements of this section before fuel is allowed on site (protected area).”

Pursuant to § 73.5, the Commission may, upon application by an interested person, or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials,” as it determines (1) are authorized by law, (2) will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and (3) are otherwise in the public interest.

A proposed exemption under 10 CFR 73.5 is authorized by law if it will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest, and no other provisions in law prohibit, or otherwise restrict, its application. The NRC has reviewed the exemption request and finds that granting the proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or other laws. As discussed below, the NRC also finds that the other requirements for an exemption under 10 CFR 73.5 are met. Accordingly, the NRC finds that the exemption is authorized by law.

The schedular exemption from the requirements of §§ 73.55(a)(4) and 73.56(a)(3) would allow SNC to continue construction activities without having to implement the physical security and access authorization requirements in §§ 73.55 and 73.56, respectively, until prior to each unit's initial fuel load into the reactor. SNC stated that the exemption does not alter the design, function, or operation of any structure or plant equipment that is necessary to maintain a safe and secure status of the plant. Further, the exemption does not alter or otherwise invalidate any Physical Security Hardware-related Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) closure notifications, which would have been submitted to, and accepted by, the NRC staff in advance of the § 52.103(g) finding that the acceptance criteria of the ITAAC in the COL are met.

In its letter dated November 1, 2021, SNC stated, in part, that during the period between the § 52.103(g) finding and the implementation of the physical protection program and access authorization program, SNM will continue to be stored inside the controlled access area and protected in accordance with the requirements of SNC's NRC-approved § 73.67 special nuclear material physical protection program (SNMPPP). Prior to moving fuel outside the controlled access area ( i.e., from the auxiliary building to containment in support of fuel load), the § 73.55 physical protection program and § 73.56 access authorization program will have to be implemented, as the SNMPPP can no longer be used for physical protection. Thus, SNC stated that the exemption has no impact on the licensee's capabilities to protect the unirradiated reactor fuel and intermediate range detectors already on site. And as SNC recognizes, it must implement the requirements of § 73.55 and § 73.56 before moving fuel outside the controlled access area.

As required by 10 CFR 73.55(b)(1) and 10 CFR 73.56(c), applicants for an operating license under the provisions of 10 CFR part 50, and each holder of a COL under the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, shall (1) establish and maintain a physical protection program which will have as its objective to provide high assurance that activities involving SNM are not inimical to the common defense and security and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety and (2) have an access authorization program which provides high assurance that specified individuals are trustworthy and reliable, such that they do not constitute an unreasonable risk to public health and safety or the common defense and security, including the potential to commit radiological sabotage.

The NRC has established a regulatory framework that protects SNM in a manner commensurate with the risk associated with the material. The security requirements in § 73.67 consider the risk significance of the material being protected. Unirradiated reactor fuel brought onsite at nuclear power reactors typically constitutes a Category III quantity of SNM. Because of its low enrichment, unirradiated reactor fuel poses no significant risk to public health and safety and protecting it in accordance with § 73.67 would not be inimical to the common defense and security. The NRC has determined that it is appropriate to protect unirradiated reactor fuel and other non-fuel SNM brought onsite at an NRC-licensed commercial nuclear power reactor in accordance with § 73.67 until that material is protected in accordance with § 73.55. Therefore, requiring SNC to implement the requirements of §§ 73.55 and 73.56 to protect unirradiated reactor fuel and other non-fuel SNM that is already being protected in accordance with the requirements of § 73.67 is unnecessary.

Unirradiated reactor fuel (or other SNM) that is onsite after the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding and prior to initial fuel load into the reactor is adequately protected by licensee implementation of the requirements in § 73.67, including the creation of a controlled access area. The security risk only increases once the material is irradiated or if the physical protection requirements are relaxed from that required by § 73.67. Therefore, applying § 73.55 and § 73.56 security requirements to the protection of unirradiated reactor fuel and intermediate range detectors stored onsite prior to initial fuel load into the reactor is unnecessary. SNC's proposal to protect unirradiated reactor fuel and intermediate range detectors under its NRC-approved § 73.67 SNMPPP after the Commission makes its finding under § 52.103(g) and prior to the start of each unit's initial fuel load into the reactor would ensure that the SNM currently onsite is adequately protected.

Accordingly, the NRC finds that the exemption will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.

In a letter dated November 1, 2021, SNC stated, in part, that the public has an interest in the efficient execution of regulatory activities and that implementing a physical protection program and an access authorization program after the § 52.103(g) finding and before initial fuel load into the reactor, allows construction activities to continue without the burden of adhering to the requirements of §§ 73.55(a)(4) and 73.56(a)(3). Additionally, as stated in § 73.55(b)(1), the objective of § 73.55 is to provide high assurance that activities involving SNM are not inimical to the common defense and security and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety. Per § 73.55(b)(3), the physical protection program is designed to prevent significant core damage and spent fuel sabotage. SNC stated that without irradiated fuel there can be no significant core damage or spent fuel sabotage, thereby not constituting an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety. Additionally, the NRC issued a Part 70 license for SNC to receive fuel, and SNC has an NRC-approved SNMPPP to protect the SNM already onsite, where it is stored in a controlled access area. Furthermore, the NRC staff reviewed SNC's SNMPPP and concluded that the plan satisfies the requirements specified in § 73.67. Therefore, SNC indicated that requiring the premature implementation of labor and other resources associated with §§ 73.55 and 73.56 before the § 52.103(g) finding represents a costly and unnecessary burden. Furthermore, the letter stated that granting the exemption would have a beneficial impact on construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 by allowing personnel to continue to efficiently perform construction activities between the § 52.103(g) finding and the initial fuel load milestone.

As previously stated, the NRC has established a regulatory framework that protects SNM in a manner commensurate with the risk associated with the material. The security requirements in § 73.67 consider the risk significance of the material being protected. Unirradiated reactor fuel brought onsite at nuclear power reactors typically constitutes a Category III quantity of SNM. Because of its low enrichment, unirradiated reactor fuel poses no significant risk to public health and safety and protecting it in accordance with § 73.67 would not be inimical to the common defense and security. The NRC has determined that it is appropriate to protect unirradiated reactor fuel and other non-fuel SNM brought onsite at an NRC-licensed commercial nuclear power reactor in accordance with § 73.67. Therefore, requiring SNC to implement the requirements of §§ 73.55 and 73.56 to protect unirradiated reactor fuel and other non-fuel SNM that is already being adequately protected in accordance with the requirements of § 73.67 is an unnecessary burden on SNC.

Based on the above, the NRC finds that the exemption is otherwise in the public interest.

As further discussed, the NRC has determined that granting this exemption from the requirements of §§ 73.55(a)(4) and 73.56(a)(3) meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) because (i) there is no significant hazards consideration, (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, (iv) there is no significant construction impact, (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents, and (vi) the exemption is from scheduling requirements.

The granting of this exemption involves no significant hazards consideration (as defined by 10 CFR 50.92(c)) because:

• The exemption does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant equipment; therefore, granting the exemption would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

• The exemption does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant equipment or create any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators. Therefore, granting the exemption would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

• The exemption does not adversely affect any structure, system, or component (SSC), SSC design function, or method of performing or controlling a design function. The exemption does not affect safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit or criterion is challenged or exceeded by the exemption. Therefore, granting the exemption would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The requested exemption does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant equipment, and there are no changes to effluent types, plant radiological or non-radiological effluent release quantities, any effluent release path, or the functionality of any design or operational feature credited with controlling the release of effluents during plant operation or construction. Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

There are no changes to plant radiation zones, nor any change to controls required under 10 CFR part 20 that preclude a significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure.

The requested exemption does not alter the materials or methods for constructing or testing of any SSCs, and there is no change to the design or construction of the facility as a result of this exemption. Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant construction impact.

Finally, the NRC determined, per § 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G), that the requirements from which the exemption is sought involve scheduling requirements because 10 CFR 73.55(a)(4) and 73.56(a)(3) govern when the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 and 73.56 must be implemented.

Accordingly, the exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in § 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, in accordance with § 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with granting the requested exemption.

For the reasons stated in this notice, the Commission is granting the following exemption for VEGP Units 3 and 4 because it has determined, pursuant to § 73.5, that the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest:

• Effective immediately, the Commission hereby grants SNC an exemption for VEGP Unit 3 from the schedule requirements of §§ 73.55(a)(4) and 73.56(a)(3) to allow SNC to implement the physical protection requirements in accordance with § 73.55, and the personnel access authorization requirements in accordance with § 73.56, after the Commission makes its finding under § 52.103(g) for Unit 3 and prior to the start of Unit 3's initial fuel load into the reactor. The exemption for VEGP Unit 3 expires when SNC implements the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 and 10 CFR 73.56 for VEGP Unit 3, which must occur before initial fuel load for VEGP Unit 3.

• Effective immediately, the Commission hereby grants SNC an exemption for VEGP Unit 4 from the schedule requirements of §§ 73.55(a)(4) and 73.56(a)(3) to allow SNC to implement the physical protection requirements in accordance with § 73.55, and the personnel access authorization requirements in accordance with § 73.56, after the Commission makes its finding under § 52.103(g) for Unit 4 and prior to the start of Unit 4's initial fuel load into the reactor. The exemption for VEGP Unit 4 expires when SNC implements the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 and 10 CFR 73.56 for VEGP Unit 4, which must occur before initial fuel load for VEGP Unit 4.

The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001, issued to SHINE for the construction of the SHINE facility in Rock County, Wisconsin. SHINE requested the amendment by letter dated April 29, 2021, as supplemented by letter dated August 20, 2021, in accordance with Section 50.90 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit,” and 10 CFR 50.34, “Contents of applications; technical information.” The amendment would authorize the receipt and possession of certain radioactive materials necessary for the continued construction of the SHINE facility.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, “Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,” the NRC prepared an EA, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.30, “Environmental assessment,” that analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed amendment and alternatives as appropriate. Based on the results of this EA, which is set forth in Section II in this document, and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.31(a), the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment and is issuing a FONSI, which is set forth in Section III in this document.

The proposed action would amend Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001 to authorize SHINE to receive and possess the radioactive materials of natural uranium, depleted uranium, and americium-241/beryllium (AmBe), which are necessary for the continued construction of the SHINE facility in Rock County, Wisconsin. The proposed action is requested in the licensee's application dated April 29, 2021, as supplemented by letter dated August 20, 2021.

The radioactive materials described in the licensee's application are byproduct and source materials required for the continued construction of the SHINE facility and would be installed within the facility's tritium purification system and subcritical assembly systems. The licensee's request to receive and possess these byproduct and source materials is in accordance with applicable provisions in 10 CFR part 30, “Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,” and 10 CFR part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” respectively. Specifically, SHINE requested to receive and possess the source material of natural uranium in the form of neutron multipliers; the source material of depleted uranium in the form of tritium storage beds; and the byproduct material of AmBe sealed neutron sources. The natural uranium would be contained within neutron multipliers, as described in Subsection 4a2.2.6 of the SHINE Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), for installation within the subcritical assembly systems. The depleted uranium would be contained within tritium storage beds, as described in Subsection 9a2.7.1 of the SHINE FSAR, for installation within the tritium purification system. The AmBe sealed neutron sources would be used as subcritical multiplication sources, as described in Subsection 4a2.2.4 of the SHINE FSAR, for installation within the subcritical assembly systems.

The NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 30 and 10 CFR part 40 contain requirements for the receipt, possession, use, and transfer of byproduct material and source material, respectively.

The NRC has completed its environmental review of the proposed action and concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

As an initial matter, the proposed action would amend the SHINE construction permit to authorize the receipt and possession of byproduct and source materials necessary for continued construction of the SHINE facility in accordance with applicable provisions in 10 CFR parts 30 and 40, which ensure the safety of such receipt and possession. Thus, before the NRC could approve the proposed action, it would have to conclude that the applicable provision in 10 CFR parts 30 and 40 are satisfied.

Additionally, the NRC previously evaluated the environmental impacts associated with constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility in NUREG-2183, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility,” dated October 2015. The licensee is also required to comply with occupational dose limits (10 CFR part 20, subpart C) and radiation dose limits for individual members of the public (10 CFR part 20, subpart D) at all times.

As provided in the application, the proposed amendment authorizing the receipt and possession of the requested byproduct and source materials would not change the types or amounts of radioactive materials in effluents, wastes, and products of the SHINE facility, nor would it increase the probability of accidents. The requested materials would be received and securely stored in an access-controlled area prior to installation into the tritium purification system and the subcritical assembly systems. SHINE would inspect, inventory, and place the requested materials into secure storage in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1902, “Posting requirements.” Shielding would be used as appropriate to minimize radiation exposure of personnel while the requested materials are in storage in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1201, “Occupational dose limits for adults.” The requested materials would be in the form of sealed sources or solids contained within enclosed components that do not present contamination or accidental release hazards. Finally, the application provided that the receipt and possession of the requested materials would not result in the generation of radiological waste.

Additionally, the application provided that there would be no new or substantially different radiological hazards resulting from the receipt and possession of the requested byproduct and source materials as compared to the construction-related radiological hazards discussed in Section 4.8.1.1, “Radiological,” of NUREG-2183. In NUREG-2183, the NRC staff determined that SHINE has adequate controls in place to ensure that the dose to workers and the public from radioactive materials is within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20, including a radiation safety program.

The transportation of the requested byproduct and source materials would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements in NRC regulations (10 CFR parts 20, 40, and 71), the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326, “Transportation,” and Department of Transportation requirements (49 CFR parts 172 and 173).

Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not have significant radiological human health impacts.

Nonradiological impacts to human health of the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility were previously assessed in Section 4.8.1.2 of NUREG-2183. The application provided that the proposed amendment would not result in any new or substantially different nonradiological hazards resulting from the receipt and possession of the requested byproduct and source materials; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that nonradiological impacts during construction would remain small.

The proposed action would result in no additional direct impacts on land use or water resources, including terrestrial and aquatic biota, because the proposed action involves no new construction or modification of SHINE facility operational systems previously assessed in NUREG-2183. For this same reason, there would be no changes to the types or quantity of nonradiological effluents previously assessed in NUREG-2183 and, therefore, no changes to the facility's Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. Similarly, there would be no changes in ambient air quality, no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region, no environmental justice impacts, and no impacts to historic and cultural resources. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant nonradiological impacts associated with the proposed action.

As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action ( i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the license amendment request would result in the licensee being unable to complete construction and begin operation of the SHINE facility. However, because the direct impacts on land use and water resources from construction have largely already occurred and because the remaining construction, operating, and decommissioning impacts would generally be small as evaluated in NUREG-2183, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

There are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources under the proposed action.

No additional agencies or persons were consulted regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. On November 15, 2021, the NRC notified the Wisconsin Department of Health Services of the EA and FONSI. The state provided no comments. The NRC staff determined that the proposed action would have no effect on Federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that could occur on or near the SHINE facility site and would have no effect on any historic properties. Therefore, consultation was not required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, or under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

The proposed action is the issuance of an amendment to SHINE Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001 to authorize SHINE to receive and possess certain source and byproduct materials necessary for the continued construction of the SHINE facility in Rock County, Wisconsin.

Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an EA to determine the impacts of the proposed action. On the basis of the EA included in Section II in this document and incorporated by reference in this finding, the NRC concludes that the proposed action would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring and would not have any significant radiological or nonradiological impacts. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

Other than the application dated April 29, 2021, as supplemented by letter dated August 20, 2021, the related environmental document is NUREG-2183. NUREG-2183 provides the latest environmental review of the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and description of the environmental conditions at the SHINE facility.

This EA and FONSI and other related documents are accessible online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS, as indicated.

SNC, Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, and the City of Dalton, Georgia are the holders of facility Combined License (COL) Nos. NFP-91 and NPF-92, which authorize the construction and operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4. The facilities consist of two Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse) AP1000 pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) located in Burke County, Georgia. The licenses are subject to the rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC.

Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” constitutes the standard design certification for the Westinghouse AP1000 design, in accordance with 10 CFR part 52, subpart B, “Standard Design Certifications.” “Standard design” is defined in 10 CFR 52.1, “Definitions,” as “a design which is sufficiently detailed and complete to support certification or approval in accordance with subpart B or E of [10 CFR part 52], and which is usable for a multiple number of units or at a multiple number of sites without reopening or repeating the review.”

Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, “Specific exemptions,” by letter dated July 8, 2021 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML21189A153), as supplemented by letter dated October 1, 2021 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML21281A214), SNC requested an exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR 55.31, “How to apply,” paragraph (a)(3) and 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2), “Written examination and operating test,” on behalf of 72 operators who are licensed to operate VEGP Unit 3 and are requesting a license on VEGP Unit 4. Enclosure 1 of the July 8, 2021, letter contains SNC's justification for the requested exemption. Enclosure 2 of the July 8, 2021, letter identifies the subject operators by name and docket number. Enclosure 3 of the July 8, 2021, letter includes a sample of NRC Form 398, “Personnel Qualification Statement—Licensee.” The NRC's granting of the requested exemption is based on Enclosure 1 of the July 8, 2021, letter, as supplemented by the enclosure of the October 1, 2021, letter. Enclosure 2 of the July 8, 2021, letter is superseded by the enclosure of the October 1, 2021, letter. The NRC staff did not review Enclosure 3 of the July 8, 2021, letter. The exemption is valid only for the 72 licensed operator candidates identified in the enclosure of the October 1, 2021, letter.

10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) requires each applicant for an operator's license to submit a written request that the written examination and operating test be administered to the applicant. This written request must come from an authorized representative of the facility licensee by which the applicant will be employed. 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) states, in part, that the Commission will approve an initial application for a license if it finds that the applicant has passed the requisite written examination and operating test in accordance with 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 55.45. The written examinations and operating tests determine whether an applicant for an operator's license has learned to operate a facility competently and safely, and additionally, in the case of a senior operator, whether the applicant has learned to direct the licensed activities of licensed operators competently and safely. Written examinations administered to operator candidates must contain a representative sample from among the topics listed in 10 CFR 55.41(b)(1)-(14), and additionally, written examinations administered to senior operator candidates must contain a representative sample from among the topics listed in 10 CFR 55.43(b)(1)-(7). Operating tests must contain a representative sample from among the topics listed in 10 CFR 55.45(a)(1)-(13).

Additionally, 10 CFR 55.40(a) requires the Commission to use the criteria in NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors” (ADAMS Accession No. ML17038A432), in effect 6 months before the examination date to prepare the written examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.43 and the operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45 and to evaluate the written examinations and operating tests prepared by power reactor facility licensees. Preparing the written examinations and operating tests using the appropriate knowledge and abilities catalog, in conjunction with NUREG-1021, ensures that the written examinations and operating tests include a representative sample of the items specified in 10 CFR 55.41, 55.43, and 55.45.

NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized Water Reactors” (ADAMS Accession No. ML20357A103), was developed specifically for Westinghouse AP1000 PWRs. NUREG-1021, Appendix A, “Overview of Generic Examination Concepts,” explains that the knowledge and abilities catalogs provide the basis for the development of content-valid examinations for reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators (SROs), consistent with the applicable testing industry standards. NUREG-1021, Appendix A further explains the concept of content-validity and states, in part, that “[i]n the case of the NRC examinations, the intent is to measure the examinee's knowledge and ability (K/A) such that those who pass will be able to perform the duties of [an RO or an SRO] to ensure the safe operation of the plant.”

In accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1021, Section ES-401N, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations,” a sample plan needs to be prepared for each written examination. Section ES-401N states, in part, that this involves “[s]ystematically and randomly select[ing] specific K/A statements ( e.g., K1.03 or A2.11) from NUREG-2103 (for AP-1000) . . . to complete each of the three tiers ( i.e., Tier 1, `Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions'; Tier 2, `Plant Systems'; and Tier 3, `Generic Knowledge and Abilities') of the applicable examination outline.” For the AP1000, NUREG-1021, Form ES-401N-2, “AP1000 Examination Outline,” is the applicable examination outline. Once the written examination outline is complete, written examination questions can be developed from the K/A statements selected for the examination as documented on the examination outline. The K/A catalog is also used to select topics for the operating test, which consists of an individual walkthrough portion and a simulator test portion.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the Commission may, upon application by an interested person, or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 55, “Operators' Licenses,” as it determines (1) are authorized by law, (2) will not endanger life or property, and (3) are otherwise in the public interest.

Exemptions are authorized by law where they are not expressly prohibited by statute or regulation. A proposed exemption is implicitly authorized by law if it will not endanger life or property and is otherwise in the public interest and no other provisions in law prohibit, or otherwise restrict, its application. The NRC has reviewed the exemption request and finds that granting the proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or other laws. Accordingly, the NRC finds that the exemption is authorized by law.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2), the Commission will approve an initial application for a license if it finds, in part, that the applicant has passed the requisite written examination and operating test in accordance with 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 55.45. These examinations and tests determine whether the applicant for an operator's license has learned to operate a facility competently and safely, and additionally, in the case of a senior operator, whether the applicant has learned to direct the licensed activities of licensed operators competently and safely. Competent and safe operators protect against endangerment of life or property. Accordingly, where examinations and tests adequately determine who is competent, those examinations and tests are protective of and do not endanger life or property.

The 72 licensed operator candidates identified in the enclosure of the letter dated October 1, 2021, already took and passed an NRC written examination and an operating test for VEGP Unit 3, which were prepared and evaluated using the criteria in NUREG-1021 and the K/As in NUREG-2103. An NRC examination for VEGP Unit 4 would also use the criteria in NUREG-1021 and the K/As in NUREG-2103 to define its scope, format, and content. Specific test items, such as the individual written examination questions, would therefore be applicable to both VEGP Units 3 and 4, unless there were differences between the two units that could alter the content of a particular test item or job performance measure (JPM).

As discussed in Enclosure 1, Section 2.0, of the letter dated July 8, 2021, SNC conducted an analysis to identify and evaluate the differences between VEGP Units 3 and 4 and to determine whether they would impact how operators perform tasks at each unit. SNC concluded that there were a few minor differences identified to date in the Waste Water and Offsite Power Systems. The differences between VEGP Units 3 and 4 related to the Waste Water Systems consisted of naming and indication differences only, and SNC stated that these differences do not impact how operators perform tasks. The difference between VEGP Units 3 and 4 related to the Offsite Power Systems is a physical difference, in that VEGP Unit 3 is connected to a 230 kilovolt (kV) switchyard and VEGP Unit 4 is connected to a 500 kV switchyard. Although the voltages of the switchyards are different between VEGP Units 3 and 4, SNC's analysis concluded that all components manipulated by operators are mechanically identical and are operated identically despite having different labels and designators. As a result, the identified differences in the Offsite Power Systems have no operational impact in performing Abnormal or Emergency Operating Procedures. SNC also conducted a Training Needs Analysis, and this analysis concluded that the differences between VEGP Units 3 and 4 require no additional training and that no new/modified examination questions, scenarios, or JPMs are needed. Therefore, the NRC written examination and operating test for VEGP Unit 3 already taken and passed by the 72 licensed operator candidates was of the same structure, scope, and format as the NRC written examination and operating test that they would have to take for VEGP Unit 4, and it also tested topics that are relevant to the operation of both VEGP Units 3 and 4.

In Enclosure 1, Section 4.0, of the letter dated July 8, 2021, SNC states, in part, that the VEGP Units 3 and 4 “continuing training program is based on the requirements defined in 10 CFR part 55.59 and is accredited through the National Academy for Nuclear Training.” In addition, the training program uses a systematic approach to training process to assess whether differences impact operators' performance of tasks on each unit and also the extent to which the training program needs to be adjusted to ensure that operators are adequately trained to perform those tasks at both units.

Based on the above, the NRC determined that the 72 licensed operator candidates' knowledge and abilities associated with the operation of VEGP Unit 4 have already been assessed by the NRC written examination and operating test given for VEGP Unit 3, and that by passing that examination and test, these individuals have demonstrated that they are also competent to safely operate VEGP Unit 4. Accordingly, the NRC finds that the exemption will not endanger life or property.

The Commission's values guide the NRC in maintaining certain principles of good regulation as it carries out regulatory activities in furtherance of its safety and security mission. These principles focus the NRC on ensuring safety and security while appropriately considering the interests of the NRC's stakeholders, including the public and licensees. These principles are Independence, Openness, Efficiency, Clarity, and Reliability. Independence relates to NRC decisions being based on objective, unbiased assessments of all information. Openness relates to the NRC conducting its regulatory activities publicly and candidly. Efficiency relates to the NRC ensuring that its regulatory activities are consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve; adopting the option, where several effective alternatives are available, that minimizes the use of resources; and making regulatory decisions without delay. Clarity relates to NRC positions being readily understood and easily applied. Reliability relates to established regulations being perceived to be reliable and not unjustifiably in a state of transition. The NRC's principles of good regulation can also provide guidance as to whether the granting of a particular exemption is otherwise in the public interest.

On balance, the NRC's principles of good regulation demonstrate that the granting of the requested exemption is otherwise in the public interest. First, as clearly, openly, and independently determined above, the 72 licensed operator candidates identified in the enclosure of the October 1, 2021, letter each passed a written examination and operating test for VEGP Unit 3 that also covered all content that is applicable to VEGP Unit 4.

Second, concerning the principle of efficiency, in Enclosure 1, Section 5.3, of the July 8, 2021, letter, SNC explained that if the exemption is granted, then training resources will be available to meet other site training needs and to ensure that trained operations personnel are available to support ongoing activities at VEGP Unit 3 including testing and fuel load. The NRC staff will also not have to devote resources to preparing and validating additional written examinations and operating tests for these 72 licensed operator candidates. Additionally, these operators will be able to remain in the continuing training program for VEGP Units 3 and 4, which will help to ensure that they maintain proficiency in topics included in the initial training program and that they also receive training on any changes made to the plant design or procedures prior to fuel load and plant operation. For these reasons, the NRC finds that granting the exemption is an effective and efficient alternative to requiring the 72 licensed operator candidates to take another written examination and operating test to be licensed on VEGP Unit 4.

Finally, concerning the principle of reliability, the NRC has already found that the 72 licensed operator candidates have the necessary knowledge and abilities to operate VEGP Unit 3 safely and competently. As discussed above, by granting the requested exemption, the substantive requirements upon the licensed operator candidates are unchanged. Furthermore, the public has an interest in reliability in terms of the stability of the nuclear regulatory planning process. If granted, this exemption aids planning by the NRC and the industry by allowing the 72 license operator candidates to complete their applications sooner, with the underlying requirements essentially unchanged, and could result in licensing decisions being made earlier than would be possible if the candidates had to wait to also take a written examination and operating test for VEGP Unit 4.

Based on the above, the NRC finds that the exemption is otherwise in the public interest.

The NRC has determined that granting this exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) and 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) involves (i) no significant hazards consideration, (ii) no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, (iii) no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, (iv) no significant construction impact, and (v) no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

The granting of this exemption involves no significant hazards consideration because:

• The exemption does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant equipment; therefore, granting the exemption would not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

• The exemption does not create any new accident initiators; therefore, granting the exemption would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

• The exemption does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit; therefore, granting the exemption would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite because this exemption does not affect any effluent release limits as provided in the facility licensee's technical specifications or the regulations in 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure because the exemption does not affect the limits provided in 10 CFR part 20 for radiation exposure to workers or members of the public. There is no significant construction impact because the exemption does not involve any construction activities or changes to a construction permit. There is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents because the exemption does not alter any of the assumptions or limits in the facility licensee's safety analysis.

The NRC determined, per 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(E), that the requirements from which the exemption is sought involve education, training, experience, qualification, requalification, or other employment suitability requirements. Accordingly, the exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with granting the requested exemption.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, effective immediately, the Commission hereby grants the request to exempt the 72 licensed operator candidates listed in the enclosure of letter dated October 1, 2021, from the 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) and 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) requirements that a written examination and operating test be requested and administered to them for VEGP Unit 4, effectively giving these candidates credit for the written examination and operating test that they already took and passed for VEGP Unit 3.

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).: MC2022-22 and CP2022-24; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 729 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 22, 2021; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: December 1, 2021.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2022-23 and CP2022-25; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 730 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 22, 2021; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Katalin Clendenin; Comments Due: December 1, 2021.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .