Committee meetings are available to the public through the conference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email vmoreno@usccr.gov at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Liliana Schiller at lschiller@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, North Carolina Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at the above phone number.

On May 9, 2014, Commerce published the final results of the first administrative review of wood flooring from China. 1 After correcting certain ministerial errors contained in the Final Results, on June 20, 2014, Commerce published the Amended Final Results, in which Commerce amended the final weighted-average dumping margins for Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture) and certain separate rate companies. 2

Fine Furniture and certain separate rate companies (collectively, plaintiffs) challenged Commerce's Final Results. In its first remand opinion, the CIT held unlawful the calculation of a deduction Commerce made for Chinese irrecoverable value-added tax (VAT). 3 Furthermore, the CIT held two decisions Commerce made in determining the normal value of Fine Furnitures's subject merchandise were not supported by substantial evidence: (1) Commerce's choice of financial statements for use in calculating surrogate financial ratios; and (2) the calculation of the surrogate value for electricity. 4

Commerce filed the first remand redetermination on August 28, 2017, which included a recalculation of the weighted-average dumping margin of 0.73 percent for Fine Furniture. Based on this margin, Commerce assigned a rate of 0.73 percent as the revised separate rate. 5 The CIT sustained Commerce's recalculation of the deduction for VAT and its decisions on the choice of financial statements; however, the CIT ordered Commerce to reconsider on remand its selection of the surrogate value for Fine Furniture's electricity usage. 6

Following the CIT's opinion and order in Fine Furniture III, the court stayed the case pending the outcome of Changzhou Hawd. 7 On February 2, 2021, following the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit or CAFC) final opinion in Changzhou Hawd that held that Fine Furniture was excluded from the Order, 8 the CIT lifted the stay and granted Commerce's voluntary remand to recalculate an antidumping duty rate applicable to the separate rate respondents, given Fine Furniture's exclusion from the order. 9

In its final remand redetermination, issued in July 2021, Commerce assigned a new separate rate of 0.00 percent applicable only to those companies that are party to the litigation and that have an injunction in place. 10 The CIT sustained Commerce's final remand redetermination. 11

In its decision in Timken, 12 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 13 the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's February 7, 2022, judgment constitutes a final court decision that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Results with respect to the dumping margin assigned to entries of wood flooring produced and/or exported from China, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period May 26, 2011, through November 30, 2012, for the separate rate companies listed in the appendix. 14 The amended weighted-average dumping margin for the companies that participated in the litigation and have injunctions in place is 0.00 percent. 15

Because the companies listed in the appendix have a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results published in subsequent administrative reviews for the companies listed above, we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rates for those exporters/producers.

At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries of subject merchandise that were exported by any of the companies listed above and that were entered into the United States, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period May 26, 2011, through November 30, 2012. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.

In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by the review when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, 16 we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

In the Federal Register of February 8, 2022, in the FR Doc 2022-02638 on page 7119, in the second column, correct the last sentence in the section “Rates for Non-Selected Companies:” “Accordingly, Commerce is assigning Colakoglu's rate of 1.02 percent to companies not selected for individual examination.” The corrected sentence should read: “Accordingly, Commerce is assigning Kaptan Demir's rate of 1.02 percent to companies not selected for individual examination.”

On August 6, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register the notice of the final results of the 2019-2020 administrative review. 1 We inadvertently misstated in the “Rates for Non-Selected Companies” section of the notice that “Commerce is assigning Colakoglu's rate of 1.02 percent to companies not selected for individual examination.” The correct rate for non-selected companies is the rate calculated for Kaptan Demir Celik Energji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (Kaptan Demir) of 1.02 percent. This notice serves as a notification of this correction to the Federal Register notice published on February 8, 2022.

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

On September 15, 1998, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD orders on SSWR from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. 1 On July 1, 2021, Commerce initiated, 2 and the ITC instituted, 3 sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping rates likely to prevail should these Orders be revoked. 4

On February 16, 2022, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act. 5

The merchandise covered by the Orders is SSWR, which comprises products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter.

Two stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the Orders. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as follows:

The products subject to the Orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive.

As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

The effective date of the continuation of the Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year (sunset) reviews of the Orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return, destruction, or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions.

These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

On April 1, 2021, based on a timely request for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review on washers from Mexico. 1 This review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Electrolux Home Products Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home Products de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (collectively, Electrolux). For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2

The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

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

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the respondent for the period February 1, 2020, through January 31, 2021:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice. 4 Interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 5 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 6 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 7 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS. 8 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information. 9

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

An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise extended. 12

Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 13 If the weighted average dumping margin for Electrolux is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If the weighted-average dumping margin for Electrolux is zero or de minimis in the final results, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis in the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Commerce intends to issue instructions to CBP 41 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific cash deposit rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 36.52 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 14 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant proposes to import teeth from 19 finless porpoises for age analysis. These animals were incidentally killed during fishing operations and were recovered by the Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Science. A permit is requested for a duration of three years.

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

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

The applicant proposes to conduct research to (1) develop a baseline genetic database for three odontocete species; (2) study foraging strategies; and (3) investigate the abundance, distribution, movement, and occurrence of cetacean species within coastal and offshore waters of California and Oregon. Up to 25 species of cetaceans may be taken during research including the following ESA-listed species or distinct population segments (DPS): blue ( Balaenoptera musculus ), fin ( B. physalus ), gray (Western North Pacific DPS; Eschrichtius robustus ), humpback (Mexico and Central America DPSs; Megaptera novaeangliae ), killer (Southern Resident DPS; Orcinus orca ), North Pacific right ( Eubalaena japonica ), sei ( B. borealis ), and sperm ( Physeter macrocephalus ) whales. Cetaceans may be taken during vessel surveys including unmanned aircraft systems for counts, above water and underwater photography and videography, photo-identification, photogrammetry, behavioral observations, passive acoustic recording, echosounder for prey mapping, and non-invasive genetic sampling (exhaled air, remote skin swab, sloughed skin, and feces). Five species of pinnipeds, including ESA threatened Guadalupe fur seals ( Arctocephalus townsendi ), may be unintentionally harassed during research activities. See the application for complete numbers of animals requested by species and procedure. The permit is requested for five years.

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

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict to assess the distribution and abundance of lobster larvae and their potential food sources. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the Federal regulations described in Table 1.

On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for BP Exploration and Production, Inc. (BP), in the Macondo prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252-MC252), experienced a significant explosion, fire, and subsequent sinking in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented volume of oil and other discharges from the rig and from the wellhead on the seabed. The DWH oil spill is the largest off shore oil spill in U.S. history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days. In addition, well over one million gallons of dispersants were applied to the waters of the spill area in an attempt to disperse the spilled oil. An undetermined amount of natural gas was also released into the environment as a result of the spill.

The DWH Federal and State natural resource trustees (DWH Trustees) conducted the natural resource damage assessment for the DWH oil spill under OPA (OPA; 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. ). Pursuant to OPA, Federal and State agencies act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess natural resource injuries and losses and to determine the actions required to compensate the public for those injuries and losses. OPA further instructs the designated trustees to develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship, including the loss of use and services from those resources from the time of injury until the time of restoration to baseline (the resource quality and conditions that would exist if the spill had not occurred) is complete.

The DWH Trustees are:

• U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

• State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Department of Natural Resources;

• State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;

• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;

• State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and

• State of Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

The Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damage claims with BP in an April 4, 2016, Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in the Alabama Restoration Area are now selected and implemented by the Alabama TIG.

The Alabama Swift Tract Living Shoreline project (hereafter “the project”) was selected in the Final Programmatic and Phase III Early Restoration Plan and Early Restoration Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Phase III ERP/PEIS). NOAA is the lead implementing Trustee for the project. The original Swift Tract project is located in the eastern portion of Bon Secour Bay (part of Mobile Bay) approximately 6 miles northwest of Gulf Shores in Baldwin County, Alabama. Construction was completed in February 2017 and 7 years of post-construction performance monitoring is ongoing. The project created approximately 1.75 miles (2.8 kilometers) of breakwaters in Bon Secour Bay to dampen wave energy and reduce shoreline erosion, while also providing habitat and increasing benthic secondary productivity. The project is adjacent to the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) and within the NERR buffer area.

Following construction completion, NOAA project team members were notified that there may be rocks located in Bon Secour Bay the project site, but outside the footprint of the breakwater. Thus, in March 2018, NOAA, through its contractor, collected sidescan sonar acoustic imaging, magnetometer, and single beam bathymetry surveys of the water bottom adjacent to the breakwaters to determine the location of any potential rock piles near the breakwater construction area. The results indicate that there are several hard surface contacts, likely rock piles, within the survey area. Recommendations from a corrective action report include either removing the material or leaving the material in-place as reef habitat. Both alternatives are evaluated in this Draft Supplemental EA.

As described in Section III of this Draft Supplemental EA (the “OPA Summary”), the Alabama TIG has determined that the proposed corrective action does not alter its original conclusions for the Swift Tract project under OPA and its implementing regulations. Thus, the Alabama TIG concludes that implementation of the corrective action proposed in this Supplemental EA does not require further OPA evaluation, and this Supplemental EA focuses its analysis on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed corrective action under NEPA.

This Supplemental EA provides NEPA analysis for the Swift Tract proposed corrective action by supplementing the NEPA analysis for the Phase III ERP/PEIS. The supplemental NEPA analysis provided in this Swift Tract Supplemental EA augments and incorporates by reference the applicable sections (Chapter 11, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences for the Swift Tract Restoration Project) of the Phase III ERP/PEIS. This supplemental analysis considers any additional environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the corrective action that are not described and analyzed in the Phase III ERP/PEIS.

The Draft Supplemental EA evaluates the proposed removal of rocks from the bay bottom near the Swift Tract project action area and the placement of the removed rocks on a nearby breakwater.

The proposed rock removal and breakwater placement locations are adjacent to, but outside of, the project action area identified in the Final Phase III ERP/PEIS. Due to the close proximity of the new removal and placement areas to the existing Swift Tract breakwater, the Affected Environment for the proposed removal and placement areas would be the same as that evaluated for the Swift Tract breakwater in the Phase III ERP/PEIS. The environmental consequences of the proposed corrective action are also anticipated to fall generally within the scope of the environmental consequences evaluated for the original project. Therefore, the Environmental Consequences reviewed in the Swift Tract project evaluation, in Chapter 11, Section 11.4 of the Final Phase III ERP/PEIS, are reviewed in the Supplemental EA to evaluate the likely environmental consequences of the proposed corrective action and the “No Action” alternatives to determine whether implementation of the proposed corrective action may alter the conclusions made in the Final Phase III ERP/PEIS. Under the “No Action” alternative, the rocks currently located on the water bottom would not be removed from the water bottom and would instead be left in place.

The public is encouraged to review and comment on the Draft Supplemental EA. After the public comment period ends, the Alabama TIG will consider and address comments received before issuing a Final Supplemental EA. A summary of comments received and the Alabama TIG's responses and any revisions to the document, as appropriate, will be included in the final document.

The documents comprising the Administrative Record for the Draft Supplemental EA can be viewed electronically at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/adminrecord.

The authority of this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. ) and its implementing Oil Pollution Act Natural Resource Damage Assessment regulations found at 15 CFR part 990 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ).

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant proposes to evaluate how temporal variation in the marine environment affects individual life-histories, immigration, and the dynamics of a population of long-lived mammal in Antarctica, primarily in Erebus Bay. This application requests permission to annually capture, tag and release up to 1,205 Weddell Seals (820 pups; 385 adults), to weigh up to 150 Weddell seal pups 35 days after birth, to collect tissue samples from 300 Weddell seals (150 pups; 150 adults), and to approach up to 2,770 Weddell seals a maximum of eight times to read tags. All samples will be transported via the U.S. Antarctic Program through Christchurch, New Zealand to institutions in the United States where they will be archived for various assays and studies. A maximum of eight crabeater seals ( Lobodon carcinophagus ), and two leopard seals ( Hydrurga leptonyx ) may be unintentionally harassed annually. The permit would be valid for 5 years.

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

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for BP Exploration and Production, Inc. (BP), in the Macondo prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252-MC252), experienced a significant explosion, fire, and subsequent sinking in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented volume of oil and other discharges from the rig and from the wellhead on the seabed. The DWH oil spill is the largest off shore oil spill in U.S. history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days. In addition, well over one million gallons of dispersants were applied to the waters of the spill area in an attempt to disperse the spilled oil. An undetermined amount of natural gas was also released into the environment as a result of the spill.

The DWH Federal and State natural resource trustees (DWH Trustees) conducted the NRDA for the DWH oil spill under OPA (OPA; 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. ). Pursuant to OPA, Federal and State agencies act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess natural resource injuries and losses and to determine the actions required to compensate the public for those injuries and losses. OPA further instructs the designated trustees to develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship, including the loss of use and services from those resources from the time of injury until the time of restoration to baseline (the resource quality and conditions that would exist if the spill had not occurred) is complete.

The DWH Trustees are:

• U.S. Department of the Interior, as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

• U.S. Department of Agriculture;

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

• State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Department of Natural Resources;

• State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;

• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;

• State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and

• State of Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

The DWH Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damage claims with BP in an April 4, 2016, Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in the Alabama Restoration Area are now selected and implemented by the Alabama TIG. The Alabama TIG is composed of the following Trustees:

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;

• U.S. Department of the Interior;

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

• U.S. Department of Agriculture;

• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; and

• Geological Survey of Alabama.

In the Alabama TIG RP II/EA, the Alabama TIG selected 20 projects for implementation, allocating funds from several restoration types including the WCNH restoration type. One of the projects selected for implementation in the funds, was the Weeks Bay Land Acquisition (Harrod Tract) project. For the reasons identified in the Supplemental RP/EA the Alabama TIG has terminated the Harrod Tract project via TIG Resolution. This Supplemental RP/EA supplements the Alabama TIG RP II/EA, evaluating the Alabama TIG's proposal to use those funds previously allocated to the Harrod Tract project to support a new acquisition project in the same watershed.

Notice of availability of the Draft Supplemental RP/EA was posted to the Alabama TIG website, http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-areas/alabama on December 6, 2021. The TIG provided the public with 30 days to review and comment on the Draft Supplemental RP/EA. During the public comment period, one comment was received voicing general support of the project and noting the importance of protecting this parcel from future development. This correspondence is included as Appendix A.

The termination of the Harrod Tract project has resulted in $3,606,900 of previously allocated WCNH restoration funds to become available to the Alabama TIG. Accordingly, the Alabama TIG is proposing to use those funds to support a new acquisition project in the Weeks Bay watershed, where the Harrod Tract acquisition would have occurred. Specifically, in this Supplemental RP/EA, the Alabama TIG evaluates the use of WCNH funds to acquire a tract known as the Lloyd Tract, which is located along two tributaries of the Fish River, slightly upstream from the Harrod Tract. The property is bordered by two tidal creeks, Waterhole Branch and Green Branch, and their confluence occurs at the southeastern boundary of the property. The Lloyd Tract has a willing seller, is at risk of development, contains farmland that can be restored to longleaf pine habitat, would become part of the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and would provide restoration benefits to wetlands, coastal, and nearshore habitats. A no action alternative is also evaluated in the Supplemental RP/EA.

The documents comprising the Administrative Record for the Final Supplemental RP/EA can be viewed electronically at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/adminrecord.

The authority of this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. ) and its implementing OPA NRDA regulations found at 15 CFR part 990 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ).

Title of Collection: Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (Regulation O).

OMB Control Number: 3170-0007.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit entities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 120.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 360.

Abstract: The required disclosures under Regulation O (12 CFR part 1015) assist prospective purchasers of mortgage assistance relief services (MARS) in making well-informed decisions and avoiding deceptive unfair acts and practices. The Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission use the information provided under Regulation O's recordkeeping requirements for enforcement purposes and to ensure compliance with Regulation O by MARS providers. The information is requested only on a case-by-case basis.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the 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. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: The Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management Information Technology Mission System; Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management Form GSI-001; OMB Control Number 0704-0548.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 5,024.

Responses per Respondent: 2.

Annual Responses: 10,048.

Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 2,512.

Needs and Uses: The Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM) Information Technology Mission System is a web based portal designed to hold several web applications for the purposes of efficient administration of U.S. and international students, and the effective management of DISAM personnel and guest lecturers. The portal provides DISAM personnel the ability to submit travel requests and travel arrangements. Finally, the web based portal uses a relational database to record, manage and report information about students, personnel, and travel. Reports of annual training of foreign nationals are submitted to Congress as required by 22 U.S. Code 2394 (Foreign Assistance Act) and 22 U.S. Code 2770A (Arms Export Control Act).

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Disposition of Remains-Reimbursable Basis Request for Payment of Funeral and/or Interment Expenses; DD Form 2065, DD Form 1375; OMB Control Number 0704—0030.

Needs and Uses: This collection is needed to support service members and other federal agencies by providing mortuary services, transportation, funeral and interment, support for deceased dependents of service members; and transportation and mortuary service support requested by other federal agencies. This allows the person authorized to direct disposition of our service members remains to be reimbursed for authorized expenses incident to death.

DD Forms 2065 and 1375 are initially prepared by military authorities and presented to the next-of-kin or sponsor to fill-in the reimbursable costs or desired disposition of remains. Without the information on these forms, the U.S. government would not be able to respond to the survivor's wishes or justify its expenses in handling the deceased.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,225 hours.

Number of Respondents: 2,450.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 2,450.

Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: TRICARE Select Survey of Civilian Providers; OMB Control Number 0720-0031.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 20,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 20,000.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,666.67.

Needs and Uses: As mandated by Congress, the information collection requirement is necessary to determine how many providers are aware of the TRICARE health benefits program, and specifically accept new TRICARE Select patients in each market area. Surveys of civilian physician and non-physician behavioral health care providers will be conducted in a number of locations in the U.S. each year. Respondents include civilian physicians (M.D.s & D.O.s) and non-physician behavioral health providers (clinical psychologists, clinical social workers and other TRICARE authorized behavioral health providers). The locations surveyed will include areas where the TRICARE Prime benefit is offered (known as TRICARE PRIME Service Areas) and geographic areas where TRICARE Prime is not offered. Respondents will be contacted by mail with a telephone follow-up to complete the survey.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: Annually.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Julie Wise.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Defense Logistics Agency Child and Youth Program Forms; DLA Forms 1849, 1849-1, 1849-2, 1849-3, 1849-4, 1855, 1855-1, 1855-1A, 1855-1B, 1855-1C, 1855-1D (Parts I and II), 1855-1E, 1855-1F; OMB Control Number 0704-0582.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 828.

Responses per Respondent: 14.56.

Annual Responses: 12,055.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,004.58.

Needs and Uses: The DoD requires the information in the proposed collection in support of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Child and Youth Programs (CYPs). This collection includes fourteen DLA forms, some of which are used by all of the collection respondents and some of which are used under specific circumstances. The information collected is used for program planning, management, and health and safety purposes. More specifically, the information in the proposed collection allows CYP staff to provide safe, developmentally appropriate day care services and to ensure proper, effective response in the event of an emergency. Respondents include patrons enrolling their children in a CYP; these patrons may include active duty military, DoD civilian employees, and DoD contractors.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Job ChalleNGe Participant Focus Groups; OMB Control Number 0704-JCFG.

Needs and Uses: 32 U.S. Code 509, “National Guard Youth Challenge Program of Opportunities for Civilian Youth” seeks to “improve life skills and employment potential of participants by providing military-based training and supervised work experience, together with the core program components of assisting participants, to receive a high school diploma or its equivalent, leadership development, etc.” Job ChalleNGe is an extension of Youth ChalleNGe and provides technical and career training to graduates of Youth ChalleNGe.

This collection is part of a study examining the implementation of the Job ChalleNGe program across its six operating sites. This program focuses on underserved populations and communities and brings them into alignment with Executive Order (E.O.) 13985, which directs the Federal Government to work to advance equity, with a focus on historically underserved communities. The E.O. also directs resources to be allocated to advance fairness and opportunity. The results of this collection will help inform site operations and continuous program improvement. This information is being collected to better understand program participants' experiences and perceptions. This information will be used to help inform site operations, program policy decisions, and drive continuous program improvement.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 75 hours.

Number of Respondents: 60.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 60.

Average Burden per Response: 75 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Comparing Hospital Hand Hygiene in Liberia: Soap, Alcohol, and Hypochlorite; OMB Control Number 0720-0062.

Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary to conduct research as part of a U.S.-Liberia collaboration funded by the U.S. Department of Defense Center for Global Health Engagement. The study objectives are to determine the most appropriate cleansing material (soap, alcohol, or hypochlorite/chlorine solution) for routine hand hygiene in Liberian healthcare facilities and to determine how best to implement hand hygiene programs in these facilities. Results of this study may inform Liberian Government strategies to expand and implement best hospital hand hygiene intervention(s) across the nation, and also help shape hand hygiene program implementation in U.S. DoD global humanitarian and disaster response assistance.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 257.88.

Number of Respondents: 84.

Responses per Respondent: 3.07.

Annual Responses: 257.88.

Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency: As requested.

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

Title of Collection: 2023-2024 Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0001.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 33,962,310.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 22,844,712.

Abstract: Section 483, of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), mandates that the Secretary of Education “. . . shall produce, distribute, and process free of charge common financial reporting forms as described in this subsection to be used for application and reapplication to determine the need and eligibility of a student for financial assistance. . .”.

The determination of need and eligibility are for the following Title IV, HEA, federal student financial assistance programs: The Federal Pell Grant Program; the Campus-Based programs (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) and Federal Work-Study (FWS)),; the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program; the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant; the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship; and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant.

Federal Student Aid (FSA), an office of the U.S. Department of Education, subsequently developed an application process to collect and process the data necessary to determine a student's eligibility to receive Title IV, HEA program assistance. The application process involves an applicant's submission of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®). After submission and processing of the FAFSA form, an applicant receives a Student Aid Report (SAR), which is a summary of the processed data they submitted on the FAFSA form. The applicant reviews the SAR, and, if necessary, will make corrections or updates to their submitted FAFSA data. Institutions of higher education listed by the applicant on the FAFSA form also receive a summary of processed data submitted on the FAFSA form which is called the Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR).

ED and FSA seek OMB approval of all application components as a single “collection of information.” The aggregate burden will be accounted for under OMB Control Number 1845-0001. The specific application components, descriptions, and submission methods for each are listed in Table 1.

This information collection also documents an estimate of the annual public burden as it relates to the application process for federal student aid. The Applicant Burden Model (ABM) measures applicant burden through an assessment of the activities each applicant conducts in conjunction with other applicant characteristics and, in terms of burden, the average applicant's experience. Key determinants of the ABM include:

• The total number of applicants that will potentially apply for federal student aid;

• How the applicant chooses to complete and submit the FAFSA form ( e.g., by paper or electronically);

• How the applicant chooses to submit any corrections and/or updates ( e.g., the paper SAR or electronically);

• The type of SAR document the applicant receives (eSAR, SAR acknowledgment, or paper SAR);

• The formula applied to determine the applicant's expected family contribution (EFC) (full need analysis formula, Simplified Needs Test or Automatic Zero); and

• The average amount of time involved in preparing to complete the application.

The ABM is largely driven by the number of potential applicants for the application cycle. The total application projection for 2023-2024 is based on the projected total enrollment into post-secondary education for Fall 2023. The ABM is also based on the application options available to students and parents. ED accounts for each application component based on analytical tools, survey information and other ED data sources.

For 2023-2024, ED is reporting a net burden decrease of 3,466,325 hours.

In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks comment on whether and how the required use of dynamic line ratings (DLR)  1 is needed to ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates. The Commission further seeks comment on: Whether the lack of DLR requirements renders current wholesale rates  2 unjust and unreasonable; potential criteria for DLR requirements; the benefits, costs, and challenges of implementing DLRs; the nature of potential DLR requirements; and potential timeframes for implementing DLR requirements.

1. On December 16, 2021, the Commission issued Order No. 881 in Docket No. RM20-16-000. In that order, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission revised the Commission's pro forma open access transmission tariff (OATT) and the Commission's regulations to improve the accuracy and transparency of electric transmission line ratings. 3 Specifically, the Commission found that the use of only seasonal and static temperature assumptions in developing transmission line ratings would result in transmission line ratings that do not accurately represent the transfer capability of the transmission system. 4 The Commission found that inaccurate transmission line ratings result in unjust and unreasonable Commission-jurisdictional rates. 5

2. Accordingly, the Commission required, among other things and with limited exceptions: (1) Transmission providers  6 to use ambient-adjusted ratings (AARs)  7 as the basis for evaluation of transmission service requests that will end within 10 days of the request and as the basis for their determination of the necessity of certain curtailment, interruption, or redispatch of transmission service anticipated to occur within those 10 days; (2) transmission providers to use seasonal line ratings as the basis for evaluation of transmission service requests ending more than 10 days from the date of the request and as the basis for the determination of the necessity of curtailment, interruption, or redispatch of transmission service that is anticipated to occur more than 10 days in the future; and (3) regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (RTOs/ISOs) to establish and maintain the systems and procedures necessary to allow transmission owners in their regions to electronically update transmission line ratings on at least an hourly basis (thereby enabling the RTO/ISO to use DLRs from transmission owners that voluntarily adopt them). 8

3. While acknowledging in Order No. 881 that, in certain situations, using transmission line ratings that are based on factors beyond forecasted ambient air temperatures and the presence or absence of solar heating—such as DLRs—may lead to greater accuracy of transmission line ratings, the Commission declined to mandate DLR implementation based on the record in that proceeding. 9 Instead, the Commission incorporated that record on DLRs into the instant proceeding, Docket No. AD22-5-000, which the Commission opened to further explore DLR implementation.

4. The Commission explained that, unlike AARs, DLRs are based not only on forecasted ambient air temperatures and the presence or absence of solar heating, but also on other weather conditions, such as wind, cloud cover, solar heating intensity (instead of only daytime/nighttime distinctions used in AARs), and precipitation, and/or on transmission line conditions such as tension or sag. 10 The Commission agreed with commenters that highlighted the benefits to DLR implementation. 11 For example, the Commission agreed with the Exelon Corporation (Exelon) that there may be applications in which DLRs can provide net benefits to customers, such as when the limiting element for a transmission facility experiencing significant congestion is the conductor and conditions besides ambient air temperature have a consistent and significant impact on the power carrying capabilities of the line. The Commission also acknowledged that the use of DLRs generally allows for greater power flows than would otherwise be allowed and that their use can also detect situations where power flows should be reduced to maintain safe and reliable operation and avoid unnecessary wear on transmission equipment. 12

5. Despite the benefits of DLR implementation, the Commission recognized that DLR implementation also presents additional costs and challenges not found in AAR implementation, such as costs associated with placement of sensors, cybersecurity, and other costs. 13 The Commission found that the record in the Order No. 881 proceeding, Docket No. RM20-16-000, was not sufficient for it to evaluate the relative benefits and costs and challenges of DLR implementation. 14

6. We are issuing this NOI to further explore whether DLR implementation is required to ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates. We invite all interested persons to submit comments and reply comments on any or all of the questions listed. Commenters need not answer all the questions. Commenters should organize responses consistent with the structure of the attached questions. Commenters are also invited to reference material previously filed, including in Docket Nos. RM20-16-000 and AD19-15-000, but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material. Initial comments must be submitted on or before 60 days after the date of publication of this NOI in the Federal Register . Reply comments must be submitted on or before 90 days after the date of publication of this NOI in the Federal Register .

7. In Order No. 881, the Commission found that transmission line ratings directly affect wholesale rates because transmission line ratings and wholesale rates are inextricably linked. 15 It explained that transmission line ratings represent the maximum transfer capability on a transmission line, which, in turn, determines the quantity of energy that can be transmitted from suppliers to load. The Commission explained that, all else equal, as transfer capability declines, wholesale rates increase. The Commission also observed that inaccurate transmission line ratings can result in underutilization (or overutilization) of existing transmission facilities, thereby sending a signal that there is less (or more) transfer capability than is truly available. 16

8. Commenters in the Order No. 881 proceeding expressed a range of opinions on whether and how the Commission should require the implementation of DLRs. On one end of the spectrum, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s Market Monitoring Unit (SPP MMU) stated that it supported a requirement for DLR implementation on all transmission lines. 17 Similarly, Industrial Customer Organizations and the R Street Institute contended that DLRs should be required by default, with exceptions given when justified by cost-benefit analyses. 18 On the other end, many commenters, including nearly all transmission owners that filed comments about DLRs, either opposed a requirement to implement DLRs on all transmission lines  19 or opposed a DLR requirement in any form. 20

9. Other commenters supported targeted or limited DLR implementation. For example, the WATT Coalition (WATT) and Clean Energy Parties proposed criteria for requiring DLR implementation and contended that such criteria could help overcome concern about costs of DLRs exceeding benefits. 21 Specifically, WATT proposed that the Commission require “sensor-based DLRs” on all thermally limited transmission lines rated 69 kV or greater when: (1) Market congestion totaling over $1 million has occurred within the past year; (2) the transmission line is identified as being a constraint projected to have market congestion over $1 million over the coming three years as a part of the current RTO/ISO transmission planning cycle process, which can be economic or reliability based; (3) thermally limited transmission lines show up as limiting in generator interconnection system impact studies; or (4) generation curtailed by more than 10% on average for one year due to factors that include transmission line capacity. 22

10. While the Commission in Order No. 881 highlighted the potential benefits of DLR implementation, including potential increases in the accuracy of transmission line ratings and potentially greater power flows, it recognized that there are costs and challenges associated with DLR implementation. Some commenters in the Order No. 881 proceeding provided DLR cost estimates, but there was limited detail around those estimates and those estimates varied. For example, BPA asserted that DLR implementation would require investment of potentially over $1 million per transmission line in monitoring equipment, software, and hardware to submit and host the data. 23 MISO Transmission Owners contended that DLR implementation could cost between $100,000 and $200,000 per transmission line, and thus the overall cost to implement DLRs for all transmission lines in MISO would be approximately $1.5 billion. 24 SPP estimated that DLR implementation that requires an energy management system (EMS) upgrade would cost transmission owners up to $1 million and, without upgrading the EMS, DLR implementation would cost an additional $100,000 to $500,000 annually in additional supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) communications with the reliability coordinator's EMS. 25

11. DLRs are generally based on a combination of real-time measured data and various forecasts that are used to compute up-to-date transmission line ratings. The real-time measured data is typically gathered using field located sensors.

12. In their comments in the Order No. 881 proceeding, WATT suggested a requirement that transmission providers implement “sensor-based DLRs” in certain circumstances ( i.e., a requirement that transmission line ratings incorporate real-time data from field-based sensors on weather and/or transmission line parameters, such as sag, tension or temperature). 26 Alternatively, transmission line ratings could be based on up-to-date forecasts of additional weather input and/or transmission line parameter values.

13. The following questions seek information regarding potential approaches for a DLR requirement.

14. In Order No. 881, the Commission required AARs to be implemented no later than three years from the compliance filing due date. 32 The Commission explained that three years was consistent with the implementation schedule most commonly suggested by transmission owners for AAR implementation on priority transmission lines and that three years would be sufficient time for transmission owners and transmission providers to implement changes to their processes and systems to comply with the requirements adopted in the final rule.

15. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this NOI, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due April 25, 2022 and Reply Comments are due May 25, 2022. Comments must refer to Docket No. AD22-5-000 and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.

16. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word-processing formats. Documents created electronically using word-processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned or picture format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

17. Those unable to file electronically may mail comments via the U.S. Postal Service to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered comments or comments sent via any other carrier should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.

18. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

19. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ). At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020 proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

20. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

21. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks to explore oil pipeline capacity allocation issues that arise when anomalous conditions affect the demand for oil pipeline capacity and what actions, if any, the Commission should consider to address those allocation issues. Specifically, the Commission seeks public comment on anomalous conditions and their potential impacts on oil pipeline capacity allocation, as well as whether there are changes to the Commission's existing policies (such as those regarding prorationing) that the Commission should consider to mitigate these impacts. The Commission also seeks comment on the effects of recent anomalous conditions—those arising from the COVID-19 pandemic—on the availability of pipeline capacity for transporting jet fuel.

2. Interstate oil pipelines are regulated as common carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). 1 Accordingly, oil pipeline rates, terms, and conditions of service must be just and reasonable  2 and non-discriminatory. 3 Furthermore, an oil pipeline is obligated to provide transportation upon reasonable request. 4

3. Prorationing is the mechanism that oil pipelines use to allocate capacity among shippers when their total nominations exceed the pipeline's capacity. The Commission does not prescribe a uniform prorationing methodology, but a pipeline's methodology must be consistent with the ICA. 5

4. Historically, oil pipelines have employed two general types of prorationing methodologies: Pro rata and history-based. A pro rata methodology awards available capacity to shippers in proportion to their nominations each nomination cycle, regardless of how much service, if any, they have taken in the past. 6 In contrast, a history-based methodology gives preference to shippers with a history of shipping on the pipeline. 7 However, the Commission has required pipelines using this methodology to allow all shippers the opportunity to develop a record of transportation on the pipeline so as to attain preferred historical shipper status. 8 When a pipeline uses a history-based methodology, it must reserve a portion of its capacity for new shippers. 9

5. Oil pipelines serve a critical function transporting crude oil, refined products, 10 and natural gas liquids. 11 Pipelines move crude oil from production areas to refineries and refined products to markets for consumption. Pipeline transportation is often more convenient and more cost-effective than alternative forms of transportation. Many pipelines offer transportation of more than one kind of product, often using a batching system to differentiate between products on the system.

6. As explained above, pipeline prorationing policies determine which shippers may access the pipeline when shipper demand exceeds pipeline capacity. These prorationing policies are often important during anomalous conditions that may cause sudden and unexpected changes to the demand for pipeline capacity. Anomalous conditions can result from a number of circumstances, including, but not limited to, extreme weather, national emergencies, and major market disruptions. Anomalous conditions can significantly and suddenly increase shipper nominations above available pipeline capacity. Likewise, anomalous conditions can temporarily reduce some shippers' usage of the pipeline system. Under these circumstances, if demand subsequently increases above pipeline capacity, prorationing policies must address the allocation of pipeline capacity among different shippers whose most recent shipping histories may not reflect their longer-term historical usage.

7. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected jet fuel shippers' demand for oil pipeline capacity, although it reduced demand rather than increasing it. For example, at a July 2020 technical conference discussing the serious impacts that emergency conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were having on the energy industry, one panelist raised concerns regarding jet fuel shippers' ability to access capacity on oil pipelines using history-based prorationing due to a disproportionate decrease in jet fuel consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic. 12 Then, in July 2021, certain jet fuel shippers filed a request for emergency relief, asking the Commission to direct SFPP to prioritize jet fuel shipments on its North Line to Reno-Tahoe International Airport to prevent jet fuel shortages. 13

8. As reflected in these proceedings, Airlines  14 have raised capacity allocation issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic's effects on demand for jet fuel shipments and subsequent effects on pipeline allocation. 15 After demand for air travel declined due to the start of the pandemic in March 2020, Airlines state that they reduced shipments of jet fuel on several multi-product pipelines that supply airports. 16 Because these pipelines use history-based prorationing, Airlines claim that their decreased shipments during the pandemic reduced the future capacity allocated to them. 17 Airlines state that this reduction harms their ability to continue to self-supply jet fuel using their shipper history on pipelines as they did prior to the pandemic. They state that fuel is a major cost and that self-supply enables them to better control fuel costs. 18

9. In this proceeding, we seek comment on oil pipeline capacity allocation issues that arise under anomalous conditions, including the availability of pipeline capacity for transporting jet fuel to supply airports following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also seek comment on whether there are any actions the Commission should consider that would mitigate the effects of anomalous conditions on oil pipeline capacity allocations, including the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on demand for pipeline capacity to airport destinations.

A1. Using specific historical examples, please describe any anomalous conditions that have affected demand for, and thus shipper access to, pipeline capacity. In discussing each example, commenters should (a) generally describe the differential between the shipper's nominations and actual, pro-rated shipments, (b) describe how long the anomalous conditions existed, (c) explain whether the anomalous conditions continued to affect pipeline access even after the anomalous conditions concluded, and (d) describe whether and to what extent the shipper was able to use transportation alternatives ( e.g., trucking) or other means to compensate for the difference between its nominations and actual, pro-rated shipments.

A2. Do current prorationing policies sufficiently address the allocation of capacity during and after anomalous conditions? For commenters responding that current prorationing policies are insufficient, please explain how current prorationing policies are insufficient and describe any aspects of current prorationing policies that pose particular problems or impediments.

A3. Are there any actions the Commission should consider that would mitigate the effects of anomalous conditions on pipeline capacity allocations? To the extent the Commission considers changes to prorationing policies to address capacity allocation issues under anomalous conditions, should the Commission consider alternatives to history-based prorationing and pro rata allocations? Or should the Commission instead modify existing capacity allocation methodologies? In proposing any potential actions, please describe how such actions would be consistent with the ICA.

A4. Please describe the current availability of secondary transactions for acquiring shipper history  19 or for otherwise obtaining access to pipeline capacity outside a pipeline's nomination and prorationing process. Please describe any experience with, and the practical implications of, using such secondary transactions to mitigate the impacts of anomalous conditions. Please also explain whether and, if so, how the availability of secondary transactions could be enhanced or expanded to improve shipper access to pipeline capacity during anomalous conditions.

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

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

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

This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from a registrant to cancel 7969-430 and 7969-432 pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. For this voluntary cancellation request, the registrant indicates that the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II are not in the channels of trade because they were never commercialized in the United States. Therefore, no existing stocks provision is needed. The cancellation will be effective on the date of publication of the cancellation order in the Federal Register . Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Unit II, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

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

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

Abstract: Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, in the first FR notice published on May 30, 2018, EPA solicited comments and information pertaining to the Continuous Release Reporting Requirements (CRRR) under Section 103(a) of CERCLA, as amended. CRRR requires the person in charge of a vessel or facility immediately to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of a hazardous substance release into the environment if the amount of the release equals or exceeds the substance's reportable quantity (RQ). The RQ of every hazardous substance can be found in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4. If the source and chemical composition of the continuous release do not change and the level of the continuous release does not significantly increase, a follow-up written report to the EPA Region one year after submission of the initial written report is also required. The person in charge must notify the NRC and EPA Region of a change in the source or composition of the release, and under section 103(a) of CERCLA, a significant increase must be reported immediately to the NRC. Finally, any change in information submitted in support of a continuous release notification must be reported to the EPA Region. Section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA provides facilities relief from per-occurrence notification release requirements if the subject release is continuous and stable in quantity and rate.

The Continuous Release Reporting Requirement allows the Federal government to determine whether a Federal response action is required to control or mitigate any potential adverse effects to public health, welfare or the environment. The release information is also available to EPA program offices and other Federal agencies that evaluate the potential need for additional regulations, new permitting requirements for specific substances or sources, or improved emergency response planning. State and local government authorities and facilities subject to the CRRR use release information for local emergency response planning. The public, which has access to release information through the Freedom of Information Act, may request release information on what types of releases are occurring in different localities and what actions, if any, are being taken to protect public health, welfare and the environment. 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 burden estimates, numbers and types of respondents, wage rates and unit and total costs for this ICR renewal will be revised and updated, if needed, during the 60-day comment period while the ICR Supporting Statement is undergoing review at OMB.

Form Numbers: EPA Form 6100-10, Continuous Release Reporting Form.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are not defined. The use and release of hazardous substances are pervasive throughout industry. EPA expects many different industrial categories to report hazardous substance releases under the provisions of the CRRR. No one industry sector or group of sectors is disproportionately affected by the information collection burden.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory if respondents want reduced reporting for continuous releases. See the abstract for details.

Estimated number of respondents: 4,192.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 334,472 hours (average per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $19,797,899 (average per year), including $243,200 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs (average per year).

Changes in estimates: Any change in burden or cost resulting from the 60-day OMB review period will be described and explained in this section when the updated ICR Supporting Statement is completed.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0674) contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement.

The electronic version of the public docket for this action contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement and is available through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

Prior to this lawsuit being filed, on January 18, 2017, EPA submitted to FWS a nationwide biological evaluation regarding the effects of malathion and two other pesticide active ingredients on species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq., and their designated critical habitats and requested initiation of consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2) (the Malathion Consultation). The Malathion Consultation has been ongoing since that date.

Plaintiffs filed their original case in May 2018, and amended the complaint on July 25, 2018, and on November 27, 2018, alleging that: (1) EPA violated its procedural duty under ESA Section 7(a)(2) to complete consultation and its substantive duty under ESA Section 7(a)(2) to avoid jeopardy with respect to 21 malathion-containing pesticide product registrations under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the FWS violated its procedural duty to complete consultation under ESA Section 7(a)(2); (2) these failures constitute unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed agency action in violation of Section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 706(1); and (3) EPA failed to comply with ESA Section 7(d) when it “maintained the registrations of these same pesticide products and continued to reregister and register pesticide products containing malathion.”

On January 4, 2022, the court entered the first stipulated partial settlement agreement that resolved part of this case. Specifically, unless one of the contingencies set forth in settlement agreement occurs (which may result in an extension of time), FWS will issue its Final Biological Opinion and conclude the Malathion Consultation no later than February 28, 2022.

The remaining part of this case involves the substantive claims under ESA section 7(a)(2) against EPA. This second proposed partial settlement agreement states that, unless one of the contingencies set forth in settlement agreement occurs (which may result in an extension of time), EPA will implement specific portions of the Final Biological Opinion no later than 18 months from the date that FWS issues the Final Biological Opinion. Implementation will include, but is not limited to, providing to all registrants of products containing malathion written notice of the issuance of the Final Biological Opinion no later than 60 calendar days from its issuance, as well as notice of any actions the malathion registrants must take (including to require submission of requests to amend labeling or terms and conditions of registration).

Court approval of this proposed stipulated partial settlement agreement would result in the dismissal with prejudice of the remaining claims. Defendant-Intervenor joins this proposed settlement agreement.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed stipulated partial settlement agreement from persons who are not named as parties to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed stipulated partial settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the ESA or FIFRA. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent should be withdrawn, the terms of the proposed stipulation and stipulated notice of dismissal will be affirmed.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0674, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

Title and Form Number: EIB 21-03 REQUEST FOR A MEDICAL EXCEPTION TO THE COVID-19 VACCINATION REQUIREMENT.

OMB Number: 3048-xxxx.

Type of Review: Regular.

Need and Use: The information collected will allow EXIM to determine compliance and content for transaction requests submitted to the Export-Import Bank under its insurance, guarantee, and direct loan programs.

A Notice Regarding Injunctions: The vaccination requirement issued pursuant to E.O. 14043, is currently the subject of a nationwide injunction. While that injunction remains in place, EXIM will not process requests for a medical exception from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043. EXIM will also not request the submission of any medical information related to a request for an exception from the vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043 while the injunction remains in place. But EXIM may nevertheless receive information regarding a medical exception. That is because, if EXIM were to receive a request for an exception from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043 during the pendency of the injunction, EXIM will accept the request, hold it in abeyance, and notify the employee who submitted the request that implementation and enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043 is currently enjoined and that an exception therefore is not necessary so long as the injunction is in place. In other words, during the pendency of the injunction, any information collection related to requests for medical exception from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043 is not undertaken to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement.

Affected Public: This form affects EXIM employees.

Annual Number of Respondents: 12.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 2 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 24 hours.

Frequency of Reporting of Use: As required.

Government Expenses:

Reviewing time per year: 2 hours.

Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

Average Cost per Year: $1020.00 (time * wages).

Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

Total Government Cost: $1224.00.

Title: Regulation V, Subpart N (12 CFR 1022.130-1022.138).

OMB Control Number: 3084-0128.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Annual Burden: After halving the updated estimates to split the PRA burden with the CFPB regarding the Rule, the FTC's burden totals are 192,722 hours, $4,072,801 in associated labor costs, and $6,227,100 in non-labor/capital costs.

Abstract: The FTC shares enforcement authority with the CFPB for subpart N of Regulation V. Subpart N requires nationwide consumer reporting agencies and nationwide consumer specialty reporting agencies to provide to consumers, upon request, one free file disclosure within any 12-month period. Generally, it requires the nationwide consumer reporting agencies, as defined in Section 603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681a(p), to create and operate a centralized source that provides consumers with the ability to request their free annual file disclosures from each of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies through a centralized internet website, toll-free telephone number, and postal address. Subpart N also requires the nationwide consumer reporting agencies to establish a standardized form for internet and mail requests for annual file disclosures, and provides a model standardized form that may be used to comply with that requirement. It additionally requires nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies, as defined in Section 603(w) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(w), to establish a streamlined process for consumers to request annual file disclosures. This streamlined process must include a toll-free telephone number for consumers to make such requests.

On November 16, 2021, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 86 FR 63387. The Commission received no germane comments. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rules.

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

Purpose: The Board is charged with providing advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH), the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Director, Center for Preparedness and Response (CPR), concerning strategies and goals for the programs and research within CPR, monitoring the overall strategic direction and focus of the CPR Divisions and Offices, and administration and oversight of peer review for CPR scientific programs. For additional information about the Board, please visit: https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/bsc/index.htm.

Matters To Be Considered: The agenda will include: (1) BSC CPR Polio Containment Workgroup (PCWG) Update; and (2) Strategic Capacity Building and Innovation Program Review Working Group Update. 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.

Following is a summary of the use and burden associated with the subject information collection(s). More detailed information can be found in the collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES ).

1. Title of Information Collection: Medicaid Section 1115 Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Demonstration: Monitoring Reports Documents and Templates; Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Use: On November 1, 2017, CMS released a letter #17-003 to all state Medicaid Directors announcing new directions on how CMS would like to work with states on section 1115(a) demonstrations to improve access to and quality of treatment for Medicaid beneficiaries as part of a Department-wide effort to combat the ongoing opioid crisis. The letter also announced that CMS is now offering a more flexible, streamlined approach to accelerate states' ability to respond to the national opioid crisis while enhancing states' monitoring and reporting of the impact of any changes implemented through these demonstrations.

Medicaid Section 1115 demonstration monitoring and evaluation Special Terms and Conditions (STC), and the letter #17-003, make clear that CMS remains committed to ensuring state accountability for the health and well-being of Medicaid enrollees and that monitoring and evaluation are important for understanding the outcomes and impacts of approaches to Medicaid SUD demonstrations. For this purpose, CMS is undertaking efforts to help states monitor the elements of these demonstrations, while giving them the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions in their states. States with approved SUD demonstrations are required to develop implementation and monitoring plans, including monitoring metrics, a monitoring protocol, and regular monitoring reports describing their implementation progress.

In addition, the STCs for these section 1115 demonstrations address that states are required to submit in their regular monitoring reports, information on milestones and performance measures that they elected to represent key indicators of progress toward meeting the goals for the demonstrations.

Furthermore, to improve the quality and efficiency of the reporting requirements for SUD demonstrations, CMS in conjunction with state advisory groups developed a set of standardized monitoring tools for states to use for their regular reporting, including:

• The Medicaid section 1115 SUD demonstration monitoring protocol template (this is a one-time submission);

• The Medicaid section 1115 SUD demonstration monitoring protocol workbook (this is a one-time submission);

• The Medicaid section 1115 SUD demonstration monitoring report template, and;

• The Medicaid Section 1115 SUD demonstration monitoring report workbook.

As specified in official 1115 policy communications to states:

In accordance with 42 CFR 431.428 states must submit all post-approval deliverables as stipulated by CMS and within the timeframes outlined within the STCs for the specific Medicaid 1115 State Demonstration.

The State Medicaid Director Letter, #17-003, entitled, Strategies Addressing the Opioid Epidemic, provides a framework for SUD demonstrations under Medicaid Section 1115 Authority. This letter indicates that a state's application should confirm its commitment to assuring the necessary resources to support robust monitoring protocol and evaluation, and that the state will provide an implementation plan subject to CMS approval. The letter further states that information about the specific measures and reporting will be detailed in a monitoring protocol agreed upon by CMS and the state after approval of the demonstration which will demonstrate progress toward meeting the goals for this demonstration initiative.

In addition, the STCs for the Medicaid section 1115 SUD demonstrations require that approved states submit an SUD implementation plan subject to CMS approval, and an SUD monitoring protocol to be developed in cooperation with CMS and which is subject to CMS approval. The SUD monitoring protocol, reporting templates, and associated monitoring metrics flow down from the OMB-approved SUD implementation plan, which aligns with the goals and objectives of the demonstration as expressed in SMDL #17-003.

The STCs also require approved states to submit three quarterly and one annual monitoring reports consistent with the elements provided in 42 CFR 431.428 and in accordance with a framework to be provided by CMS. The STCs also provide that the monitoring framework be subject to change as monitoring systems are developed and evolve, and that states are required to report in a structured manner that supports federal tracking and analysis.

In this 2022 information collection request, we have revised the following monitoring tools:

• Monitoring protocol tools:

○ Monitoring protocol workbook (updated to Version 6.0)

○ Monitoring protocol template (updated to Version 4.0)

• Monitoring report tools:

○ Monitoring report template (updated to Version 4.0)

○ Monitoring report workbook (updated to Version 6.0)

This 2022 release incorporates updated guidance on reporting metrics, narrative information, and other clarifications. This release also reflects modifications to align with the Medicaid Section 1115 Substance Use Disorder Demonstrations: Technical Specifications for Monitoring Metrics Manual Version 4.0 (released September 2021).

In addition, this release incorporates updated functionality in the Performance Metrics Database & Analytics (PMDA) system aimed to automate aspects of reporting and customize tools to ease state burden. Updated functionality includes:

• Auto-population of certain fields within the monitoring report tools in alignment with the state's CMS-approved monitoring protocol.

• Reporting flagged items early in the process to reduce resubmission and allow CMS to engage with the state faster and on a more detailed level.

• Ensuring the latest version of the monitoring tools are utilized by sending an email notification to all designated demonstration contacts when customized monitoring report tools are available.

Form Number: CMS-10398 (#57) (OMB control number: 0938-1148); Frequency: Once, yearly, and quarterly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 35; Total Annual Responses: 596; Total Annual Hours: 6,394. For policy questions regarding this collection contact: Danielle Daly at 410-786-0897.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed 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) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

This information collection supports FDA regulations regarding the sanitary transportation of human and animal food. The regulations are intended to focus on preventing food safety problems throughout the food chain and were issued under the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005 (2005 SFTA), and the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, enacted in 2011. The 2005 SFTA amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), in part, by creating section 416 (21 U.S.C. 350e), which directs us to issue regulations to require shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receivers, and other persons engaged in the transportation of food to use prescribed sanitary transportation practices to ensure that food is not transported under conditions that may render the food adulterated. Section 416 also directs that we prescribe appropriate human and animal food transportation practice requirements relating to: (1) Sanitation; (2) packaging, isolation, and other protective measures; (3) limitations on the use of vehicles; (4) information to be disclosed to carriers and to manufacturers; and (5) recordkeeping.

In addition, the 2005 SFTA created section 402(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(i)), which provides that food that is transported or offered for transport by a shipper, carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, or any other person engaged in the transportation of food under conditions that are not in compliance with the regulations issued under section 416 is adulterated and section 301(hh) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(hh)), which prohibits the failure by a shipper, carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, or any other person engaged in the transportation of food to comply with the regulations issued under section 416.

The 2005 SFTA also amended section 703 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 373) by providing that a shipper, carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, or other person subject to section 416 shall, on request of an officer or employee designated by FDA, permit the officer or employee, at reasonable times, to have access to and to copy all records that are required to be kept under the regulations issued under section 416.

Accordingly, we issued regulations in 21 CFR part 1, subpart O (21 CFR 1.900 through 1.934) that establish requirements for the sanitary transportation of human and animal food, as well as prescribe procedures for respondents who wish to request a waiver for any requirement. For additional information regarding Agency implementation of the SFTA, visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-documents-regulatory-information-topic-food-and-dietary-supplements/sanitation-transportation-guidance-documents-regulatory-information.

We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

We estimate an annual recordkeeping burden of 124,669, which assumes 1,502,032 workers will spend an average of 5 minutes on activities related to the record retention requirements under 21 CFR 1.912. We expect these activities will likely include documenting procedures and training, as well as sanitary transportation operations and specification requirements.

We estimate one waiver petition from each of two firms will be submitted and respondents will spend 24 hours to prepare and submit the petition to FDA.

Finally, we estimate an annual third-party disclosure burden of 132 hours, assuming each of 226 firms will spend an average of 35 minutes, annually, disclosing written records as required under 21 CFR 1.908.

Based on an evaluation of the information collection, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.

BsUFA was originally enacted in 2012 as the Biosimilar User Fee Act under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) for a period of 5 years. In 2017, BsUFA was renewed for 5 more years under the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA) (BsUFA II) (Pub. L. 115-52, Title IV)). BsUFA was intended to provide additional revenues so that FDA can hire staff, improve systems, and continue a well-managed biosimilar biological product review process to make biosimilar biological product therapies available to patients sooner. BsUFA II was authorized to continue the collection of user fees by FDA to facilitate and expedite the process for the review of biosimilar biological products in the United States.

Under BsUFA II, FDA committed to apply a new review model to original biosimilar biologics license application (BLA) reviews. That review model is identified in section II.B. of the BsUFA II Commitment Letter as the Program for Enhanced Review Transparency and Communication for Original 351(k) BLAs. The Program provides opportunities for increased communication between FDA and applicants, including mid-cycle and late-cycle meetings. To accommodate the increased interaction during regulatory review, FDA's review clock begins after the 60-day administrative filing review period for applications reviewed under the Program. The goal of the Program is to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the first-cycle review process and minimize the number of review cycles necessary for approval, ensuring that patients have timely access to safe, effective, and high-quality biosimilar and interchangeable biological products.

An independent evaluator is assessing the Program to understand its effect on the review of original 351(k) BLAs. An interim assessment was published December 3, 2020, and can be accessed at https://www.fda.gov/media/144130/download. The BsUFA II performance commitments also call for a final assessment of the Program to be published by June 30, 2022, for public comment. The final assessment can be accessed at https://www.fda.gov/industry/biosimilar-user-fee-amendments/bsufa-ii-assessment-program-enhanced-review-transparency-and-communication-biosimilar-user-fee-act. A public meeting will be held on March 22, 2022, where the final assessment will be discussed, and public stakeholders may present their views on the Program.

Additional information concerning BsUFA—including the text of the law, the “Biosimilar Biological Product Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2018 through 2022” (the BsUFA II Commitment Letter), “Biosimilar Authorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2013 through 2017” (the BsUFA Commitment Letter), key Federal Register documents, BsUFA-related guidances, BsUFA user fee rates, performance reports, and financial reports—may be found at https://www.fda.gov/industry/fda-user-fee-programs/biosimilar-user-fee-amendments.

FDA and an independent contractor will discuss the findings of the final assessment, including anonymized and aggregated feedback from biosimilar BLA applicants and FDA review teams resulting from independent contractor interviews. FDA will discuss any issues identified, including any proposed plans to improve the likelihood of the Program's success. A panel of external stakeholders will also provide their perspectives.

Registration: Registration is optional and not required to attend this virtual public meeting. However, registering will allow FDA to provide you with email updates if any meeting details change. If you wish to register, you can do so at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/public-meeting-on-the-final-assessment-of-the-bsufa-ii-program-tickets-229459628927.

Opportunity for Verbal Public Comment: Those who register online will receive a confirmation email that includes a link to a request form to make verbal public comment at the meeting. If you wish to speak during the public comment session, follow the instructions in the notification and identify which topic(s) you wish to address. We will do our best to accommodate requests to make public comments. Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their comments and request time jointly. All requests to make a public comment during the meeting must be received by March 10, 2022, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Depending on the number of requests, we will determine the amount of time allotted to each commenter, the approximate time each comment is to begin, and will select and notify participants by March 18, 2022. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented at the public meeting.

Streaming Webcast of the Public Meeting: The Zoom Webinar ID for this public meeting is 161 769 1719. The webcast link for this public meeting can be found here: https://fda.zoomgov.com/j/1617691719?pwd=dy9yRTVqdEw1dVEzTUNqelFEa3Vpdz09. This link should allow you to enter the webinar directly. If Zoom asks for a passcode, please use the passcode f7DLM=, which is case-sensitive.

Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the public meeting is available, it will be accessible at https://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ). A link to the meeting recording will also be available on the internet at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/public-meeting-final-assessment-program-enhanced-review-transparency-and-communication-biosimilar.

FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Nonclinical Considerations for Mitigating Nonhuman Primate Supply Constraints Arising from the COVID-19 Pandemic.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a marked reduction in the supply of NHPs available for conducting nonclinical toxicity assessments. Before the pandemic, China was the largest supplier of NHPs used in pharmaceutical development, accounting for 60 percent of NHPs imported to the United States. 1 Early in the pandemic, China implemented a ban on the trade of wild animals—including NHPs—in an effort to potentially curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This ban remains in effect. In conjunction with this reduction in supply, there has been a substantial increase in the demand for NHPs for the testing of experimental COVID-19 treatments and vaccines. 2

This reduction in supply and prioritization for COVID-19-related studies have severely restricted the availability of NHPs for other pharmaceutical development programs, resulting in a disruption in supply that has the potential to significantly delay the development of new medications for the treatment of diseases currently without effective treatment options. While the disruption affects the NHP supply generally, there is a particularly acute shortage of sexually mature NHPs that are often the only pharmacologically relevant species with which to assess developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoints for biotherapeutic proteins (biological products).

This guidance provides recommendations regarding the use of NHPs in development programs for small molecule drugs as well as for biological products, covering both general toxicity studies and developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies. The guidance provides FDA's recommendations for sponsors to use alternative nonrodent species, whenever possible, in general toxicology studies and, in general, to not use NHPs for DART assessment of small molecule drugs. For DART studies of biological products, the guidance provides FDA's recommendation that sponsors fully utilize non-NHP approaches to assess DART. These approaches include, when scientifically appropriate, the use of a weight-of-evidence approach to risk assessment, the use of species-specific surrogate proteins in rodents, and the use of rodents genetically modified to (1) respond to the clinical candidate or (2) evaluate the effects of altered activity of the target of the biological product. In instances with no scientifically appropriate alternatives to the NHP, the sponsor may be able to reduce the number of NHPs used per study by reducing the number of treatment groups in the study. The guidance also addresses the potential for delaying the conduct of DART studies to the postmarketing setting. Taken together, these recommendations are expected to help mitigate the constrained supply of NHPs until such time as the NHP supply recovers sufficiently from the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In light of the public health emergency related to COVID-19 declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), pursuant to section 319(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d(a)(2)), FDA has determined that prior public participation for this guidance is not feasible or appropriate and is issuing this guidance without prior public comment (see section 701(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(h)(1)(C)(i) and 21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)). This guidance document is being implemented immediately, but it remains subject to comment in accordance with the Agency's good guidance practice statute and regulation.

This guidance is intended to remain in effect for the duration of the public health emergency related to COVID-19 declared by the Secretary of HHS, including any renewals. 3 However, the recommendations and processes described in the guidance are expected to help mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic-related NHP supply constraints affecting pharmaceutical development that are expected to persist beyond the termination of the COVID-19 public health emergency ( e.g., time required to rebuild breeding stocks and for NHPs to reach sexual maturity) and reflect the Agency's current thinking on this issue. Therefore, within 60 days following the termination of the public health emergency, FDA intends to revise and replace this guidance with any appropriate changes based on comments received on this guidance and the Agency's experience with implementation.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Nonclinical Considerations for Mitigating Nonhuman Primate Supply Constraints Arising from the COVID-19 Pandemic.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances, https:// www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-related-guidance-documents-industry-fda-staff-and-other-stakeholders, or https://www.regulations.gov.

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.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the draft recovery plan for 50 Hawaiian archipelago species. The 50 endangered or threatened species addressed in this draft recovery plan are all endemic to the Hawaiian Islands, and include 35 plants, 13 invertebrates, and 2 birds. The draft recovery plan includes specific goals, objectives, and criteria that should be met to enable us to consider removing any of the species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We request review and comment on this draft recovery plan from the public and local, State, and Federal agencies.

Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of our endangered species program and the Endangered Species Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) Recovery means improvement of the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species.

The objective of a recovery plan is to provide a framework for the recovery of a listed species so that protection under the Act is no longer necessary. A recovery plan includes scientific information about the species and provides criteria and actions necessary for us to be able to reclassify the species or remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Recovery plans help guide our recovery efforts by describing actions we consider necessary for the species' conservation and for estimating time and costs for implementing needed recovery measures.

This draft recovery plan addresses 50 species, as described in the table below.

The Service is now using a process termed recovery planning and implementation (RPI) (see https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/RPI.pdf ). The RPI approach is intended to reduce the time needed to develop and implement recovery plans, increase recovery plan relevancy over a longer timeframe, and add flexibility to recovery plans so they can be adjusted for new information or circumstances. Under RPI, a recovery plan includes the statutorily required elements under section 4(f) of the Act (objective and measurable recovery criteria, site-specific management actions, and estimates of time and costs), along with a concise introduction and our strategy to achieve species recovery. The RPI recovery plan is supported by two supplementary documents: A species status assessment or species report, which describes the best available scientific information related to the biological needs of the species and assessment of threats; and the recovery implementation strategy, which details the particular near-term activities needed to implement the recovery actions identified in the recovery plan. Under this approach, we can incorporate new information on species biology or details of recovery implementation by updating these supplementary documents, without concurrent revision of the entire recovery plan, unless changes to statutorily required elements are necessary.

The draft recovery plan for 50 Hawaiian archipelago species is supported by species reports that describe the best available scientific information on species biology, status, and threats for each of the 50 species addressed in the draft recovery plan. These species reports are available within the species profiles for each of the species at https://ecos.fws.gov. We are in the process of coordinating with conservation partners at the State of Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife; the Counties of Kauai, Honolulu, Maui, and Hawaii; interagency Plant Extinction Prevention Program; research institutions; watershed partnerships; public and private stakeholders; and national parks to identify the highest-priority actions for recovery of these species that will be part of a recovery implementation strategy.

Major threats to the various Hawaiian archipelago species addressed in this draft recovery plan include habitat degradation, predation and herbivory by nonnative mammals and invertebrates; disease spread by nonnative species; and competition with invasive nonnative plant species. Achieving recovery for the 50 species will require assessments of populations and their habitats; selection of sites for long-term conservation; control of threats; development of regulatory protections; species-specific research; and translocation of species in order to maximize resiliency, redundancy, and representation. A detailed recovery strategy for each species group or species is presented in the main body of the recovery plan.

Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. By policy we also request peer review of recovery plans (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994). In an appendix to the approved final recovery plan, we will summarize and respond to the issues raised during public comment and peer review. Substantive comments may or may not result in changes to the recovery plan. Comments regarding recovery plan implementation will be forwarded as appropriate to Federal or other entities so that they can be taken into account during the course of implementing recovery actions.

We will consider all comments we receive by the date specified in DATES prior to final approval of the plan.

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.

The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

Pursuant to Section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 (the Energy Act) (Pub. L. 116-260), on November 9, 2021, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published in the Federal Register a draft list of 50 mineral commodities proposed for inclusion on the Interior Department's list of critical minerals and the methodology USGS used to create the list. 86 FR 62199. The Federal Register notice provided for a 30-day public comment period, which closed on December 9, 2021. On December 14, 2021, the USGS published a notice in the Federal Register extending the comment period by 32 days. 86 FR 71083. The public comment period closed on January 10, 2022. The comments are available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov under docket DOI-2021-0013. Consistent with the methodology described in the November 2021 Federal Register notice, the 2022 final list of critical minerals revises the Interior Department's final list of critical minerals, which it published in 2018 pursuant to Executive Order 13817—A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals. 83 FR 23295.

USGS received 1,073 comments during the extended comment period and received 4 letters after the comment period. Two comments were made anonymously, 996 were from individuals, and 77 were submitted on behalf of organizations. The comments included 91 requests to include specific minerals, including copper, phosphate, silver, and lead, which also were not on the 2018 final list, and helium, potash, and uranium, which were on the 2018 final list, but not on the draft list. Many of the comments requesting to include these specific minerals noted their importance or provided other qualitative rationale for their inclusion. However, the comments did not identify any inaccuracies in the data used to conduct the quantitative evaluation in accordance with the published USGS methodology, nor did they identify any single points of failure. USGS applied the quantitative methodology to each of the minerals requested for inclusion that were not on the draft list, and per the criteria articulated in the Federal Register Notice publishing the draft list at 86 FR 62199, a qualitative evaluation was conducted only when other evaluations were not possible. After applying the methodology, USGS determined that the minerals requested for inclusion did not meet the criteria for inclusion on the final list.

There were 991 requests, the vast majority of which were form comments, supporting the removal of uranium (included on the 2018 final list) from the 2022 final list. The comments also included 5 requests supporting the exclusion of other specific minerals, including copper, helium, potash, rhenium, and strontium, none of which the USGS had proposed for inclusion on the list. As noted above, USGS received requests to include four minerals that other commenters also requested to exclude: Copper, helium, potash, and uranium.

Some commenters took issue with USGS's reliance on the Mineral Policy Act of 1970 to characterize uranium as a fuel mineral. Even assuming the Mineral Policy Act of 1970 does not inform the meaning of “fuel mineral” in the Energy Act, uranium nevertheless qualifies as a “fuel mineral” under the latter statute. The Energy Act excludes “fuel minerals” from the definition of critical minerals, and uranium is used as a fuel: While uranium has important non-fuel uses, it is a major fuel commodity in the United States.

Many public comments addressed issues not directly associated with the development of the 2022 final list of critical minerals. Instead, they addressed regulatory and policy issues. These comments will be passed on to other agencies for appropriate consideration.

A small number of comments requested the addition of processed mineral products that were not evaluated for inclusion on the list in this cycle. These included high purity silicon metal and boron carbide, for example, materials for which USGS does not have sufficient data to evaluate at this stage. The USGS appreciates the input from stakeholders and is identifying opportunities to include evaluation of these and other minerals or mineral products in the next update of the methodology.

The Department's list of critical minerals is not static and will be reviewed at least every three years and revised as necessary to reflect current data on supply, demand, and concentration of production, as well as current policy priorities, as required under the Energy Act. The 2022 final list of critical minerals was created using the most recent available data for non-fuel minerals and the current state of the methodology for evaluation of criticality.

The methodology used to develop the 2022 final list of critical minerals is based on the definition of “critical mineral” and the criteria specified in The Energy Act. The methodology was published by the USGS in 2020  1 and 2021  2 and includes three evaluations: (1) A quantitative evaluation of supply risk wherever sufficient data were available, (2) a semi-quantitative evaluation of whether the supply chain had a single point of failure, and (3) a qualitative evaluation when other evaluations were not possible. The quantitative evaluation uses (A) a net import reliance indicator of the dependence of the U.S. manufacturing sector on foreign supplies, (B) an enhanced production concentration indicator which focuses on production concentration outside of the United States, and (C) weights for each producing country's production contribution by its ability or willingness to continue to supply the United States. Further details on the underlying rationale and the specific approach, data sources, and assumptions used to calculate each component of the supply risk metrics are described in the references cited in this notice.

Several comments addressed the overall methodology that USGS used to develop the list, including assertions that the USGS should include additional quantitative or qualitative factors. USGS appreciates these suggestions and will consider them in future updates to the methodology. However, the USGS did not find that any of the comments identified technical flaws in the factors considered or data used in the quantitative methodology that would warrant any changes in the methodology.

After considering all comments received, the USGS believes that the methodology described in USGS Open-File Report 2021-1045 ( https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20211045 ) remains a valid basis for the review and revision of the list of critical minerals. Therefore, the USGS is hereby finalizing the draft list of 50 critical minerals as the final list. A listing of which critical minerals are predominantly recovered as byproducts and further rationale for excluding copper, helium, lead, phosphate, potash, rhenium, silver, strontium, and uranium from the 2022 final list of critical minerals are outlined in the draft list of critical minerals published in the Federal Register at 86 FR 62199. Host minerals for critical minerals that are predominantly recovered as byproducts are identified in USGS Open-File Report 2021-1045, p. 11.

The U.S. Government and other organizations may also use other definitions and rely on other criteria to identify a mineral as critical. In addition, there are many minerals not on the 2022 final list of critical minerals that are nevertheless important to the economic and national security of the United States. This 2022 final list of critical minerals is not intended to replace related terms and definitions of minerals that are deemed strategic, critical or otherwise important.

Authority: E.O. 13817, 82 FR 60835 (December 26, 2017) and The Energy Act of 2020, Section 7002 of Title VII (December 27, 2020).

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

A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 6, 2021, (see 86 FR 35524). One comment was received from the Bureau of Economic Analysis supporting the collection of these data as nationally important.

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

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

Abstract: Respondents to these forms supply the USGS with domestic production and consumption data for industrial mineral commodities, some of which are considered strategic and critical to assist in determining National Defense Stockpile goals. These data and derived information will be published as chapters in Minerals Yearbooks, monthly Mineral Industry Surveys, annual Mineral Commodity Summaries, and special publications for use by government agencies, industry education programs, and the general public.

Title of Collection: Industrial Minerals Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0062.

Form Number: Various, 38 forms.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions: U.S. nonfuel minerals producers and consumers of industrial minerals. Public sector: State and local governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 17,053.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 17,053.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: For each form, the burden time ranges from 10 minutes to 5 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 11,727.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: There are no “nonhour cost” burdens associated with this IC.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, nor is a person required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authorities for this action are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 (30 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ), the National Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21(a)), the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98 et seq. ), and the Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. 2061 et seq. ).

The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before February 12, 2022. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

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

Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:

Authority: Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.

Authority : The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2021).

Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on February 17, 2022, ordered that —

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 19-20, 22-27, and 29-32 of the '805 patent; claims 17, 19-21, 23-24, 26-27, 29, and 33-36 of the '355 patent; claims 7-12 and 19-24 of the '872 patent; and claims 10-16 of the '817 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches with cellular connectivity”;

(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1);

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

(a) The complainants are: Ericsson Inc., 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, TX 75024;

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, SE-164 83 Stockholm, Sweden;

(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Apple, Inc., 1 Apple Park Way, Cupertino, CA 95014;

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

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

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