Title of Collection: Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP).

OMB Control Number: 0524-0050.

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

Type of Request: Notice of intent to extend and revise a currently approved information collection.

NIFA is requesting a three-year extension for the current collection entitled “Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program.”

NIFA is also proposing to update the VMLRP application forms to ensure that they align with the VMLRP loan repayment and awardee requirements as found in 7 U.S.C. 3151a and 7 CFR 3431, as well as updated VMLRP program policies as outlined in NIFA-21-015 VMLRP Program Guidance Manual (March 2021).

Abstract: In January 2003, the National Veterinary Medical Services Act (NVMSA) was passed into law adding section 1415A to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997. This law established a new Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) (7 U.S.C. 3151a) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program of entering into agreements with veterinarians under which they agree to provide veterinary services in veterinarian shortage situations. The purpose of the program is to ensure an adequate supply of trained food animal veterinarians in shortage situations.

NIFA is requesting to extend and modify a currently approved information collection. NIFA will collect information from current and former VMLRP participants and State Animal Health Officials. NIFA will use this information to assess the VMLRP program and to improve oversight of the program. Each form has been updated to align with the VMLRP loan repayment and awardee requirements as found in 7 U.S.C. 3151a and 7 CFR 3431, as well as updated VMLRP program policies. The surveys have been modified based on stakeholder input to maximize the impact of feedback collected and minimize the burden of responding for State Animal Health Officials, applicants, and participants of the VMLRP.

Total Estimate of Burden: The estimated annual reporting burden for all VMLRP collection is as follows:

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities ( see, 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies the following information collection that RB-CS is submitting to OMB as extension to an existing collection with Agency adjustment.

Title: Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant.

OMB Number: 0570-0052.

Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2022.

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

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 18.75 hours per response.

Respondents: Provide technical assistance to socially-disadvantaged groups through eligible cooperatives and cooperative development centers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 40.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 668 hours.

Abstract: The SDGG program was authorized by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 2006 (Section 2744), and further updated by the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 2009 (Section 310B (e)) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932). The Act enables the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to cooperatives, groups of cooperatives, and cooperative development centers where a majority of the board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of socially disadvantaged groups and whose primary focus is to provide assistance to socially-disadvantaged groups. The reporting burden covered by this collection of information consists of forms, documents and written burden to support a request for funding for a Socially-Disadvantaged Group Grant.

Comments are invited on:

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

(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Crystal Pemberton, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, at (202) 260-8621. Email: Crystal.Pemberton@usda.gov.

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

Section 517(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides a procedure whereby if, during the course of an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) investigation, CBP is unable to determine whether the merchandise at issue is covered merchandise within the meaning of section 517(a)(3) of the Act, it shall refer the matter to Commerce to make such a determination. Section 517(a)(3) of the Act defines covered merchandise as merchandise that is subject to an AD order issued under section 736 of the Act or a CVD order issued under section 706 of the Act. Section 517(b)(4)(B) of the Act states that Commerce, after receiving a covered merchandise referral from CBP, shall determine whether the merchandise is covered merchandise and promptly transmit its determination to CBP. Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.227 establish procedures for covered merchandise referrals that Commerce receives from CBP in connection with an EAPA investigation. 1

On June 30, 2022, Commerce received a sufficient covered merchandise referral from CBP regarding CBP EAPA Investigation No. 7412  2 which concerns the AD/CVD orders on bricks from China. 3 Specifically, CBP explained that an allegation was filed by the Magnesia Carbon Brick Fair Trade Coalition (MCBFTC) alleging that products imported by Fedmet Resource Corporation, LLC (Fedmet) as non-subject Bastion® brand magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) bricks are instead magnesia carbon bricks which are covered by the AD/CVD orders. CBP informed Commerce that CBP is unable to determine whether certain merchandise is covered merchandise subject to the AD/CVD orders on bricks from China. Thus, CBP has requested that Commerce issue a determination as to whether products imported as non-subject Bastion® brand MAC bricks are subject to the AD/CVD orders on bricks from China.

Commerce is hereby notifying interested parties that it is initiating a covered merchandise inquiry to determine whether the merchandise subject to the referral is covered merchandise within the meaning of section 517(a)(3) of the Act. Additionally, Commerce intends to provide interested parties with the opportunity to participate in this segment of the proceeding, including through the submission of comments and factual information, and, if appropriate, verification. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(m)(2), Commerce is initiating a single inquiry regarding the merchandise described in the covered merchandise referral on the record of the AD proceeding. Upon issuance of a final covered merchandise determination, Commerce will include a copy of the determination on the record of the CVD proceeding.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(d)(1), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties are permitted one opportunity to submit comment and factual information addressing the initiation. Within 14 days of the filing of such comments, any interested party is permitted one opportunity to submit comment and factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by the other interested parties.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(d)(2), following initiation of a covered merchandise inquiry, Commerce may also issue questionnaires and verify submissions received, where appropriate. Commerce may limit issuance of questionnaires to a reasonable number of respondents. Questionnaire responses are due on the date specified by Commerce. Within 14 days after a questionnaire response has been filed with Commerce, an interested party other than the original submitter is permitted one opportunity to submit comment and factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information contained in the questionnaire response. Within seven days of the filing of such rebuttal, clarification, or correction, the original submitter is permitted one opportunity to submit comment and factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted in the interested party's rebuttal, clarification, or correction.

In certain circumstances, Commerce may issue a preliminary determination as to whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the product that is subject to the covered merchandise inquiry is covered by the scope of the order. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.227(c), Commerce intends to issue a final determination within 120 days of the publication of this notice (this deadline may be extended if Commerce determines that good cause exists to warrant an extension). Promptly after publication of Commerce's final determination, Commerce will convey a copy of the final determination in the manner prescribed by section 516A(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act to all parties to the proceeding and Commerce will transmit its final determination to CBP in accordance with section 517(b)(4)(B) of the Act. 4

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.227(d)(5), during the pendency of this proceeding, Commerce may rescind, in whole or in part, a covered merchandise inquiry. Situations in which Commerce may rescind a covered merchandise inquiry include if CBP withdraws its covered merchandise referral or if Commerce determines that it can address CBP's covered merchandise referral in another segment of the proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(c)(3), Commerce may align the deadlines of this covered merchandise inquiry with the deadlines of another segment of the proceeding if it determines it is appropriate to do so.

Parties are hereby notified that this may be the only notice that Commerce publishes in the Federal Register concerning this covered merchandise referral. Except as indicated below, interested parties that wish to participate in this segment of the proceeding and receive notice of the final determination, must submit their letters of appearance as discussed below. Further, any representative of an interested party desiring access to business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding must file an application for access to business proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO), as discussed below.

The merchandise covered by the orders are certain chemically bonded (resin or pitch), magnesia carbon bricks with a magnesia component of at least 70 percent magnesia (MgO) by weight, regardless of the source of raw materials for the MgO, with carbon levels ranging from trace amounts to 30 percent by weight, regardless of enhancements (for example, magnesia carbon bricks can be enhanced with coating, grinding, tar impregnation or coking, high temperature heat treatments, anti-slip treatments or metal casing) and regardless of whether or not antioxidants are present (for example, antioxidants can be added to the mix from trace amounts to 15 percent by weight as various metals, metal alloys, and metal carbides).

Certain magnesia carbon bricks that are subject to the AD/CVD orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 6902.10.1000, 6902.10.5000, 6815.91.0000, 6815.99.2000 and 6815.99.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive.

The covered merchandise inquiry will address whether the scope covers products imported by Fedmet as non-subject Bastion® brand MAC bricks. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.227(m)(1), Commerce will consider, based on the available record evidence, whether the final determination in the covered merchandise inquiry should be applied on a (i) producer-specific, exporter-specific, importer-specific basis, or some combination thereof; or (ii) on a country-wide basis, regardless of the producer, exporter, or importer, to all products from the same country with the same relevant physical characteristics as the product at issue.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS, unless an exception applies. 5 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the applicable deadline. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 6 Each submission must be placed on the record of the segment of the proceeding for the AD order (A-570-954), ACCESS Covered Merchandise Inquiry segment “EAPA—7412.”

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(l)(1), Commerce will notify CBP of the initiation of the covered merchandise inquiry and direct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of entries of products subject to the covered merchandise inquiry that were already subject to the suspension of liquidation, and to apply the cash deposit rate that would be applicable if the product were determined to be covered by the scope of the orders. Should Commerce issue preliminary or final covered merchandise determinations, Commerce will follow the suspension of liquidation rules under 19 CFR 351.227(l)(2)-(4). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(l)(5), nothing in this section affects CBP's authority to take any additional action with respect to the suspension of liquidation or related measures.

Interested parties that wish to participate in this segment of the proceeding and be added to the public service list for this segment of the proceeding must file a letter of appearance in accordance with 19 CFR 351.103(d)(1), with one exception: the relevant parties to CBP's EAPA investigation publicly identified by CBP in the covered merchandise referral referenced above are not required to submit a letter of appearance, and will be added to the public service list for this segment of the proceeding by Commerce.

Commerce placed an APO on the record on July 11, 2022. 7 Commerce intends to place the business proprietary versions of the documents contained in the covered merchandise referral on the record of this proceeding in ACCESS.

Representatives of interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under the APO in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to this segment of the proceeding, with one exception: APO applicants representing the parties that have been identified by CBP as an importer in the covered merchandise referral (referenced above) are exempt from the additional filing requirements for importers pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(d).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 517(b)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.227(b).

On July 13, 2015, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman. 1 On July 1, 2021, we published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order. 2 On September 7, 2021, based on timely requests for an administrative review, Commerce published a notice of initiation of the administrative review. 3 Commerce initiated this administrative review covering the following 15 companies: Airlift Trans Oceanic Pvt. Ltd.; Al Kiyumi Global LLC; Al Sarah Building Materials LLC; Astrotech; CL Synergy (Pvt) Ltd.; Geekay; Gulf Steel Manufacturers LLC; Modern Factory For Metal Products; Oman Fasteners LLC; Omega Global Uluslararasi Tasimacilik Lojistik Ticaret Ltd Sti.; Overseas International Steel Industry, LLC; Swift Freight India Private Ltd.; Trinity; Universal Freight Services LLC; and WWL Indian Private Ltd. 4 Commerce selected Oman Fasteners as the sole mandatory respondent for individual examination in this review. 5

On March 30, 2022, Commerce extended the time limit for completing the preliminary results of this review, until June 1, 2022. 6 On May 25, 2022, Commerce extended the time limit for completing the preliminary results by an additional 30 days, until July 1, 2022. 7

For a complete description of the events since the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 8 A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as the appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The merchandise covered by the scope of this Order is steel nails from Oman. A complete description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 9

Based upon the no-shipment certifications received by Commerce, and our review of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, we preliminary find that Astrotech, Geekay, and Trinity had no shipments during the POR. CBP did not have any information to contradict the claims of no shipments during the POR. Consistent with Commerce's practice, we will not rescind the review with respect to Astrotech, Geekay, and Trinity in these preliminary results, but rather will complete the review and issue appropriate liquidation instructions to CBP based on the final results. 10 For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to section 776(a)-(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce is preliminarily relying upon total adverse facts available (AFA) to determine a weighted-average dumping margin for Oman Fasteners in this review. Commerce preliminary finds that necessary information is not available on the record, and that Oman Fasteners failed to provide the requested information by the deadlines established by Commerce and significantly impeded the proceeding, warranting a determination on the basis of facts available under section 776(a) of the Act. Further, Commerce preliminarily determines that Oman Fasteners failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in complying with Commerce's request for information, thus warranting use of an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions regarding the application of AFA, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Albermarle,   11 we are applying a rate based on the all-others rate applied in prior segments of this proceeding ( i.e., 9.10 percent) to the eleven companies not selected for individual examination. In this review, we find this rate is reasonably reflective of the non-selected companies' potential dumping margins, and thus, it is appropriate to apply this rate to the non-selected companies, under section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. For a detailed discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminary determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with preliminary results within five days after the date of public announcement or publication of this notice. However, because Commerce preliminarily applied a rate based entirely on AFA to the sole mandatory respondent under review in accordance with section 776 of the Act, there are no calculations to disclose.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs. 14 Parties that submit case 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. 15 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain portions of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 16

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. An electronically-filed hearing request 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 the case briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless otherwise extended.

Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 17 The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 18

On March 4, 2021, Commerce published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews of AD and CVD orders with January 2021 anniversary dates. 1 Commerce inadvertently omitted from the Initiation Notice the initiation of a company from the administrative review of the AD order on softwood lumber from Canada. Commerce is hereby admending the Initiation Notice to initiate the request for review of the following company:

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in Federal waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to industry operators for the incidental take of marine mammals during geophysical survey activities and prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat (often referred to as mitigation), as well as requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations and a determination that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers.

TGS plans to conduct a 3D ocean bottom node (OBN) survey in the Mississippi Canyon, Atwater Valley, Green Canyon, Ewing Bank, and South Timbalier lease areas, with approximate water depths ranging from 130 to 2,000 meters (m). See Figure 1 of the LOA application for a map of the area.

TGS anticipates using two triple source vessels, towing airgun array sources consisting of 28 elements, with a total volume of 5,200 cubic inches (in 3 ). Please see TGS's application for additional detail.

Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by TGS in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (86 FR 5322, 5398; January 19, 2021). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone  1 ); (3) number of days; and (4) season. 2 The acoustic exposure modeling performed in support of the rule provides 24-hour exposure estimates for each species, specific to each modeled survey type in each zone and season.

No 3D OBN surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies ( i.e., 2D, 3D NAZ, 3D WAZ, Coil) is generally conservative for use in evaluation of 3D OBN survey effort, largely due to the greater area covered by the modeled proxies. Summary descriptions of these modeled survey geometries are available in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 29212, 29220; June 22, 2018). Coil was selected as the best available proxy survey type in this case, because the spatial coverage of the planned survey is most similar to the coil survey pattern. The planned 3D OBN survey will involve two source vessels sailing along survey lines approximately 75 km in length. The coil survey pattern was assumed to cover approximately 144 kilometers squared (km 2 ) per day (compared with approximately 795 km 2 , 199 km 2 , and 845 km 2 per day for the 2D, 3D NAZ, and 3D WAZ survey patterns, respectively). Among the different parameters of the modeled survey patterns ( e.g., area covered, line spacing, number of sources, shot interval, total simulated pulses), NMFS considers area covered per day to be most influential on daily modeled exposures exceeding Level B harassment criteria. Although TGS is not proposing to perform a survey using the coil geometry, its planned 3D OBN survey is expected to cover approximately 120-140 km 2 per day, meaning that the coil proxy is most representative of the effort planned by TGS in terms of predicted Level B harassment exposures.

In addition, all available acoustic exposure modeling results assume use of a 72-element, 8,000 in 3 array. Thus, estimated take numbers for this LOA are considered conservative due to differences between the airgun array planned for use (28 elements, 5,200 in 3 ) and the proxy array modeled for the rule.

The survey will take place over approximately 119 days, including 65 days of sound source operation, all within Zone 5. The seasonal distribution of survey days is not known in advance. Therefore, the take estimates for each species are based on the season that produces the greater value.

Additionally, for some species, take estimates based solely on the modeling yielded results that are not realistically likely to occur when considered in light of other relevant information available during the rulemaking process regarding marine mammal occurrence in the GOM. The approach used in the acoustic exposure modeling, in which seven modeling zones were defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages fine-scale information about marine mammal distribution over the large area of each modeling zone. This can result in unrealistic projections regarding the likelihood of encountering particularly rare species and/or species not expected to occur outside particular habitats. Thus, although the modeling conducted for the rule is a natural starting point for estimating take, our rule acknowledged that other information could be considered (see, e.g., 86 FR 5322, 5442 (January 19, 2021), discussing the need to provide flexibility and make efficient use of previous public and agency review of other information and identifying that additional public review is not necessary unless the model or inputs used differ substantively from those that were previously reviewed by NMFS and the public). For this survey, NMFS has other relevant information reviewed during the rulemaking that indicates use of the acoustic exposure modeling to generate a take estimate for certain marine mammal species produces results that are inconsistent with what is known regarding their occurrence in the GOM. Accordingly, we have adjusted the calculated take estimates for those species as described below.

Rice's whales (formerly known as GOM Bryde's whales)  3 are mostly found in a “core habitat area” located in the northeastern GOM in waters between 100-400 m depth along the continental shelf break (Rosel et al., 2016). (Note that this core habitat area is outside the scope of the rule.) However, whaling records suggest that Rice's whales historically had a broader distribution within similar habitat parameters throughout the GOM (Reeves et al., 2011; Rosel and Wilcox, 2014). In addition, habitat-based density modeling identified similar habitat ( i.e., approximately 100-400 m water depths along the continental shelf break) as being potential Rice's whale habitat (Roberts et al., 2016), although the core habitat area contained approximately 92 percent of the predicted abundance of Rice's whales. See discussion provided at, e.g., 83 FR 29212, 29228, 29280 (June 22, 2018); 86 FR 5322, 5418 (January 19, 2021).

There are few data on Rice's whale occurrence outside of the northeastern GOM core habitat area. There were two sightings of unidentified large baleen whales (recorded as Balaenoptera sp. or Bryde's/sei whale) in 1992 in the western GOM during systematic survey effort and, more recently, a NOAA survey reported observation of a Rice's whale in the western GOM in 2017 (NMFS, 2018). There were five potential sightings of Rice's whales by protected species observers (PSOs) aboard industry geophysical survey vessels west of New Orleans from 2010-2014, all within the 200-400 m isobaths (Rosel et al., 2021). In addition, sporadic, year-round recordings of Rice's whale calls were made south of Louisiana within approximately the same depth range between 2016 and 2017 (Soldevilla et al., in press).

Although Rice's whales may occur outside of the core habitat area, we expect that any such occurrence would be limited to the narrow band of suitable habitat described above ( i.e., 100-400 m) and that, based on the few available records, these occurrences would be rare. TGS's planned activities will overlap this depth range, with approximately 18 percent of the area expected to be ensonified by the survey above root-mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 160 dB (referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 μPa)) overlapping the 100-400 m isobaths. Therefore, while we expect take of Rice's whale to be unlikely, there is some reasonable potential for take of Rice's whale to occur in association with this survey. However, NMFS' determination in reflection of the data discussed above, which informed the final rule, is that use of the generic acoustic exposure modeling results for Rice's whales would result in estimated take numbers that are inconsistent with the assumptions made in the rule regarding expected Rice's whale take (86 FR 5322, 5403; January 19, 2021).

Killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM, typically in deep waters of the central GOM (Roberts et al., 2015; Maze-Foley and Mullin, 2006). As discussed in the final rule, the density models produced by Roberts et al. (2016) provide the best available scientific information regarding predicted density patterns of cetaceans in the U.S. GOM. The predictions represent the output of models derived from multi-year observations and associated environmental parameters that incorporate corrections for detection bias. However, in the case of killer whales, the model is informed by few data, as indicated by the coefficient of variation associated with the abundance predicted by the model (0.41, the second-highest of any GOM species model; Roberts et al., 2016). The model's authors noted the expected non-uniform distribution of this rarely-encountered species and expressed that, due to the limited data available to inform the model, it “should be viewed cautiously” (Roberts et al., 2015).

NOAA surveys in the GOM from 1992-2009 reported only 16 sightings of killer whales, with an additional three encounters during more recent survey effort from 2017-18 (Waring et al., 2013; www.boem.gov/gommapps ). Two other species were also observed on less than 20 occasions during the 1992-2009 NOAA surveys (Fraser's dolphin and false killer whale  4 ). However, observational data collected by PSOs on industry geophysical survey vessels from 2002-2015 distinguish the killer whale in terms of rarity. During this period, killer whales were encountered on only 10 occasions, whereas the next most rarely encountered species (Fraser's dolphin) was recorded on 69 occasions (Barkaszi and Kelly, 2019). The false killer whale and pygmy killer whale were the next most rarely encountered species, with 110 records each. The killer whale was the species with the lowest detection frequency during each period over which PSO data were synthesized (2002-2008 and 2009-2015). This information qualitatively informed our rulemaking process, as discussed at 86 FR 5322, 5334 (January 19, 2021), and similarly informs our analysis here.

The rarity of encounter during seismic surveys is not likely to be the product of high bias on the probability of detection. Unlike certain cryptic species with high detection bias, such as Kogia spp. or beaked whales, or deep-diving species with high availability bias, such as beaked whales or sperm whales, killer whales are typically available for detection when present and are easily observed. Roberts et al. (2015) stated that availability is not a major factor affecting detectability of killer whales from shipboard surveys, as they are not a particularly long-diving species. Baird et al. (2005) reported that mean dive durations for 41 fish-eating killer whales for dives greater than or equal to 1 minute in duration was 2.3-2.4 minutes, and Hooker et al. (2012) reported that killer whales spent 78 percent of their time at depths between 0-10 m. Similarly, Kvadsheim et al. (2012) reported data from a study of four killer whales, noting that the whales performed 20 times as many dives to 1-30 m depth than to deeper waters, with an average depth during those most common dives of approximately 3 m.

In summary, killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM and typically occur only in particularly deep water. While this information is reflected through the density model informing the acoustic exposure modeling results, there is relatively high uncertainty associated with the model for this species, and the acoustic exposure modeling applies mean distribution data over areas where the species is in fact less likely to occur. In addition, as noted above in relation to the general take estimation methodology, the assumed proxy source (72-element, 8,000-in 3 array) results in a significant overestimate of the actual potential for take to occur. NMFS' determination in reflection of the information discussed above, which informed the final rule, is that use of the generic acoustic exposure modeling results for killer whales for this survey would result in estimated take numbers that are inconsistent with the assumptions made in the rule regarding expected killer whale take (86 FR 5322, 5403; January 19, 2021).

In past authorizations, NMFS has often addressed situations involving the low likelihood of encountering a rare species such as Rice's whales or killer whales in the GOM through authorization of take of a single group of average size ( i.e., representing a single potential encounter). See 83 FR 63268; December 7, 2018. See also 86 FR 29090; May 28, 2021 and 85 FR 55645; September 9, 2020. For the reasons expressed above, NMFS determined that a single encounter of Rice's whales or killer whales is more likely than the model-generated estimates and has authorized take associated with a single group encounter ( i.e., up to 2 and 7 animals, respectively).

Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations for the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. See Table 1 in this notice and Table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021).

Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small. For more information please see NMFS' discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in the final rule (86 FR 5322, 5438; January 19, 2021).

The take numbers for authorization are determined as described above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section. Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than one day (see 86 FR 5322, 5404; January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in Table 1.

This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 5391; January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and model-predicted abundance information ( https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/GOM/ ). For the latter, for taxa where a density surface model could be produced, we use the maximum mean seasonal ( i.e., 3-month) abundance prediction for purposes of comparison as a precautionary smoothing of month-to-month fluctuations and in consideration of a corresponding lack of data in the literature regarding seasonal distribution of marine mammals in the GOM. Information supporting the small numbers determinations is provided in Table 1.

Based on the analysis contained herein of TGS's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes and therefore is of no more than small numbers.

NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to TGS authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.

In Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2), the New England Fishery Management Council adopted the Stellwagen and Georges Bank Dedicated Habitat Research Areas (DHRA) to better understand how habitat management measures influence stock productivity and to allow for the design of more effective conservation measures in future actions (83 FR 15240; April 9, 2018). The regulations at 50 CFR 648.371 codify the Stellwagen DHRA, which prohibits fishing with bottom-tending mobile gear, sink gillnet gear, or demersal longline gear, unless otherwise exempted, and the Georges Bank DHRA, which prohibits bottom-tending mobile gear, unless otherwise exempted.

The regulations require the NMFS Regional Administrator to initiate a review, consult with the New England Fishery Management Council about, and evaluate the use of the DRHAs beginning 3 years after their establishment to determine if they should be maintained. Criteria used to evaluate whether the DHRAs may continue include documented active and ongoing research in the form of data records, cruise reports, or inventory of samples, approved research proposals, or funding requests for pending research. The review is intended to evaluate whether appropriate research activities are ongoing or imminent, or if these designated areas are unused for their intended purpose of improving habitat science. Specific questions NMFS will consider in the evaluation include:

• Is there active research being conducted in the DHRA?

• Is it anticipated that it will continue beyond this fishing year?

• Is there potential research currently in the permitting process at the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office or other entities, e.g., Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary?

• Is there potential research currently in the funding process?

• Is there a high likelihood that the project will be funded?

• Are the fishing restrictions associated with the DHRA designation an explicit part of the design of the project?

• Is there potential research [at some other critical stage in the idea—funding process]?

Following the review and evaluation of the DHRAs, including information provided through this notice and request, and in consultation with the Council, the Regional Administrator will determine whether the DHRAs should be maintained or removed. Removal of the DHRAs, if warranted, would be completed consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. Additional information and a flowchart outlining how these questions should be used in the evaluation process can be found on pages 116 and 117 of Volume III of OHA2 ( https://www.nefmc.org/library/omnibus-habitat-amendment-2 ).

The DHRAs are intended to allow coordinated research and to build on past studies and baselines by restricting certain types of fishing to create appropriate reference conditions in the research area and facilitate scientific study. The DHRAs are set up as general closures where project scientists determine study sites and treatments and arrange research fishing activity. The DHRAs are intended to provide opportunities for addressing the following research topics and questions:

a. How do different types of bottom tending fishing gear ( e.g., trawl nets, dredges, hook and line, traps, gillnets, longlines) affect the susceptibility and recovery of physical and biological characteristics of seabed habitat, and how do these impacts collectively influence key elements of habitat including spatial complexity, functional groups, community state, and recovery rates and dynamics?

b. Are our estimates of gear contact with the bottom accurate? Can we develop trawl gear that minimizes contact on the bottom, thereby reducing the potential for gear impacts?

a. What recovery models ( e.g., successional vs. multiple-stable states) are operant in the region and how resilient are seafloor habitats to disturbance? In other words, how do seafloor habitats recover, and are there thresholds after which habitats have achieved an alternate state and are no longer capable of recovering to their previous, undisturbed condition?

b. Do “small” fishing-caused disturbances surrounded by unimpacted habitat recover more quickly and exhibit greater resilience in contrast to “large” fishing-caused disturbances embedded with small un-impacted patches?

c. When a particular area is fished for the first time vs. subsequent efforts, are these impacts equal per unit effort? Or, is the first pass over an area much more detrimental? Conversely, is there a tipping point beyond which the habitat is no longer capable of recovering?

a. In the absence of fishing, what are the dynamics of natural disturbance ( e.g., major storm events) on seafloor habitat (especially biological components) across five major grain size classes (mud, sand, coarse sand-granule, pebble-cobble, boulder) and across oceanographic regimes? In areas where natural disturbance is high, are signals of the impacts of fishing masked?

a. How does the productivity of managed species (and prey species) vary across habitat types nested within the range of oceanographic and regional settings? How does this productivity change when habitats are impacted by fishing gear? Do durable mobile bottom-tending gear closures increase fish production? Why are highly productive areas so productive?

NMFS requests information about active and planned research in the DHRAs, the stage of the research, the role of the DHRA in the research, and the relationship of the research to the above DHRA research agenda, if any. Response to this request is voluntary. You may submit written comments via email to Laura.Deighan@noaa.gov with “DHRA Research” in the subject line within 30 days of this notice.

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

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) requires NMFS to estimate the annual levels of human-caused mortality and serious injury (M/SI) to marine mammal stocks (Section 117) and to classify commercial fisheries based on their level of incidental M/SI of marine mammals (Section 118). This charge requires that NMFS distinguish between injuries that are serious and those that are not serious. However, the MMPA and its legislative history do not provide guidance on how severe an injury must be to qualify as “serious.” NMFS defined “Serious Injury” in regulations (50 CFR 229.2) as “any injury that will likely to lead to mortality.” While this definition provided guidance on which injuries should be considered serious injuries, it allowed subjective interpretation of the likelihood that an injury would result in mortality.

To promote national consistency for interpreting the regulatory definition of serious injury, NMFS convened a workshop in April 1997 to discuss available information related to the impact of injuries to marine mammals incidental to commercial operations (Angliss and DeMaster, 1998). The outcomes of the 1997 Workshop, including the development of regional techniques for assessing and quantifying the serious injury of marine mammals, helped NMFS to accomplish the MMPA's mandates. However, through implementing workshop guidance, NMFS recognized a need for a nationally consistent and transparent process for effective conservation of marine mammal stocks and management of human activities implementing these stocks. Further, since 1997, additional information had been collected on human-caused injuries to marine mammals and survival rates of certain individuals and/or species of marine mammals.

Accordingly, NMFS convened a second workshop in September 2007 (Serious Injury Technical Workshop) to review performance under existing guidance, gather scientific information, and update guidance based on the best scientific information available (Andersen et al. 2008). Based on the results of the 2007 workshop and input from marine mammal scientists, veterinary experts, and the MMPA Scientific Review Groups, NMFS developed national guidance and criteria in 2012, comprising a Policy Directive (02-038) and associated Procedural Directive (02-038-01), for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries of marine mammals (Both directives are available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-policies-guidance-and-regulations ). The Policy Directive provides further guidance on NMFS' definition of “serious injury,” and the Procedural Directive describes the annual process for making and documenting injury determinations. The annual process includes guidance for which NMFS personnel make the annual injury determinations; what information should be used in making injury determinations; information exchange between NMFS Science Centers; NMFS Regional Office and Scientific Review Group review of the injury determinations; injury determination report preparation and clearance, and inclusion of injury determinations in the marine mammal stock assessment reports and marine mammal conservation management regimes ( e.g., MMPA List of Fisheries, Take Reduction Teams, Take Reduction Plans, vessel speed regulations).

The injury criteria set forth in the Procedural Directive were developed separately for large whales, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds because of the differences in the source and nature of injury data for these groups. In addition, the types and impacts of injuries differ between these broad taxonomic groups. The injury determinations for large whales are largely based on an analysis of NMFS data on injury events with known outcomes ( i.e., survival or death of the animal), with the exception of a few criteria based on expert opinion (Andersen et al. 2008). In contrast, the injury criteria and determination for small cetaceans and pinnipeds are based almost entirely on expert opinion because data on documented injuries and known outcomes in the wild are not available for most small cetaceans and pinnipeds.

NMFS solicited public comment on both the policy and procedural directive (76 FR 42216; July 18, 2011) and the directives were finalized in 2012. The NMFS Policy Directive specifies that NMFS should review both the Policy and Procedural Directives at least once every five years, or when new information becomes available, to determine whether any revisions to the Directives are warranted. The review must be based on the best scientific information available, input from the MMPA Scientific Review Groups, as appropriate, and experience gained in implementing the process and criteria. If significant revisions are indicated during the review, NMFS will consider making these available for public review and comment prior to acceptance.

In 2017, NMFS initiated a review of the Policy and Procedural Directives and invited subject matter experts from within NMFS to identify necessary revisions based upon the best scientific information available. The review suggested that, in general, the national guidance is meeting its objectives of providing a consistent, transparent, and systematic process for assessing serious from non-serious injuries of marine mammals. However, there was enough substantive feedback to warrant revising the Procedural Directive.

Through the review process, several topics were identified by an internal NMFS Working Group to help concentrate the proposed revisions to the Procedural Directive. Revisions primarily focused on the pinniped and small cetacean sections (Section VIII and IX respectively) and included the creation of a new case specific harassment category (P16) for pinnipeds and expanding existing subcategories (S15a and S15b for small cetaceans) using the best scientific information available. NMFS has also clarified criteria associated with some small cetacean injury categories, including those involving lip and mouth hookings. To inform these proposed revisions, NMFS conducted literature reviews, sought input from several researchers with long-term longitudinal data sets, and solicited individual expert opinion from experts familiar with small cetacean injuries (including anatomists and veterinarians). Further, NMFS included potential risk factors that may lead to the development of capture myopathy in certain individuals, and a list of observable external physical signs that may lead to capture myopathy. This information on capture myopathy is included as an appendix to the Procedural Directive. In addition to the taxa specific revisions, some minor edits were made to improve readability and clarity and to clarify the determination process and reporting procedures. The proposed revised Procedural Directive is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NMFS-2022-0043. NMFS solicits public comments on the proposed revisions.

On September 16, 2011, the AIA was enacted into law (Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)). The AIA established the PTAB, which is made up of administrative patent judges (APJs) and four statutory members, namely the USPTO Director, the USPTO Deputy Director, the USPTO Commissioner for Patents, and the USPTO Commissioner for Trademarks. 35 U.S.C. 6(a). The Director is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 35 U.S.C. 3(a)(1). APJs are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Director. Id. 6(a). The PTAB hears and decides ex parte appeals of adverse decisions by examiners in applications for patents; appeals of reexaminations; and proceedings under the AIA, including IPRs, PGRs, covered business method (CBM) patent reviews, 1 and derivation proceedings, in panels of at least three members. Id. 6(b), (c). Under the statute, the Director designates the members of each panel. Id. 6(c). The Director has delegated that authority to the Chief Judge of the Board. See PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 1 (Rev. 15) (SOP1), Assignment of Judges to Panels, https://go.usa.gov/xtdt2 .

35 U.S.C. 6(c) states that “[o]nly the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may grant rehearings” of Board decisions. In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2) and the supervisory structure of the USPTO require that the Board's final decisions must be subject to review by the Director, a principal officer of the United States. See United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1986 (2021). The Court determined that “35 U.S.C. 6(c) is unenforceable as applied to the Director insofar as it prevents the Director from reviewing the decisions of the PTAB on his own.” Id. at 1987. The Court explained that:

On June 29, 2021, the USPTO implemented an interim process for Director review. At that time, the interim Director review process provided that the Director may initiate Director review of any PTAB final written decision sua sponte, and a party to a PTAB proceeding may request Director review of an IPR or PGR final written decision. To request Director review, a party to a final written decision must concurrently: (1) enter a Request for Rehearing by the Director into PTAB E2E, the PTAB's filing system, and (2) submit a notification of the Request for Rehearing by the Director to the USPTO by email to Director_PTABDecision_Review@uspto.gov , copying counsel for all parties. Id.

The USPTO further published Arthrex Q&As, updated on December 4, 2021, available at https://go.usa.gov/xtDnS (superseded on April 22, 2022, by the “Interim process for Director review” web page, available at https://go.usa.gov/xuHwP ). As explained in the Arthrex Q&As, Director review is a de novo review that may address any issue of fact or law. A party may not make new arguments or submit new evidence with a request for Director review unless permitted by the Director. Also, a party may only request Director review of a final written decision issued in an IPR or PGR. At this time, the USPTO does not accept requests for Director review of other decisions, including decisions on institution and Board ex parte appeal decisions. Third parties may not request Director review or submit comments concerning Director review of a particular case unless comments are requested by the Director. Further, the POP review process outlined in the Board's Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Rev. 10), available at https://go.usa.gov/xu4PT , remains in effect and unchanged.

On April 22, 2022, the USPTO published two web pages to increase openness as it formalizes the Director review process. The USPTO published an “Interim process for Director review web page,” setting forth more details on the interim process and some additional suggestions for parties who wish to request Director review. The suggestions include guidance on focusing and prioritizing issues, and strongly encourage parties to provide a priority-ranked list of the issues being raised, with a brief explanation of each issue and a brief explanation of the rationale for the prioritized-ranking of them. The USPTO also published a web page providing the status of all Director review requests, available at https://go.usa.gov/xuHwE . The status web page includes a spreadsheet that is updated monthly, as well as information about the proceedings in which Director review has been granted.

On May 25, 2022, and June 17, 2022, the USPTO further updated the “Interim process for Director review” web page. The first update explains that although the Office does not accept requests for Director review of institution decisions in AIA proceedings, the Director has always retained and continues to retain the authority to review such decisions sua sponte after issuance. If the Director sua sponte initiates Director review of an institution decision, the parties and the public will be notified, and the Director may order party and amicus briefing. The second update made two modifications. First, the update specifies that if a requesting party believes that the issue presented for Director review is an issue of first impression, the party should indicate that in the email requesting Director review. Second, the update explains that, in anticipation of this Request for Comments, any preliminary feedback to the Director review suggestion email box ( Director_Review_Suggestions@uspto.gov ) could be submitted through July 11, 2022.

The interim Director review process follows existing PTAB rehearing procedures under 37 CFR 42.71(d) and Standard Operating Procedure 2. Under the interim process, a Request for Rehearing by the Director must be filed within 30 days of entry of the Board's final written decision or a decision by the Board granting rehearing of a final written decision. See 37 CFR 42.71(d)(2). A request for Director review of a decision remanded by the Federal Circuit for further proceedings consistent with Arthrex must be filed within 30 days of the remand order, unless the Federal Circuit sets a different deadline for filing the Director review request. The Director may choose to extend the rehearing deadline for good cause on a party's request before the due date. A timely Request for Rehearing by the Director will be considered a request for rehearing under 37 CFR 90.3(b) and will reset the time for appeal or civil action as set forth in that rule. Requests for Rehearing by the Director are limited to 15 pages ( see 37 CFR 42.24(a)(1)(v)), and the Director will not consider new evidence or arguments submitted with a Director review request. At this time, there is no fee for requesting Director review.

Moreover, under the interim process, parties are limited to requesting either: (1) Director review, or (2) rehearing by the original Board panel. Parties may also request Director review of a Board decision that results from a rehearing grant, but not a Board decision to deny rehearing. Requests for both Director review and panel rehearing of the same decision are treated as a request for Director review only.

When a party submits a request for Director review, the USPTO catalogs the request and reviews it to ensure compliance with the interim Director review requirements. If the request is compliant, it is entered into the record of the corresponding proceeding as “Exhibit 3100—Director Review Request.” If the request is not compliant, the USPTO will attempt to work with the party making the request to rectify any areas of noncompliance. If the request is not compliant, for example, because it was submitted after the deadline, it will not be considered because it will be untimely.

Each request for Director review is then routed to and considered by an Advisory Committee that the Director has established to assist with the process. The Advisory Committee currently has 11 members and includes representatives from various business units within the USPTO, who serve at the discretion of the Director. The Advisory Committee currently comprises members from the Office of the Under Secretary (not including the Director), the PTAB (not including members of the original panel for each case under review), the Office of the Commissioner for Patents (not including any persons involved in the examination of the challenged patent), the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of Policy and International Affairs. The Advisory Committee meets periodically to evaluate each request for Director review and recommends to the Director which decisions to review. Advisory Committee meetings may proceed with less than all members in attendance, as long as a quorum of seven members is present for each meeting.

The Advisory Committee reviews each Director review request for, among other things, issues that involve an intervening change in the law or USPTO procedures or guidance; material errors of fact or law in the PTAB decision; matters that the PTAB misapprehended or overlooked; novel issues of law or policy; issues on which PTAB panel decisions are split; issues of particular importance to the USPTO or the patent community; or inconsistencies with USPTO procedures, guidance, or decisions. 2 The Advisory Committee then presents the Director with each Director review request, the associated arguments and evidence, and the recommendation of the Advisory Committee to determine whether to grant or deny the request. The Director also may consult others in the USPTO on an as-needed basis, so long as those individuals do not have a conflict. Although the Advisory Committee and other individuals in the USPTO may advise the Director on whether a decision merits review, the Director has sole discretion to grant or deny review. 3 The Director's decision to grant or deny a request will be communicated directly to the parties in the proceeding through PTAB E2E. Director review grants will be posted on the Director review status web page. Director review denials can be found on the Director review status spreadsheet, which is updated monthly and posted on the Director review status web page.

In addition to allowing parties to request Director review under the interim process, the Director may choose to conduct a sua sponte Director review. The Director may initiate a sua sponte review of any PTAB decision, including institution decisions, or a corresponding decision on rehearing (whether denying or granting rehearing). As explained in more detail below, PTAB Executive Management (the PTAB Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, Vice Chief Judges, and Senior Lead Judges) may identify decisions as candidates for sua sponte Director review. The Director may also convene the Advisory Committee to make recommendations on decisions that the Director is considering for sua sponte Director review. If the Director initiates a sua sponte review, the parties will be given notice and may be given an opportunity for briefing. The public also will be notified, and the Director may request amicus briefing. If briefing is requested, the USPTO will set forth the procedures to be followed.

At this time, the USPTO does not accept requests for Director review of decisions on institution in AIA proceedings or appeal decisions. To request review of those types of decisions (and other decisions), parties may request review by the POP, which, by default, includes the Director, the Commissioner for Patents, and the PTAB Chief Judge. As a general matter, the interim process for Director review does not alter the current POP process. As explained above and below, however, the USPTO seeks comments on the POP process in view of the Director review process.

On July 6, 2022, the USPTO further updated the “Interim process for Director review” web page to make clear that: (1) decisions made on Director review are not precedential by default, and instead are precedential only upon the Director's designation; and (2) final written decisions by the Director after Director review are appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit using the same procedures for appealing Board final written decisions. See “Interim process for Director review” web page, §§ 2, 14; 37 CFR 90.3.

As of July 5, 2022, the USPTO had received 204 requests for Director review under the interim process. Of those requests, the Director review process was completed for 198 requests. Of the 198 completed requests, 5 requests were granted, 1 request was withdrawn, and the remaining requests were denied. Eleven requests did not meet the requirements for Director review and were not considered. Additionally, Director Kathi Vidal has initiated sua sponte Director review in four cases. Andrew Hirshfeld, former Commissioner for Patents, who was performing the functions and duties of the Director prior to Director Vidal's confirmation, granted Director review and rehearing in Ascend Performance Materials Operations LLC v. Samsung SDI Co., IPR2020-00349, Paper 57 (Nov. 1, 2021) (Order granting Director review request); Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC, IPR2018-00733, Paper 95 (Nov. 18, 2021) (Order granting Director review request); and each of Apple Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications LLC, IPR2016-00754, Paper 50 (Mar. 3, 2022), and IPR2016-01520, Paper 47 (Mar. 3, 2022) (Orders granting Director review requests). 4 Recently, Director Vidal sua sponte ordered a Director review of the Final Written Decisions in each of MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics AG, IPR2020-01016, Paper 43 (June 1, 2022), and IPR2021-00044, Paper 41 (June 1, 2022) (Orders initiating Director review); and of the Decisions on Institution in OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 41 (June 7, 2022) (Order initiating Director review), and Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01229, Paper 31 (June 7, 2022) (Order initiating Director review). Director Vidal also granted a request for Director review of the Final Written Decision in Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings USA Pty Ltd., IPR2020-01234, Paper 36 (June 17, 2022) (Order granting Director review and authorizing additional briefing).

The USPTO plans to formalize the Director and POP review processes through notice-and-comment rulemaking. To inform such rulemaking, and to inform any modifications to the interim processes pending formalization, the USPTO seeks public comments.

Since May 2022, the USPTO has been using an interim process for PTAB decision circulation and internal PTAB review to promote consistent, clear, and open decision-making. See “Interim process for PTAB decision circulation and internal PTAB review,” available at https://go.usa.gov/xJ7fq . Under the interim process, certain categories of PTAB decisions are circulated to a pool of non-management judges (the Circulation Judge Pool (CJP)) prior to issuance. These decisions include all AIA institution decisions; AIA final written decisions; AIA decisions on rehearing; decisions on remand from the Federal Circuit; inter partes reexamination appeal decisions; and designated categories of ex parte appeal, ex parte reexamination appeal, and reissue appeal decisions. Judges may, at their option, circulate other types of decisions for CJP review.

The CJP comprises a representative group of at least eight non-management PTAB judges who collectively have technical/scientific backgrounds and legal experience representative of the PTAB judges as a whole. The CJP is modeled after both the Federal Circuit's previous office of the Senior Technical Assistant and the Federal Circuit's 10-day circulation process for precedential decisions. See United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Internal Operating Procedures, Redlined Copy, 18 (Mar. 1, 2022), available at https://go.usa.gov/xJ7fx (describing the previous office of the Senior Technical Assistant); and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Internal Operating Procedures, 10.5 (Mar. 1, 2022), available at https://go.usa.gov/xJ7fg (describing the 10-day circulation process for precedential decisions).

For each reviewed PTAB decision, the CJP provides the panel with information regarding potential conflicts or inconsistencies with relevant authority, including PTAB precedential decisions, Director-written guidance, and other USPTO policies. The CJP also provides the panel with information regarding potential inconsistencies with informative or routine PTAB decisions and suggestions for improved readability and stylistic consistency. The panel has the final authority and responsibility for the content of a decision and determines when and how to incorporate feedback from the CJP. Judges are required to apply pertinent statutes, binding case law, and written guidance issued by the Director or the Director's delegate that is applicable to PTAB proceedings. There is no unwritten guidance applicable to PTAB proceedings that judges are required to apply.

The CJP also identifies, and brings to the attention of PTAB Executive Management, notable draft decisions, such as decisions that address issues of first impression or that appear to be inconsistent with USPTO policy or involve areas where policy clarification may be needed. PTAB Executive Management may discuss decisions after issuance with the Director and/or the Director review Advisory Committee for consideration for sua sponte Director review, or with the POP Screening Committee  5 for consideration for POP review. The CJP has periodic meetings with PTAB Executive Management to discuss potentially conflicting panel decisions and general areas for potential policy clarification. PTAB Executive Management may discuss these issues with the Director for the purpose of considering whether to issue new or updated policies through regulation, precedential or informative decisions, and/or a Director guidance memorandum.

Any panel member, at his or her sole discretion, may also optionally consult with one or more members of PTAB management ( i.e., PTAB Executive Management and Lead Judges) regarding a decision prior to issuance. If consulted, PTAB management may provide information regarding the consistent application of USPTO policy, applicable statutes and regulations, and binding case law. Adoption of any suggestions provided by PTAB management based on such consultation is optional. Unless consulted by a panel member, PTAB management does not make suggestions to the panel on any pre-issuance decisions, either directly or indirectly through the CJP.

The Office recognizes that it is important that the PTAB maintain a consistent and clear approach to substantive areas of patent law and PTAB-specific procedures, while maintaining open decision-making. The interim PTAB decision circulation and internal review processes promote decisional consistency and open decision-making by reinforcing that the adoption of all CJP and requested PTAB management feedback is optional, that members of PTAB management do not provide feedback on decisions pre-issuance unless they are a panel member or a panel member requests such feedback, and that the PTAB panel has the final authority and responsibility for the content of a decision. Additionally, the process provides a mechanism by which the Director may be made aware of decisions to consider for sua sponte Director review or POP review, and of areas to consider for issuing new, or modified, USPTO policy to promote a strong intellectual property system. The interim process makes clear that the Director is not involved, pre-issuance, in directing or otherwise influencing panel decisions.

The USPTO seeks feedback on the PTAB decision circulation and internal review processes.

The USPTO seeks written public comments on the interim Director review process, the POP review process, and the PTAB decision circulation and internal review processes. The USPTO welcomes any comments from the public on the processes and is particularly interested in the public's input on the questions and requested information noted below.

1. Should any changes be made to the interim Director review process, and if so, what changes and why?

2. Should only the parties to a proceeding be permitted to request Director review, or should third-party requests for Director review be allowed, and if so, which ones and why?

3. Should requests for Director review be limited to final written decisions in IPR and PGR? If not, how should they be expanded and why?

4. Should a party to a proceeding be able to request both Director review and rehearing by the merits panel? If so, why and how should the two procedures interplay?

5. What criteria should be used in determining whether to initiate Director review?

6. What standard of review should the Director apply in Director review? Should the standard of review change depending on what type of decision is being reviewed?

7. What standard should the Director apply in determining whether or not to grant sua sponte Director review of decisions on institution? Should the standard change if the decision on institution addresses discretionary issues instead of, or in addition to, merits issues?

8. Should there be a time limit on the Director's ability to reconsider a petition denial? And if so, what should that time limit be?

9. Are there considerations the USPTO should take with regard to the fact that decisions made on Director review are not precedential by default, and instead are made and marked precedential only upon designation by the Director?

10. Are there any other considerations the USPTO should take into account with respect to Director review?

11. Should the POP review process remain in effect, be modified, or be eliminated in view of Director review? Please explain.

12. Are there any other considerations the USPTO should take into account with respect to the POP process?

13. Should any changes be made to the interim PTAB decision circulation and internal review processes, and if so, what changes and why?

14. Are there any other considerations the USPTO should take into account with respect to the interim PTAB decision circulation and internal review processes?

On June 14, 2022, the Bureau issued a Request for Information seeking information from the public on what customer service obstacles consumers face in the banking market, and specifically, what information would be helpful for consumers to obtain from depository institutions pursuant to section 1034(c) of the CFPA. 1 Under section 1034(c) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), consumers have a legal right to obtain information from the approximately 175 largest banks and credit unions in the country with more than $10 billion in assets, as well as from their affiliates. Through this statutory authority, consumers are able to gain valuable insight into their accounts by requesting certain account information from their depository institution. Allowing an additional comment period will provide additional opportunity for the public to prepare comments related to this inquiry. Therefore, the Bureau is extending the comment period for this request until August 22, 2022.

In May 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its report, DoD and the Coast Guard Need to Improve their Capabilities to Assess Racial and Gender Disparities (GAO-19-344). GAO analyzed all offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and found that Black and Hispanic servicemembers were more likely than white servicemembers to be the subjects of investigations in all of the Military Services and were more likely to be tried by court-martial in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense take steps to identify and address the causes of disparities in these systems.

On May 3, 2022, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the establishment of the Internal Review Team on Racial Disparities in the Investigative and Military Justice Systems to provide actionable recommendations the Department can implement to improve strategies, programs, policies, processes, and resources to address racial disparities in the investigative and military justice systems. The Internal Review Team comprises military General Officers and members of the Department of Defense Senior Executive Service who, with the support of subject matter experts, will focus their full-time efforts on this review. The Internal Review Team began its work on June 1, 2022, and is charged to provide its findings and recommendations to the Deputy Secretary not later than August 24, 2022.

The Internal Review Team will host a virtual listening session to obtain oral feedback from a variety of groups on topics of general interest to the Internal Review Team. Target respondent groups include: (1) racial affinity groups with an interest in criminal justice, law enforcement, or racial equity in the military; (2) professional organizations representing criminal justice or law enforcement personnel, advocacy groups focused on the military justice system, and organizations focused on issues relating to race, justice, and the law; (3) members of Congress and staff of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and interested House Caucuses; (4) components of other Federal agencies, Congressionally-chartered organizations, and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers; and (5) “think tanks” and members of academia with significant experience in issues at the intersection of race and policing, criminal justice, or the military justice system. Groups and other interested members of the public may also participate in the virtual listening session on a “view/listen only” basis. Regardless of participation in the virtual listening session, groups and interested members of the public are invited to submit written feedback, including data and research. The Internal Review Team intends to consider feedback received prior to and during the session to inform its findings and recommendations to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Recording: The virtual listening session will be recorded and a copy maintained in the records of the Internal Review Team.

Oral Feedback: Groups that wish to provide oral feedback during the virtual listening session must register to do so not later than 12:00 p.m. ET, on July 20, 2022.

To register to provide oral feedback, groups must send an email to the Internal Review Team electronic “drop box” at doddisparities@mnbdefense.com. The registration email must include: (1) the sender's name and the name of the group the sender represents; (2) a statement that the group wishes to provide oral feedback during the virtual listening session; and (3) a valid email address to which the Internal Review Team can send additional administrative information, including virtual listening session access codes. The virtual listening session will be conducted informally. Each group that has registered to provide oral feedback should be represented during the virtual listening session by no more than two persons. There will be no opportunity for audio-visual presentations during the session. A group's oral feedback will be limited to 10 minutes per group (regardless of the number of people representing the group). To enable the participation of as many groups as possible, these time limits will be strictly enforced. At the expiration of the 10 minutes allotted for each group, the group will be expected to cede the floor to the next presenter, and may be “cut off” by the session administrator, if required. Groups will be scheduled to provide oral feedback in the order in which their completed registration email (including all required information) was received in the IRT electronic “drop box” at doddisparities@mnbdefense.com. Each registered group will be invited to provide feedback, in the prescribed order, until the four hours allotted for the virtual listening session expires. Not later than 12:00 p.m. ET on July 25, 2022, registered groups will be informed of the order in which each will present during the virtual listening session. At the expiration of the four-hour session, no further oral feedback will be accepted from any group, even if properly registered. Groups registering to provide oral feedback are also welcomed to provide written copies of their expected remarks, but any written material must be received by 12:00 p.m. ET on July 22, 2022. Participating members of the Internal Review Team will be in a “listening and learning” posture during the virtual session, but may ask a participating group to clarify or expand on its presentation. Due to the deliberative nature of the Internal Review Team's work, members of the Team are unable to discuss their thoughts, plans, or intentions for specific recommendations that will ultimately be made to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

“View/Listen Only” Registration: The deadline for groups and interested members of the public to register to participate in the virtual listening session in a “view/listen only” mode is 12:00 p.m. ET, on July 22, 2022. To register for the “view/listen only” option, groups and interested members of the public must send an email to the Internal Review Team electronic “drop box” at doddisparities@mnbdefense.com. The email must include: (1) the statement, “We are/I am registering for the `view/listen only' option”; and (2) a valid email address to which the Internal Review Team can send any additional administrative information, including session access codes. “View/Listen Only” participants will not be able to present, ask questions, or provide commentary orally or through written means during the virtual listening session; their microphones/phones/audio lines will be muted, and no chat function will be available.

Written Feedback: Regardless of participation in the virtual listening session, groups and interested members of the public are invited to submit written feedback to the Internal Review Team, including data and research. The deadline for submission of written feedback for consideration by the Team is 12:00 p.m. ET, on July 22, 2022. Written feedback received after the deadline will not be reviewed. Written feedback must be submitted via email to the Internal Review Team electronic “drop box” at doddisparities@mnbdefense.com. Written feedback may include attachments and should include a cover sheet referencing the total number of pages of written feedback submitted and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register .

General Instructions for Oral and Written Feedback: Groups and interested members of the public are encouraged to provide oral and/or written feedback (as indicated above) in regard to some or all of the four topics of general interest to the Internal Review Team set forth below, but may provide other relevant feedback for consideration. Both oral and written feedback may be structured as the submitter sees fit. Oral or written feedback should not include: (1) proprietary or copyrighted information or (2) personally identifiable information beyond that minimally necessary for self-identification ( e.g., name of individual and title within organization, if applicable).

Virtual Accommodations: If you are a group that will provide oral feedback during the virtual session or a group or any interested member of the public who will participate in “view/listen only” mode and require a reasonable accommodation, please make requests for sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation in advance, by including your request in the registration email sent to the Internal Review Team electronic “drop box” at doddisparities@mnbdefense.com, not later than 12:00 p.m. on July 22, 2022. Decisions regarding reasonable accommodation requests will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Cancellation: Should it be necessary to cancel the virtual listening session due to technical issues, an emergency, or for other reasons, the Internal Review Team will take available measures to notify registered groups and persons.

(1) The root causes of racial disparities in the investigative and military justice systems of the Department of Defense.

(2) In considering actions to address the root causes of racial disparities in the DoD investigative and military justice systems, the specific actions that would have the most significant effects in the short term and specific actions that will require the Department's long-term engagement and commitment.

(3) Performance factors or metrics the DoD could apply to measure progress in mitigating or eliminating racial disparities in its investigative and military justice systems.

(4) Best practices for addressing racial disparities in other contexts that should be considered to address racial disparities in the investigative and military justice systems of the Department of Defense.

The DoD OIG is establishing the OIG Data Analytics Platform, CIG-30 as a Privacy Act system of records. The DoD OIG Data Analytics Team (DAT) will use this system of records to develop data models and analyses in order to identify fraud, waste and abuse, and programmatic problems and deficiencies. This system of records will allow the DoD OIG DAT to identify correlations between existing DoD data sets and other government agency data sets so as to identify patterns and correlations that indicate fraud and issues of program waste and abuse. This system of records will also be used to identify problems or failures in the implementation or performance of internal controls within the DoD by using existing datasets within DoD databases and applying analytics and data modeling principles to identify deficiencies, anomalies, and trends that may identify fraud, waste, and abuse. Additionally, DoD is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which proposes to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register .

DoD system of records notices (SORNs) have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency (OATSD(PCLT) website at https://dpcld.defense.gov/.

Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

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

The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The Board is chartered to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on construction and rehabilitation project investments on the commercial navigation features of the inland waterways system of the United States. At this meeting, the Board will receive briefings and presentations regarding the investments, projects, and status of the inland waterways system of the United States and conduct discussions and deliberations on those matters. The Board is interested in written and verbal comments from the public relevant to these purposes.

Agenda: At this meeting, the agenda will include the status of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF); update of funding for Navigation for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA); the status of the FY 2023 Budget for Navigation; the status of the inland waterways Capital Investment Strategy activities; the value of the Snake River Locks and Dams; an overview of future inland waterways projects for the Upper Ohio River Navigation (Montgomery Lock), Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP), McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS) Three Rivers, Arkansas, and 12-foot Channel Deepening Project, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; the status of the ongoing construction activities for the Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Chickamauga Lock Project and the Kentucky Lock Project; and the status of Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock and Bayou Sorrel Lock.

Availability of Materials for the Meeting. A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the August 16, 2022, meeting will be available. The final version will be available at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the website for the meeting.

Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.1 65, and subject to the availability of space, this virtual meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to participate in the virtual meeting will begin at 7:30 a.m. PDT on the day of the meeting. Participation is on a first-to-arrive basis. Any interested person may participate in the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments during the virtual public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee, as set forth below.

Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring any special accommodations related to the virtual public meeting or seeking additional information about the procedures, should contact Mr. Mark Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Steven Riley, an ADFO, at the email addresses or telephone numbers listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this virtual public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Riley, a committee ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO or ADFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Board for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting. Please note that because the Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the virtual public meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open virtual meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three business (3) days in advance to the committee DFO or ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO and ADFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO and ADFO.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

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/commenting-epa-dockets.

EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

1. EPA Registration Number: 100-1374. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0314. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Sedaxane. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 and vegetable dry bulb, crop subgroup 3-07A. Contact: RD.

2. EPA Registration Number: 100-1381. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0314. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Sedaxane. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 and vegetable dry bulb, crop subgroup 3-07A. Contact: RD.

3. EPA Registration Numbers: 264-824, 264-1055, 264-1084. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0478. Applicant: Bayer CropScience 800 N Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167 Active ingredient: Prothioconazole. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Foliar use of prothioconazole in potatoes. Contact: RD.

4. EPA Registration Numbers: 279-3633. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0547. Applicant: FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, PA 19104. Active ingredient: Flutriafol. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Residential turf and ornamentals. Contact: RD.

5. EPA Registration Numbers: 4787-55 and 4787-61. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0547. Applicant: Cheminova A/S, 2929 Walnut Street, PA 19104. Active ingredient: Flutriafol. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Residential turf and ornamental. Contact: RD.

6. EPA File Symbol: 7969-UON. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0488. Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., Research Triangle, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Broflanilide. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Control of darkling beetles inside of poultry houses and their exterior. Contact: RD.

7. EPA Registration Number: 7969-310. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0258. Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active ingredient: Fluxapyroxad (3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl- N -(3′,4′,5′-trifluoro[1,1′-biphenyl]-2-yl)-1 H -pyrazole-4-carboxamide). Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Avocado. Contact: RD.

8. EPA Registration Number: 7969-312. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0258. Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active ingredient: Fluxapyroxad (3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl- N -(3′,4′,5′-trifluoro[1,1′-biphenyl]-2-yl)-1 H -pyrazole-4-carboxamide). Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Avocado. Contact: RD.

9. EPA Registration Numbers: 86203-1 & 352-834. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0658. Applicant: Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient: Penthiopyrad. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Banana and Leafy Greens Subgroup 4-16A (lettuce) (Greenhouse). Contact: RD.

10. EPA Registration Number: 86203-28. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0488. Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., Research Triangle, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Broflanilide. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Poultry Houses/Facilities. Contact: RD.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, disposal, and/or the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures. You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (defined under TSCA to include import), process (including recycling), distribute in commerce, use or dispose of 1-BP, including 1-BP in products. Since other entities may also be interested in this draft revision to the risk determination, EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation (PESS) identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation. TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence, and consider reasonably available information. 15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k).

The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) integrate and assess available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through (v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other non-risk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).

EPA has inherent authority to reconsider previous decisions and to revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). Pursuant to such authority, EPA is reconsidering the risk determinations in the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation.

EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on a draft revision to the risk determination for the risk evaluation for 1-BP under TSCA, which was initially published in August 2020 (Ref. 1). EPA is specifically seeking public comment on the draft revision to the risk determination for the risk evaluation where the Agency intends to determine that 1-BP, as a whole chemical, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health when evaluated under its conditions of use. The Agency's risk determination for 1-BP is better characterized as a whole chemical risk determination rather than condition-of-use-specific risk determinations. Accordingly, EPA would revise and replace section 5 of the risk evaluation for 1-BP where the findings of unreasonable risk to health were previously made for the individual conditions of use evaluated. EPA would also withdraw the order issued previously for nine conditions of use previously determined not to present unreasonable risk.

This revision would be consistent with EPA's plans to revise specific aspects of the first ten TSCA chemical risk evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment. Under the draft revision removing the assumptions that all workers always and appropriately use PPE (see Unit II.C.) in making the whole chemical risk determination for 1-BP would mean that: seven conditions of use in addition to the original 16 would drive the unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP; additional risks of cancer from dermal exposures would also drive the unreasonable risk to workers in six conditions of use; additional risks for acute and chronic non-cancer effects from inhalation exposures would also drive the unreasonable risk to workers in two conditions of use; and additional risks for acute and chronic non-cancer effects and cancer from inhalation and dermal exposures to workers would also drive the unreasonable risk in one conditions of use (where previously this condition of use was identified as presenting unreasonable risk only to ONUs). Overall, 23 conditions of use out of the 25 EPA evaluated drive the 1-BP whole chemical unreasonable risk determination due to risks identified for human health. The full list of the conditions of use evaluated for the 1-BP TSCA risk evaluation is in Table 4-58 and 4-59 of the risk evaluation (Ref. 2).

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 CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

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

In 2016, as directed by TSCA section 6(b)(2)(A), EPA chose the first ten chemical substances to undergo risk evaluations under the amended TSCA. These chemical substances are asbestos, 1-BP, carbon tetrachloride, C.I. Pigment Violet (PV 29), cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD), 1,4-dioxane, methylene chloride, n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), perchloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE).

From June 2020 to January 2021, EPA published risk evaluations on the first ten chemical substances, including for 1-BP in August 2020. The risk evaluations included individual unreasonable risk determinations for each condition of use evaluated. EPA issued determinations that particular conditions of use did not present an unreasonable risk by order under TSCA section 6(i)(1).

In accordance with Executive Order 13990 (Ref. 3) and other Administration priorities (Refs. 4, 5, and 6), EPA reviewed the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, including 1-BP, to ensure that they meet the requirements of TSCA, including conducting decision making in a manner that is consistent with the best available science.

As a result of this review, EPA announced plans to revise specific aspects of the first ten risk evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations appropriately identify unreasonable risks and thereby help ensure the protection of human health and the environment (Ref. 7). To that end, EPA is reconsidering two key aspects of the risk determinations for 1-BP published in August 2020. First, following a review of specific aspects of the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation, EPA proposes that making an unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP as a whole chemical substance, rather than making unreasonable risk determinations separately on each individual condition of use evaluated in the risk evaluation, is the most appropriate approach to 1-BP under the statute and implementing regulations. Second, EPA proposes that the risk determination should be explicit that it does not rely on assumptions regarding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in making the unreasonable risk determination under TSCA section 6, even though some facilities might be using PPE as one means to reduce workers exposures; rather, the use of PPE would be considered during risk management as appropriate.

Separately EPA is conducting a screening approach to assess potential risks from pathways excluded from evaluation for several of the first 10 chemicals, including this chemical. For 1-BP, the air exposure pathway was not fully assessed in the final risk evaluation (see section 1.4.2 of the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation). The goal of the recently-developed screening approach is to remedy this exclusion and to identify if there are risks that were unaccounted for in the 1-BP risk evaluation. While this analysis is underway, EPA is not incorporating the screening-level approach into this draft revised unreasonable risk determination. If the results suggest there is additional risk, EPA will determine if the risk management approaches being contemplated for 1-BP will protect against these risks or if the risk evaluation will need to be formally supplemented or revised.

This action pertains only to the risk determination for 1-BP. While EPA intends to consider and may take additional similar actions on other of the first ten chemicals, EPA is taking a chemical-specific approach to reviewing the risk evaluations and is incorporating new policy direction in a surgical manner, while being mindful of the Congressional direction on the need to complete risk evaluations and move toward any associated risk management activities in accordance with statutory deadlines.

TSCA section 6 repeatedly refers to determining whether a chemical substance presents unreasonable risk under its conditions of use. Stakeholders have disagreed over whether a chemical substance should receive: A single determination that is comprehensive for the chemical substance after considering the conditions of use, referred to as a whole-chemical determination; or multiple determinations, each of which is specific to a condition of use, referred to as condition-of-use-specific determinations.

The proposed risk evaluation procedural rule was premised on the whole chemical approach to making an unreasonable risk determination (Ref. 8). In that proposed rule, EPA acknowledged a lack of specificity in statutory text that might lead to different views about whether the statute compelled EPA's risk evaluations to address all conditions of use of a chemical substance or whether EPA had discretion to evaluate some subset of conditions of use ( i.e., to scope out some manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal activities), but also stated that “EPA believes the word `the' (in TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A)) is best interpreted as calling for evaluation that considers all conditions of use.” (Ref. 8).

The proposed rule, however, was unambiguous on the point that an unreasonable risk determination would be for the chemical substance as a whole, even if based on a subset of uses. (See Ref. 8 at pgs. 7565-66: “TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) specifies that a risk evaluation must determine whether `a chemical substance' presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment `under the conditions of use.' The evaluation is on the chemical substance—not individual conditions of use—and it must be based on `the conditions of use.' In this context, EPA believes the word `the' is best interpreted as calling for evaluation that considers all conditions of use.”). In the proposed regulatory text, EPA proposed to determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use. (Ref. 8 at pg. 7480).

The final risk evaluation procedural rule stated (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017) (FRL-9964-38) (Ref. 9): “As part of the risk evaluation, EPA will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of uses [sic] within the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single decision document or in multiple decision documents.” (See also 40 CFR 702.47). For the unreasonable risk determinations in the first ten risk evaluations, EPA applied this provision by making individual risk determinations for each condition of use evaluated in each risk evaluation ( i.e., the condition-of-use-specific approach to risk determinations). That approach was based on one particular passage in the preamble to the final risk evaluation procedural rule, which stated that EPA will make individual risk determinations for all conditions of use identified in the scope (Ref. 9 at pg. 33744).

In contrast to this portion of the preamble of the final risk evaluation procedural rule, the regulatory text itself and other statements in the preamble reference a risk determination for the chemical substance under its conditions of use, rather than separate risk determinations for each of the conditions of use of a chemical substance. In the key regulatory provision excerpted earlier from 40 CFR 702.47, the text explains that, “[a]s part of the risk evaluation, EPA will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of uses [sic] within the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single decision document or in multiple decision documents” (Ref. 9, emphasis added). Other language reiterates this perspective. For example, 40 CFR 702.31(a) states that the purpose of the rule is to establish the EPA process for conducting a risk evaluation to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment as required under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(B). Likewise, there are recurring references to whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk in 40 CFR 702.41(a). See, for example, 40 CFR 702.41(a)(6), which explains that the extent to which EPA will refine its evaluations for one or more condition of use in any risk evaluation will vary as necessary to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk. Notwithstanding the one preambular statement about condition-of-use-specific risk determinations, the preamble to the final rule also contains support for a risk determination on the chemical substance as a whole. In discussing the identification of the conditions of use of a chemical substance, the preamble notes that this task inevitably involves the exercise of discretion on EPA's part, and, “as EPA interprets the statute, the Agency is to exercise that discretion consistent with the objective of conducting a technically sound, manageable evaluation to determine whether a chemical substance—not just individual uses or activities—presents an unreasonable risk.” (Ref. 8 at pg. 33729).

Therefore, notwithstanding EPA's choice to issue condition-of-use-specific risk determinations to date, EPA interprets its risk evaluation regulation to also allow the Agency to issue whole-chemical risk determinations. Either approach is permissible under the regulation. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also recognized the ambiguity of the regulation on this point. Safer Chemicals v. EPA, 943 F.3d 397, 413 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding a challenge about “use-by-use risk evaluations [was] not justiciable because it is not clear, due to the ambiguous text of the Risk Evaluation Rule, whether the Agency will actually conduct risk evaluations in the manner Petitioners fear”).

EPA plans to consider the appropriate approach for each chemical substance risk evaluation on a case-by-case basis, taking into account considerations relevant to the specific chemical substance in light of the Agency's obligations under TSCA. The Agency expects that this case-by-case approach will provide greater flexibility in the Agency's ability to evaluate and manage unreasonable risk from individual chemical substances. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach under TSCA and the Agency's implementing regulations.

With regard to the specific circumstances of 1-BP, as further explained in this notice, EPA proposes that a whole chemical approach is appropriate for 1-BP in order to protect human health and the environment. The whole chemical approach is appropriate for 1-BP because there are benchmark exceedances for multiple conditions of use (spanning across most aspects of the chemical lifecycle—from manufacturing (including import), processing, commercial and industrial use, consumer use, and disposal) for health of workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders and the irreversible health effects (specifically developmental toxicity and cancer) associated with 1-BP exposures. Because these chemical-specific properties cut across the conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation, a substantial amount of the conditions of use drive the unreasonable risk; therefore it is appropriate for the Agency to make a determination for 1-BP that the whole chemical presents an unreasonable risk.

As explained later in this document, the revisions to the unreasonable risk determination (section 5 of the risk evaluation) would be based on the existing risk characterization section of the risk evaluation (section 4 of the risk evaluation) and would not involve additional technical or scientific analysis. The discussion of the issues presented in this Federal Register notice and in the accompanying draft revision to the risk determination would supersede any conflicting statements in the prior 1-BP risk evaluation and the response to comments document (Ref. 10). With respect to the 1-BP risk evaluation, EPA intends to change the risk determination to a whole chemical approach without considering the use of PPE and does not intend to amend, nor does a whole chemical approach require amending, the underlying scientific analysis of the risk evaluation in the risk characterization section of the risk evaluation. EPA views the peer reviewed hazard and exposure assessments and associated risk characterization as robust and upholding the standards of best available science and weight of the scientific evidence per TSCA sections 26(h) and (i).

EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the draft superseding unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP, including a description of the risks driving the unreasonable risk determination under the condition of use for the chemical substance as a whole. For purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is making a draft risk determination on 1-BP as a whole chemical. Under the proposed revised approach, the “whole chemical” risk determination for 1-BP would supersede the no unreasonable risk determinations for 1-BP that were premised on a condition-of-use-specific approach to determining unreasonable risk. When finalized, EPA's revised unreasonable risk determination would also contain an order withdrawing the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order in section 5.4.1 of the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation.

In the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, as part of the unreasonable risk determination, EPA assumed for several conditions of use that all workers were provided and always used PPE in a manner that achieves the stated assigned protection factor (APF) for respiratory protection, or used impervious gloves for dermal protection. In support of this assumption, EPA considered reasonably available information such as public comments indicating that some employers, particularly in the industrial setting, provide PPE to their employees and follow established worker protection standards ( e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for protection of workers).

For the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation, EPA assumed based on reasonably available information that workers use PPE—specifically, respirators with an APF of 10 or 50, or gloves with a protection factor (PF) of 5—for 15 of 16 occupational conditions of use. However, in the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation, EPA determined that there is unreasonable risk for nine of these occupational conditions of use even with this assumed PPE use.

EPA is revising the assumption for 1-BP that workers always or properly use PPE, although it does not question the public comments received regarding the occupational safety practices often followed by industry respondents. When characterizing the risk to human health from occupational exposures during risk evaluation under TSCA, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels of risk present in baseline scenarios where PPE is not assumed to be used by workers. This approach of not assuming PPE use by workers considers the risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (workers and occupational non-users) who may not be covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by a State Plan. It should be noted that, in some cases, baseline conditions may reflect certain mitigation measures, such as engineering controls, in instances where exposure estimates are based on monitoring data at facilities that have engineering controls in place.

In addition, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels of risk present in scenarios considering applicable OSHA requirements ( e.g., chemical-specific permissible exposure limits (PELs) and/or chemical-specific PELs with additional substance-specific standards) as well as scenarios considering industry or sector best practices for industrial hygiene that are clearly articulated to the Agency. Consistent with this approach, the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation characterized risk to workers both with and without the use of PPE. By characterizing risks using scenarios that reflect different levels of mitigation, EPA risk evaluations can help inform potential risk management actions by providing information that could be used during risk management to tailor risk mitigation appropriately to address any unreasonable risk identified, or to ensure that applicable OSHA requirements or industry or sector best practices that address the unreasonable risk are required for all potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (including self-employed individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by an OSHA State Plan).

When undertaking unreasonable risk determinations as part of TSCA risk evaluations, however, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to assume as a general matter that an applicable OSHA requirement or industry practices related to PPE use is consistently and always properly applied. Mitigation scenarios included in the EPA risk evaluation ( e.g., scenarios considering use of various PPE) likely represent what is happening already in some facilities. However, the Agency cannot assume that all facilities have adopted these practices for the purposes of making the TSCA risk determination.

Therefore, EPA proposes to make a determination of unreasonable risk for 1-BP from a baseline scenario that does not assume compliance with OSHA standards, including any applicable exposure limits or requirements for use of respiratory protection or other PPE. Making unreasonable risk determinations based on the baseline scenario should not be viewed as an indication that EPA believes there are no occupational safety protections in place at any location, or that there is widespread non-compliance with applicable OSHA standards. EPA understands that there could be occupational safety protections in place at workplace locations; however, not assuming use of PPE reflects EPA's recognition that unreasonable risk may exist for subpopulations of workers that may be highly exposed because they are not covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by a State Plan, or because their employer is out of compliance with OSHA standards, or because OSHA has not issued a permissible exposure limit (PEL) (as is the case for 1-BP, noting that many of OSHA's chemical-specific permissible exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are described by OSHA as being “outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health” (Ref. 11), or because EPA finds unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA requirements.

In accordance with this approach, EPA is proposing the draft revision to the 1-BP risk determination without relying on assumptions regarding the occupational use of PPE in making the unreasonable risk determination under TSCA section 6; rather, information on the use of PPE as a means of mitigating risk (including information received from industry respondents about occupational safety practices in use) would be considered during the risk management phase as appropriate. This would represent a change from the approach taken in the 2020 risk evaluation for 1-BP and EPA invites comments on this draft change to the 1-BP risk determination. As a general matter, when undertaking risk management actions, EPA intends to strive for consistency with applicable OSHA requirements and industry best practices, including appropriate application of the hierarchy of controls, when those measures would address an identified unreasonable risk, including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. Consistent with TSCA section 9(d), EPA will consult and coordinate TSCA activities with OSHA and other relevant Federal agencies for the purpose of achieving the maximum applicability of TSCA while avoiding the imposition of duplicative requirements. Informed by the mitigation scenarios and information gathered during the risk evaluation and risk management process, the Agency might propose rules that require risk management practices that may be already common practice in many or most facilities. Adopting clear, comprehensive regulatory standards will foster compliance across all facilities (ensuring a level playing field) and assure protections for all affected workers, especially in cases where current OSHA standards may not apply or be sufficient to address the unreasonable risk.

Removing the assumption that workers always and appropriately use PPE in making the whole chemical risk determination for 1-BP would add seven conditions of use to the original 16 conditions of use that drive the unreasonable risk. The seven conditions of use affected by this change are: manufacturing (domestic manufacturing); manufacturing (import); processing: as a reactant; processing: incorporation into articles; processing: repackaging; processing: recycling; and disposal. Additionally, removing this assumption would add: additional risks of cancer from dermal exposures as driving the unreasonable risk to workers in six conditions of use; additional risks for acute and chronic non-cancer effects from inhalation exposures as driving the unreasonable risk to workers in two conditions of use; and additional risks for acute and chronic non-cancer effects and cancer from inhalation and dermal exposures to workers as driving the unreasonable risk in one conditions of use (where previously this condition of use was identified as presenting unreasonable risk only to ONUs) (Ref. 1). The draft revision to the risk determination would clarify that EPA does not rely on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination for the whole substance. EPA is requesting comment on this potential change.

1-BP is a colorless liquid with a sweet odor. It is a brominated hydrocarbon that is slightly soluble in water. 1-BP is a volatile organic compound that exhibits high volatility, a low boiling point, low flammability and no explosivity. 1-BP is produced and imported in the United States and has a wide range of uses, including as a solvent in degreasing operations, spray adhesives and dry cleaning; as a reactant in the manufacturing of other chemical substances; and in laboratory uses. There are also a variety of consumer and commercial products that contain 1-BP, such as aerosol degreasers, spot cleaners, stain removers, and insulation for building and construction materials. The total aggregate production volume reported for 1-BP under the Chemical Data Reporting rule ranged from 15.4 million to 25.8 million pounds between 2012 and 2015.

In the 2020 risk evaluation, EPA determined that 1-BP presents an unreasonable risk to health under the following conditions of use:

• Processing for incorporation into formulation, mixture or reaction product

• Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor degreaser—open-top, inline vapor degreaser)

• Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor degreaser—closed-loop)

• Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in cold cleaners

• Industrial and commercial use as solvent in aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner

• Industrial and commercial use in adhesives and sealants

• Industrial and commercial use in dry cleaning solvents, spot cleaners and stain removers

• Industrial and commercial use in liquid cleaners ( e.g., coin and scissor cleaner) and liquid spray/aerosol cleaners

• Other industrial and commercial uses: arts, crafts, hobby materials (adhesives accelerant); automotive care products (engine degrease, brake cleaner, refrigerant flush); anti-adhesive agents (mold cleaning and release product); electronic and electronic products and metal products; functional fluids (close/open-systems)—refrigerant/cutting oils; asphalt extraction; laboratory chemicals; and temperature indicator—coatings

• Consumer use as solvent in aerosol spray degreasers/cleaners

• Consumer use in spot cleaners and stain removers

• Consumer use in liquid cleaners ( e.g., coin and scissor cleaners)

• Consumer use in liquid spray/aerosol cleaners

• Consumer use in arts, crafts, hobby materials (adhesive accelerant)

• Consumer use in automotive care products (refrigerant flush)

• Consumer use in anti-adhesives agents (mold cleaning and release product)

Under the proposed whole chemical approach to the 1-BP risk determination, the unreasonable risk from 1-BP would continue to be driven by risk from those same conditions of use. In addition, by removing the assumption that workers always and appropriately wear PPE (see Unit II.C.) in making the whole chemical risk determination for 1-BP, seven conditions of use in addition to the original 16 would drive the draft unreasonable risk determination:

• Manufacture (domestic manufacturing)

• Manufacture (import)

• Processing as a reactant

• Processing for incorporation into articles

• Processing by repackaging

• Recycling

• Disposal

Overall, 23 conditions of use out of the 25 EPA evaluated would drive the 1-BP whole chemical unreasonable risk determination.

EPA is proposing to revise the risk determination for the 1-BP risk evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b) and consistent with Executive Order 13990, (“Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis”) and other Administration priorities (Refs. 3, 4, and 6). EPA is revising specific aspects of the first ten TSCA existing chemical risk evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment. For the 1-BP risk evaluation, this includes the draft revision: (1) making the risk determination in this instance based on the whole chemical substance instead of by individual conditions of use and (2) emphasizing that EPA does not rely on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination.

EPA is releasing a draft revision of the risk determination for the 1-BP risk evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b). Under the revised determination, EPA preliminarily concludes that 1-BP, as evaluated in the risk evaluation as a whole, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under its conditions of use. This revision would replace the previous unreasonable risk determinations made for 1-BP by individual conditions of use, supersede the determinations (and withdraw the associated order) of no unreasonable risk for the conditions of use identified the TSCA section 6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order, and clarify the lack of reliance on assumed use of PPE as part of the risk determination.

These draft revisions do not alter any of the underlying technical or scientific information that informs the risk characterization, and as such the hazard, exposure, and risk characterization sections are not changed except to the extent that statements about PPE assumptions in section 2.3.1.3 (Consideration of Engineering Controls and PPE) and section 4.2.2 (Occupational Inhalation Exposure Summary and PPE Use Determinations by OES) of the 1-BP risk evaluation would be superseded. The discussion of the issues in this notice and in the accompanying draft revision to the risk determination would supersede any conflicting statements in the prior executive summary and sections 2.3.1.3 and 4.2.2 from the 1-BP risk evaluation and the response to comments document (Refs. 2 and 10). Additional policy changes to other chemical risk evaluations, including any consideration of potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations and/or inclusion of additional exposure pathways, are not necessarily reflected in these draft revisions to the risk determination.

The risk determination (section 5 in the August 2020 risk evaluation) was not part of the scope of the peer reviews of the 1-BP risk evaluation by the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). Thus, consistent with that approach, EPA does not intend to conduct peer review of the draft revised unreasonable risk determination for the 1-BP risk evaluation because no technical or scientific changes will be made to the hazard or exposure assessments or the risk characterization.

EPA will review and consider public comment received on the draft revised risk determination for the 1-BP risk evaluation and, after considering those public comments, issue the revised final 1-BP risk determination. If finalized as drafted, EPA would also issue a new order to withdraw the TSCA section 6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order issued in Section 5.4.1 of the 2020 1-BP risk evaluation. This final revised risk determination would supersede the August 2020 risk determinations of no unreasonable risk. Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a), the Agency would then propose risk management actions to address the unreasonable risk determined in the 1-BP risk evaluation.

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

The EPA received the Petition from Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Sierra Club, Caring for Pasadena Communities, Environmental Integrity Project, and Earthjustice dated June 29, 2021, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O1381, issued by TCEQ to the Valero Houston Refinery in Harris County, Texas. The Petition claims TCEQ failed to provide notice to the public through a mailing list, the proposed permit fails to incorporate, describe, and assure compliance with Permits by Rule, the proposed permit fails to assure compliance with NSPS and NESHAP requirements, the proposed permit's monitoring, reporting, and emission calculation requirements cannot ensure compliance for key units and limits at the refinery, TCEQ failed to provide a reasoned explanation for why the proposed permit ensures compliance with the limits at issue for the FCCU, Flares, DAF Unit, Boilers, Fugitive Emissions, Atmospheric Tower Heater, Tanks, and Cooling Towers, the proposed permit includes unlawful provisions relaxing federally enforceable emission limits during startup, shutdown, and maintenance periods, and the proposed permit unlawfully incorporates language giving TCEQ discretion regarding whether CEMS data may be used to determine compliance.

On June 30, 2022, the EPA Administrator issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Petition. The Order explains the basis for the EPA's decision.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b (e)(1).

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: State-based Exchange Annual Report Tool (SMART); Use: The annual report is the primary vehicle to insure comprehensive compliance with all reporting requirements contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is specifically called for in Section 1313(a)(1) of the Act which requires a State Based Exchange (including an Exchange using the Federal Platform) to keep an accurate accounting of all activities, receipts, and expenditures, and to submit a report annually to the Secretary concerning such accounting. CMS will use the information collected from States to assist in determining if a State is maintaining a compliant operational Exchange. Form Number: CMS-10507 (OMB control number: 0938-1244); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal governments; Number of Respondents: 21; Total Annual Responses: 21; Total Annual Hours: 4,281. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Shilpa Gogna at 301-492-4257.)

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

To minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death from consumption of contaminated produce, we have established science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce, meaning fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption. The standards are codified in part 112 (21 CFR part 112) and set forth procedures and processes that include information collection activities such as establishing monitoring and sampling plans, documenting data and training, and ensuring disclosure that produce for human consumption meets these requirements. The regulations also provide for certain exemptions and variances to qualified respondents. The information collection continues to implement provisions of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, while certain requirements for covered produce other than sprouts associated with pre-harvest agricultural water testing are being amended through rulemaking (RIN 0910-AI49). We use the information to verify that the standards established by the regulations are followed such that produce entering the marketplace is reasonably unlikely to be associated with foodborne illness.

In addition to the referenced regulations, we have developed two draft guidance documents: “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption” and “Compliance with and Recommendations for Implementation of the Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption for Sprout Operations;” both are available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/default.htm. The former was developed to help covered farms comply with the requirements of the Produce Safety regulation. This draft guidance, when finalized, will not create any additional burden not already considered as part of the Produce Safety regulation.

The latter (the Sprouts draft guidance) was developed to assist sprout operations also subject to the Produce Safety regulation. Sprouts represent a special food safety concern because the conditions under which they are produced (time, temperature, water activity, pH, and available nutrients) are ideal for the growth of pathogens, if present. The Sprouts draft guidance, when finalized, will assist sprout operations subject to the regulations in part 112 in complying with the sprout-specific requirements in subpart M.

Description of Respondents: Respondents to this information collection include farms that grow, harvest, pack, or hold produce for human consumption, meaning fruits and vegetables such as berries, tree nuts, herbs, and sprouts. Respondents are from the private sector (for-profit businesses).

In the Federal Register of December 3, 2021 (86 FR 68673), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. One comment was received and appears to pertain to rulemaking that has already concluded, rather than to this renewal. Significantly, this comment did not suggest that we revise the currently approved estimate. To the extent that the comment relates to ongoing rulemaking, we have posted the comment to the docket at FDA-2021-N-0471 and will ensure it is considered and addressed appropriately.

We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate. As respondents to the collection continue to implement the regulatory requirements and compliance schedules continue to be realized, we retain our current burden estimates. At the same time, and as communicated on our website at https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-proposed-rule-agricultural-water, we expect the burden associated with the testing of certain agricultural water for covered produce other than sprouts to be minimal for the period of time that FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion with regard to those requirements.

Fluorinated polyethylene containers manufactured and used in compliance with our regulation at § 177.1615 (21 CFR 177.1615), Polyethylene, fluorinated, may be used in certain food contact applications. Fluorination of polyethylene containers allows for improved chemical barrier properties in comparison to polyethylene containers that have not been fluorinated. FDA's regulation, at § 177.1615(a), states that fluorinated polyethylene containers for food contact use be manufactured only by modifying the surface of the molded container using fluorine gas in combination with gaseous nitrogen as an inert diluent. We are aware that some manufacturers of fluorinated polyethylene produce fluorinated containers through alternative manufacturing methods, such as using alternative diluent gases such as oxygen or other gases. These alternative processes for fluorination of polyethylene do not comply with § 177.1615 and are not lawful for use in food contact applications.

Testing performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) can form and migrate from some fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE, which is a type of polyethylene) containers into the pesticide within the containers. EPA's testing was conducted on containers that are not FDA-regulated, specifically containers intended to hold mosquito-controlling pesticides. EPA detected perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs), and analytical studies indicate that PFCAs can result from fluorination processes that do not comply with FDA's regulations (Ref. 1). PFCAs are a subset of PFAS, that include substances such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which is known to be biopersistent in animals and humans. Additionally, PFOA is a potential human carcinogen and known to cause immunotoxicity and reproductive and developmental toxicity (Refs. 2 and 3).

On August 5, 2021, FDA made available on its website a letter ( https://www.fda.gov/media/151326/download ) to manufacturers, distributors, and food manufacturers that use fluorinated polyethylene food contact containers reminding them that only fluorinated polyethylene containers that comply with § 177.1615 are authorized for food contact use. However, because alternative fluorination processes exist, there is a possibility that these alternative fluorination processes are used to manufacture fluorinated polyethylene containers used to contain food. As such, we reminded food manufacturers of their responsibility to only use food contact articles in compliance with FDA's regulations.

Although EPA's testing was of containers not intended to contact food, it raises questions about the potential for PFAS to form and migrate from fluorinated polyethylene containers that are intended for food contact use. As such, we are interested in obtaining information on current food uses of fluorinated polyethylene containers as well as information on current manufacturing processes for these containers and any analytical testing information of substances that may migrate from fluorinated polyethylene containers to food. This information will enable us to better understand current food uses, manufacturing practices, and substances migrating from fluorinated polyethylene containers and, as appropriate, we may use information submitted in response to this notice to update dietary exposure estimates and safety assessments for the authorized food contact use of fluorinated polyethylene. This is consistent with our efforts to increase our understanding of the potential for PFAS exposure from food and to reduce dietary exposure to PFAS that may pose a health risk. Current data and information on these topics will help us advance our public health mission and further support the current Administration's comprehensive approach to addressing PFAS and advancing clean air, water, and food (Ref. 4).

We request information on the food contact uses of fluorinated polyethylene food contact articles, including information on the types of food or food ingredients with which the articles used are in contact, any substances migrating from fluorinated polyethylene food contact articles used in food contact applications, consumer exposure data, and unpublished safety information. Specifically, we request data and information concerning:

1. Current food contact uses, including the types of containers and the food types ( e.g., acidic, alcoholic) they may contact, including use conditions ( e.g., time, temperature of contact);

2. Manufacturing conditions for the fluorination process and any pre- and post-treatment processes, including time, temperature, pressure, atmospheric conditions, treatment gases ( e.g., fluorine or other chemical gases), and use levels/ratios of treatment gases used during the manufacturing process;

3. Manufacturing process controls including moisture control measures and quality control variables monitored during the fluorination process;

4. Analyses related to pre- and post-treatment of fluorinated polyethylene containers, including surface chemical analyses, characterization of surface morphology, and identification of surface chemical functionalities;

5. Analyses characterizing the fluorinated surface thickness of the fluorinated layer on the article surface;

6. Analyses characterizing (qualitatively or quantitatively) the fluorinated polyethylene containers including any analyses for quality control ( e.g., Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy or other analyses);

7. Analyses characterizing (qualitatively or quantitatively) migrating substances from the fluorinated polyethylene containers, including fully and partially fluorinated low molecular weight polyethylene oligomers and other migrating substances;

8. Analyses characterizing (qualitatively or quantitatively) substances migrating from fluorinated polyethylene as a function of the degree of fluorination of the surface;

9. Analyses estimating consumer exposure from the use of fluorinated polyethylene containers in food contact, including substances migrating from fluorinated polyethylene;

10. The safety of fluorinated polyethylene, including unpublished safety studies on substances that migrate from fluorinated polyethylene including fully and partially fluorinated low molecular weight polyethylene oligomers; and

11. Analyses characterizing the polyethylene used to produce the containers prior to fluorination, including the molecular weight distribution, the weight-percent units derived from ethylene and other monomers, monomer ratios, and adjuvant substances ( e.g., processing aids) used in the manufacture of polyethylene polymers.

The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they also are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov . References without asterisks are not on public display at https://www.regulations.gov because they have copyright restriction. Some may be available at the website address, if listed. References without asterisks are available for viewing only at the Dockets Management Staff. FDA has verified the website address, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was established by Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs Modernization in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act (Customs Modernization Act) (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993) (19 U.S.C. 1411). With the establishment of the NCAP, customs modernization has focused on addressing trade compliance and the development of ACE, which is the planned successor to the Automated Commercial System (ACS). ACE is an automated and electronic system for commercial trade processing that is intended to streamline business processes, facilitate growth in trade, ensure cargo security, and foster participation in global commerce, while ensuring compliance with U.S. laws and regulations and reducing costs for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and all of its communities of interest. The ability to meet these objectives depends on successfully modernizing CBP's business functions and the information technology that supports those functions. CBP's modernization efforts are accomplished through phased releases of ACE component functionalities designed to replace specific legacy ACS functions and add new capabilities.

The procedures and criteria applicable to participation in the ACE Portal Account Test remain in effect unless otherwise explicitly changed by this notice.

On May 1, 2002, the former U.S. Customs Service, now CBP, published a general notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 21800) announcing a plan to conduct an NCAP test of the first phase of ACE. The test was described as the first step toward the full electronic processing of commercial importations with a focus on defining and establishing an importer's account structure. That general notice announced that importers and authorized parties could access their customs data via an internet-based Portal Account. The notice also set forth eligibility criteria for companies interested in establishing ACE Portal Accounts.

Subsequent general notices expanded the types of ACE Portal Accounts. On February 4, 2004, CBP published a general notice in the Federal Register (69 FR 5360) that established ACE Truck Carrier Accounts. On September 8, 2004, CBP published a general notice in the Federal Register (69 FR 54302) inviting customs brokers to participate in the ACE Portal Account Test and informing interested parties that once they had been notified by CBP that their request to participate in the ACE Portal Account Test had been accepted, they would be asked to sign and submit a “Terms and Conditions” document. CBP subsequently contacted those participants and asked them to sign and submit an ACE Power of Attorney form and an Additional Account/Account Owner Information form.

On October 18, 2007, CBP published a general notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 59105) announcing the expansion of the ACE Portal Account Test to include the additional following ACE account types: Carriers (all modes: air, rail, sea); Cartman; Lighterman; Driver/Crew; Facility Operator; Filer; Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) Operator; Service Provider; and Surety. On October 21, 2015, CBP published a general notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 63817) announcing the creation of the Exporter Portal Account. On August 8, 2016, CBP published a general notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 52453) announcing the creation of the Protest Filer Account. Since then, CBP has not announced the creation of any new types of ACE accounts.

The Customs Modernization Act authorizes the Commissioner of CBP to conduct limited test programs or procedures designed to evaluate planned components of the NCAP. The ACE Portal Account Test, as modified in this notice, is authorized pursuant to section 101.9 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulation (19 CFR 101.9(b)), which provides for the testing of NCAP programs or procedures. See Treasury Decision (T.D.) 95-21.

This document announces the modification of the ACE Portal Account Test to establish the Vessel Agency Portal Account type. This new ACE account will provide vessel agents and vessel operators with the ability to submit consolidated, electronic vessel arrival, entrance, and clearance applications via ACE during the future Maritime Forms Automation Test (MFA) pilot, 1 and any future electronic submissions following regulatory amendments. Features of this new portal account type, as well as the eligibility and documentation requirements for applying for an ACE Vessel Agency Portal Account, are described below.

The ACE Vessel Agency Portal Account will provide vessel owners or operators, or their authorized agents, with access to ACE and the ability to submit electronically vessel entrance and clearance information through the Vessel Entrance and Clearance System (VECS) as part of the MFA pilot, as well as special permit data associated with a carrier's International Maritime Organization (IMO) number (or other unique vessel ID number), i.e., Entrance and Clearance Reports. 2 The ACE Vessel Agency Portal Account will only be available to vessel owners or operators, or authorized agents, which are either a U.S.-based entity or have a U.S.-based address (P.O. boxes not allowed) for enforcement purposes.

Vessel owners or operators, or authorized agents, who do not have existing ACE portal accounts will be required to submit an ACE application form and apply for an ACE Vessel Agency Portal Account, as explained in Section B.1 below. Existing ACE Portal Account owners wishing to request an ACE Vessel Agency Portal Account should follow instructions in Section B.2 below. Both new and existing ACE account holders must agree to the “Terms and Conditions for Account Access of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Portal.” See 72 FR 27632 (May 16, 2007) and 73 FR 38464 (July 7, 2008). New ACE users will be prompted to accept these Terms and Conditions during the application process.

Vessel owners or operators, or authorized agents who do not have an existing ACE Portal Account may apply for a Vessel Agency Account according to the instructions online at: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/getting-started/using-ace-secure-data-portal. Applicants will be required to complete an application at https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/ace-secure-data-portal-account-application; provide the “Corporate Information” and “ACE Account Owner” information listed below; certify that the applicant has read and agrees to the Terms and Conditions; and, submit the application to ACE.Applications@cbp.dhs.gov by clicking the Submit By Email button at the bottom of the form. The account validation process will begin once all steps have been completed.

Corporate Information:

ACE Account Owner:

The NSTAC is established under the authority of Executive Order (E.O.) 12382, dated September 13, 1982, as amended by E.O. 13286, continued and amended under the authority of E.O. 14048, dated September 30, 2021. Notice of this meeting is given under FACA, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (Pub. L. 92-463). The NSTAC advises the President on matters related to national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) telecommunications and cybersecurity policy.

Agenda: The NSTAC will hold a conference call on Tuesday, August 23, 2022, to discuss current NSTAC activities and the government's ongoing cybersecurity and NS/EP communications initiatives. This meeting is open to the public and will include: (1) remarks from the administration and CISA leadership on salient NS/EP and cybersecurity efforts; (2) a status update on the NSTAC Strategy for Increasing Trust in the Information and Communications Technology and Services Ecosystem Subcommittee; and (3) a deliberation and vote on the NSTAC Report to the President on Information Technology and Operational Technology Convergence.

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

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on April 26, 2022, at 87 FR 24573.

Title of Information Collection: Request for Acceptance of Changes in Approved Drawings and Specifications.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0117.

OMB Expiration Date: July 31, 2022.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Form Number: HUD-92577.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Builders/Contractors/Consultants request approval for changes to accepted drawings and specifications of properties as required by home buyers or determined by the Contractor to address previously unknown health and safety issues. Builders/Contractors/Consultants submit the forms to lenders, who review and submit them to HUD for approval.

Respondents: Business.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 15,871.

Estimated Number of Responses: 15,871.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Average Hours per Response: 0.5.

Total Estimated Time Burden (Hours): 7,936.

Total Estimated Cost: $359,575.

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

Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

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

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on March 4, 2022 at 87 FR 12481.

Title of Information Collection: Revitalization Area Designation and Management.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0566.

Type of Request: Extension.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Department accepts request from state, local, or tribal governments, or HUD-approved Nonprofit organizations to designate a Revitalization Area by sending a written Requesting Letter to HUD. Revitalization Areas are intended to promote community revitalization through expanded homeownership opportunities within the revitalization areas.

Respondents: State, local, or tribal governments, and HUD-approved Nonprofit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8.

Estimated Number of Responses: 8.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Average Hours per Response: 2.5 hours.

Total Estimated Burdens: 20.

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

Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

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

Title of Information Collection: Standards for Success Reporting.

OMB Approval Number: 2501-0034.

Type of Request: Regular.

Type of Information Collection: Renewal.

Form Numbers: HUD-PRL.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:

This request is for the continued clearance of data collection and reporting requirements to enable the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) to better assess the effectiveness of discretionary-funded programs included in this information collection request (ICR). The discretionary-funded programs included in this ICR are the Multifamily Housing Service Coordinator Grant Program, the Multifamily Housing Budget-based Service Coordinator Program, and the Resident Opportunity and Self Sufficiency Service Coordinator Grant Program (ROSS).

This proposed collection, titled Standards for Success, has three key tenets which improves data collection and reporting for participating programs. First is the standardization of data collection and reporting requirements across programs which increases data comparability and utilization. Second is the ability to report on measurable outcomes and aligning them with higher-level agency objectives. And third is the collection of record-level data, instead of aggregate data. Collecting de-identified data at the level of the service recipient allows for more meaningful analysis, improved management, and the ability to demonstrate the progress and achievements of the funding recipients and the programs. Standards for Success accepts data submission by direct data input through the HUD-funded GrantSolutions online data collection and reporting tool (OLDC) and by data file upload, accommodating file formats in Microsoft Excel or Extensible Markup Language (XML).

Currently across HUD, there are several reporting models in place for its discretionary programs. The reporting models provide information on a wide variety of outputs and outcomes and are based on unique data definitions and outcome measures in program-specific performance and progress reports. In Federal Fiscal Year 2013, nine program offices at HUD used six systems and 15 reporting tools to collect over 700 data elements in support of varied metrics to assess the performance of their funding recipients. The proposed data collection and reporting requirements described in this notice are designed to provide HUD programs a tested alternative to their existing disparate reporting methodologies, forms, systems, and requirements.

The lack of standardized data collection and reporting requirements imposes an increased burden on funding recipients with multiple HUD funding streams. The need for a comprehensive standardized reporting approach is underscored by reviews conducted by external oversight agencies, including the HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). These oversight agencies have questioned the soundness and comparability of data reported by HUD prior to Standards for Success. To address these issues, HUD is using its statutory and regulatory authority to improve and strengthen performance reporting for its discretionary programs, ultimately working towards a single comprehensive reporting approach.

The Secretary's statutory and regulatory authority to administer housing and urban development programs include provisions allowing for the requirement of performance reporting from funding recipients. This legal authority is codified at 42 U.S.C. 3535(r). The individual privacy of service recipients is of the highest priority. The reporting repository established at HUD to receive data submission from funding recipients will not include any personally identifiable information (PII). Additionally, if the data from a funding recipient has 25 or fewer individuals served during a fiscal year as reported in the record-level reports, then the results for the demographic data elements for the 25 or fewer individuals will also be redacted or removed from the public-use data file and any publicly available analytical products in order to ensure the inability to identify any individual.

Eligible entities receiving funding by HUD are expected to implement the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements with available HUD funds. It is important to note that affected HUD funding recipients only submit a subset of the universe of data elements presented. The participating HUD program offices determine the specific data collection and reporting requirements, which considers the type and level of service provided by the respective HUD program.

The reporting requirements in this proposal better organize the data than participating programs collected in the past, standardize outcomes and performance measures, and allow program offices at HUD to select which data elements are relevant for their respective programs. Documents detailing the data elements are available for review by request from Colette Pollard ( Colette.Pollard@hud.gov ). All information reported to HUD will be submitted electronically. Funding recipients may use existing management information systems provided those systems collect all the required data elements and can be exported for submission to HUD. Funding recipients that sub-award funds to other organizations will need to collect the required information from their sub-recipients.

Information collected and reported will be used by funding recipients and HUD for the following purposes:

• To provide program and performance information to recipients, general public, Congress, and other stakeholders;

• To continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of discretionary-funded programs;

• To provide management information for use by HUD in program administration and oversight, including the scoring of applications and the monitoring of funding-recipient participation, services, and outcomes; and

• To better measure and analyze performance information to identify successful practices to be replicated and prevent or correct problematic practices and improve outcomes in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act.

The data collection and reporting requirements may expand to other HUD programs. Program implementation will be determined by the program. HUD will provide technical assistance to funding recipients throughout the implementation.

Respondents: 5,723.

Organizations receiving HUD funding as listed on page 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In accordance with section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117, approved December 16, 2009, 123 Stat. 3034, at 123 Stat. 3216), HUD is publishing this notice to advise the public of service contracts inventories that were awarded in FY 2020. The inventories are organized by function and are reviewed by HUD to better understand how contracted services are used to support HUD's primary mission, to insure HUD maintains an adequate workforce for operations and to research whether contractors were performing inherently governmental functions.

The inventory was developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.

HUD has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's homepage at the following link: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/cpo/sci.

With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing, and also such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting.

The ESA and our implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 50, part 17, provide for issuing such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving listed species.

A recovery permit we issue under the ESA, section 10(a)(1)(A), authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or enhance the species' propagation or survival. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review by any party who submits a request as specified in ADDRESSES . Our release of documents is subject to Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) requirements.

Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies. Please refer to the permit record number when submitting comments.

All comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Requests for copies of comments will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Service and Department of the Interior policies and procedures. 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 to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), received an application, including a habitat conservation plan (HCP), from Thurston County Public Works (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The permit, if issued, would authorize incidental take of the Yelm subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher ( Thomomys mazama yelmensis ) (pocket gopher) incidental to construction associated with upgrades and improvements to Steilacoom Road and at the Marvin and Mullen Road intersection in Thurston County, Washington, for a period of 10 years. The HCP describes actions the applicant would take to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking on the covered species.

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm,” as defined in our regulations, includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions that authorize the Service to issue permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species caused by otherwise lawful activities, provided the following criteria are met: (1) the taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the applicant will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are found in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.

The applicant proposes to construct safety and infrastructure improvements at Steilacoom Road and the intersection of Marvin and Mullen Roads in Thurston County, Washington. The permit area consists of 3.26 acres for the Steilacoom Road project and 2.05 acres for the Marvin and Mullen Intersection project. Areas within the project rights-of-way would be excavated, graded and paved to construct new sidewalks and lanes. Other activities covered under the HCP would include utility relocation, and the installation of permanent stormwater facilities.

Approximately 2.92 acres within the 5.31-acre permit area consist of suitable and occupied habitat for the pocket gopher; however, the total number of individuals likely present in the permit area is unknown. The impacts to suitable and occupied habitat will therefore serve as a surrogate for the amount and extent of take anticipated over the term of the requested permit.

To offset the impact of the taking, the applicant proposes to fund permanent management and maintenance of 4 acres of occupied habitat for the gopher. Thurston County proposes to secure mitigation at an existing conservation site provided it meets criteria outlined in the HCP and the sites can be secured prior to project implementation.

The Service's proposed action is to issue the requested 10-year ITP based on the applicant's commitment to implement the HCP provided that all requirements for ITP issuance under applicable law are met including, without limitation, ESA section 10(a)(2)(B) permit issuance criteria (36 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B).

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES . We specifically request information, views, and suggestions from interested parties regarding our proposed Federal action, including, without limitation, adequacy of the HCP, whether the HCP meets requirements for permits at 50 CFR parts 13 and 17, and adequacy of the EAS pursuant to the requirements of NEPA. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post online any personal information that you provide (see Public Availability of Comments under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). We request that you submit comments by only the methods described in ADDRESSES .

All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32), and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 46.205).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a record of decision (ROD) for the issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit (ITP) to the Thurston County Community Planning and Economic Development Department (Thurston County, County, or applicant) in Thurston County, Washington. The ROD documents the Service's decision to issue an ITP to the applicant. As summarized in the ROD, the Service has selected the agency-preferred alternative (also described as the proposed action below), which includes implementation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) and issuance of a 30-year ITP authorizing incidental take of the threatened Yelm pocket gopher ( Thomomys mazama yelmensis ), Olympia pocket gopher ( T. mazama pugetensis ), Tenino pocket gopher ( T. mazama tumuli ), and Oregon spotted frog ( Rana pretiosa ); the endangered Taylor's checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha taylori ); and the Oregon vesper sparrow ( Pooecetes gramineus affinis ), which is under review to determine if Federal listing under the ESA is warranted.

We are advising the public of the availability of the ROD, developed in compliance with agency decision-making requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). The Service published a notice of availability (NOA) for the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in the Federal Register on September 24, 2021 (86 FR 53111), and we published an NOA for the final EIS on May 13, 2022 (87 FR 29361). All alternatives were described in detail, evaluated, and analyzed in the draft and final EIS.

In 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a final rule updating the NEPA implementing regulations (the “2020 rule”; 85 FR 43304, July 16, 2020). The 2020 rule went into effect on September 14, 2020, and it applied to any NEPA process begun after that date. Because the Service published a notice of intent (NOI) to develop an EIS for this project on October 16, 2020 (85 FR 65861), the DEIS and FEIS were prepared according to the 2020 rule. On April 20, 2022, CEQ published a final rule that modified the 2020 rule, including reinstating the definition of cumulative effects (the “2022 rule”; 87 FR 23453). The 2022 rule went into effect on May 20, 2022. While terminology used in the EIS is based on the 2020 rule, the analysis in the EIS is consistent with both the 2020 and 2022 rules; the purpose and goals of NEPA; longstanding Federal judicial and regulatory interpretations; the Department of the Interior's NEPA regulations (43 CFR part 46); and Administration priorities and policies, including Secretary's Order No. 3399, requiring use of “the same application or level of NEPA that would have been applied to a proposed action before the 2020 rule went into effect.”

Thurston County applied for an ITP to cover a variety of activities for which the County issues permits or approvals, or activities the County otherwise carries out under its jurisdiction, as detailed in the HCP. The covered activities are described further in the final EIS and in the HCP. The covered activities include:

• Residential development;

• Development of accessory structures;

• Installation, repair, or alteration of septic systems;

• Commercial and industrial development;

• Public service facility construction;

• Transportation projects;

• Transportation maintenance and other work within County-owned road rights-of-way;

• Landfill and solid waste management;

• Water resources management;

• Management of conservation lands; and

• County parks, trails, and land management.

Through implementation of the HCP, the County will permit or conduct covered activities that incidentally take covered species. The HCP includes an analysis of projected impacts to covered species and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts. Where take is unavoidable, the County will permanently conserve lands in accordance with HCP requirements (“conservation lands”) to fully offset impacts of the taking on covered species before permits are issued or covered activities are conducted. Conservation lands will be monitored and adaptively managed to ensure they meet HCP-specified performance standards. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are discussed in greater detail below.

It is not practical to analyze anticipated take of individuals of each species; therefore, the HCP uses habitat, measured as habitat area or as “functional-acre” values, as a surrogate for quantifying impacts and mitigation for each covered species. The functional-acre approach weights habitat acreage with values for the covered species' distribution, habitat condition, and landscape context. This approach provides greater weight to both impacts and mitigation occurring in or near areas that are a priority for conservation of the covered species.

Development and maintenance activities covered by the HCP will impact Mazama pocket gopher subspecies when the activities occur within habitat in the ranges of the covered species. Fewer HCP-covered development and maintenance activities will impact the Oregon spotted frog, the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, and the Oregon vesper sparrow, because they have relatively localized ranges in Thurston County and thus are less likely to be impacted by covered activities.

Measures to avoid and minimize impacts of the taking on covered species include avoiding habitat where feasible, reducing the extent of habitat impacts through within-site project design, and additional species-specific measures for each group of covered activities, as described in the HCP. These measures are detailed in Appendix C of the HCP, including standard practices to avoid and minimize impacts on prairie species and prairie habitats, as well as on the Oregon spotted frog and its habitat, when siting and locating activities as well as during construction. Appendix C of the HCP also details enhanced measures recommended as best practices for land managers who voluntarily maintain habitat functions for the covered species.

To mitigate for unavoidable impacts to covered species, Thurston County proposes to permanently protect, restore or enhance where appropriate, and manage habitat occupied by covered species on conservation lands. Conservation lands include newly acquired permanent habitat reserves; working agricultural lands; and existing reserves where the County will enhance and permanently maintain habitat quality. The addition of conservation lands to the HCP conservation lands network will occur incrementally during HCP implementation at a pace that meets or exceeds the pace of impacts to each covered species.

The HCP includes funding assurances, monitoring, an adaptive management process, and changed circumstance provisions to help ensure that the conservation program achieves the biological goals for the covered species. Annual reports will confirm the amount, type, and location of impacts and mitigation, as well as the status of monitoring, adaptive management, changed circumstances, and funding. The conservation program and expected effects of HCP implementation on the covered species and their habitats are described in greater detail in the HCP and in the FEIS. The HCP is expected to be implemented for 30 years, and the resulting conservation lands will be permanently maintained.

In addition to the ITP, Thurston County will manage covered activities to comply with all other applicable laws, including, without limitation, Washington State endangered and protected species regulations; the Washington State Growth Management Act, which includes State and local protection of historic and cultural resources implemented through the County's comprehensive plan; the Washington State Shoreline Management Act; the Washington State Hydraulic Code; Thurston County Critical Area Ordinances; State and local requirements for administrative procedures; and other regulations. Individual projects conducted under the HCP will undergo individual review by the County for compliance with local codes and further public review, as appropriate, through the Washington State Environmental Policy Act.

As described in the final EIS, the Service's purpose and need for the Federal action is to process the County's request for an ITP, the issuance of which is necessary to meet the County's development and biological goals, and to inform the Service's decision to grant, grant with conditions, or deny the ITP request in compliance with the Service's authority under applicable law, including, without limitation, section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and applicable ESA implementing regulations. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA includes conservation authorities and obligations that require us to respond to the ITP application submitted by the applicant.

In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C 4321 et seq. ), the Service prepared a final EIS analyzing the proposed action (identified as the preferred alternative), a no-action alternative, and one alternative to the proposed action. Summaries of each alternative are presented below. The environmental consequences of each alternative were analyzed to determine if significant impacts to the human environment would occur. Public comments received in response to the draft EIS were considered, and the final EIS responds to comments and includes some clarifications that address public comments. The final EIS did not identify an environmentally preferable alternative. Pursuant to NEPA implementing regulations found at 40 CFR 1505.2, the Service identified the proposed action as the environmentally preferable alternative in the ROD, because the network of conservation lands would be slightly larger and more diverse than in the modified HCP alternative action, resulting in greater conservation benefit to the covered species.

No-Action Alternative: The Service would not issue incidental take authorization to the County, and the County would not implement the HCP. The County would continue to conduct, permit, and approve activities on a case-by-case basis in compliance with Federal, State, and local requirements, including the Thurston County Critical Areas code. The County and individual project proponents would continue to evaluate each project to ensure unauthorized take of listed species is avoided. The County would not implement a coordinated, County-wide conservation program for ESA-listed species. This alternative is the current situation in Thurston County.

Proposed Action Alternative: The Service would, in accordance with applicable law, issue the requested ITP to Thurston County for the incidental take of covered species by the covered activities. The County would implement the Thurston County HCP and its conservation program, including, without limitation, implementation of measures to minimize effects of covered activities, mitigation measures to fully offset the impacts of the taking on covered species, and monitoring and reporting. The County would also ensure funding for HCP implementation. Under the proposed action, the County would mitigate for the impacts of the taking on covered species, in part through the execution of conservation easements on working agricultural lands, the enhancement of existing conservation reserves, and the establishment and management of new conservation reserves. The proposed action is the Service's agency-preferred alternative because it provides a practical approach for durable conservation outcomes in the permit area while supporting the County's goals and community interests, such as preservation of agricultural lands.

Modified HCP Alternative Action: The Service would, in accordance with applicable law, issue an ITP to Thurston County with the same permit area, permit term, covered species, covered activities, and many of the HCP elements described for the proposed action. Under this alternative, the County would mitigate for the impacts of the taking on covered species solely through the establishment and management of new conservation reserves. The County would not execute conservation easements on working agricultural lands, or include the enhancement of existing conservation reserves in the mitigation strategy. Under this alternative, the network of conservation lands would be slightly smaller.

We have made the determination that the applicant's proposed HCP, as modified by the terms and conditions of the ITP, would meet the statutory ITP issuance criteria set forth in section 10(1)(2)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)). Our assessment of the application was conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and its implementing regulations. Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences as described in the final EIS, we selected the proposed action because implementation of the final HCP and issuance of the ITP best fulfills the Service's statutory mission and responsibilities while meeting our purpose and need. This decision is described further in the ROD.

We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods in ADDRESSES . We will not consider comments sent by email or fax, or to an address not in ADDRESSES . We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES ).

When submitting comments, please specify the name of the applicant and the permit number at the beginning of your comment. Provide sufficient information to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.

You may view and comment on others' public comments at https://www.regulations.gov, unless our allowing so would violate the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) or Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

If you submit a comment at https://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the website. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, such as your address, phone number, or email address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Moreover, all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), we invite public comments on permit applications before final action is taken. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits certain activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is issued that allows such activities. Permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA allow otherwise prohibited activities for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species. Service regulations regarding prohibited activities with endangered species, captive-bred wildlife registrations, and permits for any activity otherwise prohibited by the ESA with respect to any endangered species are available in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 17.

We invite comments on the following applications.

The applicant requests authorization to import biological samples collected from wild hawksbill sea turtles ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) from Singapore for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests authorization to import biological samples collected from wild hoolock gibbons ( Hoolock sp.) from Myanmar for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests authorization to import biological samples collected from wild hawksbill sea turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ), loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ), olive ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys olivacea ), and leatherback sea turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) from Honduras for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests a permit to export one female harpy eagle ( Harpia harpyja ) to Weltvogelpark Walsrode, Walsrode, Germany, for the purpose of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. This notification is for a single export.

The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the red-browed parrot ( Amazona rhodocorytha ), to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests authorization to export and reimport nonliving museum specimens of endangered species previously accessioned into the applicant's collection for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The following applicants request permits to import sport-hunted trophies of male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species.

After the comment period closes, we will make decisions regarding permit issuance. If we issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register . You may locate the notice announcing the permit issuance by searching https://www.regulations.gov for the permit number listed above in this document. For example, to find information about the potential issuance of Permit No. 12345A, you would go to regulations.gov and search for “12345A”.

We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and its implementing regulations.

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 January 26, 2022 (87 FR 4041). We received one comment in response to that notice.

Comment 1: The respondent supported the information collection, stating in their opinion that the information collection is helpful for American Indian students served by Bureau-funded schools and necessary to determine the allocation of grant funding to meet the educational needs of American Indian students in Wisconsin.

Agency Response to Comment 1: BIE greatly appreciates the support of our partners in serving and improving educational outcomes for American Indian students.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract: Under 25 U.S.C. 2020, Congress appropriated funding through the BIE for the development and operation of Tribal departments or divisions of education for the purpose of planning and coordinating all educational programs of the Tribe. All Tribal education departments (TEDs) awarded will provide coordinating services and technical assistance to the school(s) they serve. As required under 25 U.S.C. 2020, for a federally recognized Tribe to be eligible to receive a grant, the Tribe must submit a grant application proposal. Once the grant has been awarded, each awardee will be responsible for quarterly and annual reports. All awardees must comply with regulations relating to grants made under 25 U.S.C. 5322(a).

Title of Collection: Tribal Education Department Grant Program.

OMB Control Number: 1076-0185.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Federally recognized Tribes and their Tribal Education Departments (TEDs).

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 33.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 63.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 1 to 81 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,113 hours.

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

Frequency of Collection: Yearly for the proposal and annual report, quarterly for the quarterly reports.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

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

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

The Florida Coastal Access Project was selected for funding and implementation in Phase V of Deepwater Horizon early restoration. In the 2011 Framework Agreement for Early Restoration Addressing Injuries Resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Framework Agreement), BP agreed to provide to the Trustees up to $1 billion toward early restoration projects in the Gulf of Mexico to address injuries to natural resources caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Framework Agreement represented a preliminary step toward the restoration of injured natural resources and was intended to expedite the start of restoration in the Gulf in advance of the completion of the injury assessment process. In the five phases of the early restoration process, the Trustees selected, and BP Exploration and Production, Inc. (BP) agreed to fund, a total of 65 early restoration projects expected to cost a total of approximately $877 million, including the Florida Coastal Access Project for approximately $45.4 million. The Trustees selected these projects after public notice, public meetings, and consideration of public comments.

The Consent Decree terminated and replaced the Framework Agreement and provided that the Trustees shall use remaining early restoration funds as specified in the early restoration plans and in accordance with the Consent Decree. The Trustees have determined that decisions concerning any unexpended early restoration funds are to be made by the appropriate TIG, in this case the Florida TIG.

A notice of availability of the Draft Phase V.4 Restoration Plan and Supplemental Environmental Assessment was published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2022 (87 FR 22937). The public was provided with a period to review and comment on the Draft Restoration Plan, from April 18, 2022, through May 20, 2022. A webinar was held for the public on May 10, 2022, and an in-person public meeting was held on May 12, 2022, in Panacea, Florida. The Florida TIG considered the public comments received, which informed the TIG's analyses and selection of the preferred restoration alternative, the Dickerson Bay Addition, in the Final Phase V.4 RP/SEA. A summary of the public comments received, and the Florida TIG's responses to those comments, are addressed in Chapter 5 of the Final Phase V.4 RP/SEA. The FONSI is included as Appendix C of the Final Phase V.4 RP/SEA.

On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for 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 Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days. In addition, well over 1 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 Trustees conducted the natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill under OPA. Pursuant to OPA (OPA; 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. ), 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 Deepwater Horizon 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.

On April 4, 2016, the Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damage claims with BP in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in the Florida Restoration Area are now chosen and managed by the Florida TIG. The Florida TIG is composed of the following six Trustees: State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; DOI; NOAA; EPA; and USDA.

The Final Phase V.4 RP/SEA/FONSI is being released in accordance with OPA, NRDA regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 15 CFR part 990, NEPA, the Consent Decree, the Final PDARP/PEIS, and the Final Phase V ERP/EA. The Phase V.4 RP/SEA provides an OPA analysis for the proposed fourth phase of the Florida Coastal Access Project and supplements the NEPA analysis completed in the first, second, and third phases of the project (2016 Final Phase V Early Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment, 2017 Final Phase V.2 Restoration Plan and Supplemental Environmental Assessment, and 2019 Final Phase V.3 Restoration Plan and Supplemental Environmental Assessment, respectively). In the Final Phase V.4 RP/SEA, the Florida TIG selects to fund the fourth phase of the Florida Coastal Access Project to address lost recreational opportunities caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Florida Restoration Area, through the acquisition of the Dickerson Bay Addition: a 114-acre coastal inholding parcel in Wakulla County within the approved boundary of St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. The cost to carry out the Dickerson Bay Addition is approximately $685,000. Details on the fourth phase of the project are provided in the Final Phase V.4 RP/SEA. Additional restoration planning for the Florida Restoration Area will continue.

The documents comprising the administrative record for the Final Phase V.4 RP/SEA can be viewed electronically at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/administrativerecord.

The authority of this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. ), and its implementing 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 USFS requests the 20-year term withdrawal to protect the NFS lands from potential encumbrances that could affect the Town's ability to use the lands when purchased from the Federal Government. Section 3003 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (NDAA) [Pub. L. 113-291 § 3003] requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the subject lands to the Town, upon request from the Town. The subject lands are located within the Tonto National Forest and within the Town's corporate limits, and include the 30-acre Fairview Cemetery, as well as parcels near the Superior Municipal Airport.

The following described NFS lands are the subject of the USFS's withdrawal application and are temporarily segregated for a period of up to 2 years from location and entry under the U. S. mining laws, subject to valid existing rights. The lands remain open to such uses as may be made on NFS lands and to leasing under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws:

The areas described aggregate 276 acres.

The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not provide adequate protection of the specified lands.

No additional water rights are needed to fulfill the purpose of this requested withdrawal.

There are no suitable alternative sites since the requested withdrawal area is the potential conveyance area specified by Public Law 113-291 § 3003.

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.

Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the requested withdrawal. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the requested withdrawal must submit a written request to the BLM Arizona State Director no later than October 18, 2022. If the authorized officer determines that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the Federal Register and a local newspaper at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

For a period until July 22, 2024 the lands will be segregated as specified above unless the application is denied or canceled.

This application will be processed in accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 2310.3.

On April 6, 2020, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by complainants L&L Candle Company LLC of Brea, California and Sotera Tschetter, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota (together, “Complainants”). 85 FR 19158-59 (Apr. 6, 2020). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic candle products and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,550,660; 9,366,402; 9,512,971; 9,523,471; and 10,533,718. Id. The notice of investigation named as respondents: The Gerson Company of Olathe, Kansas; Gerson International (H.K.) Ltd. of Hong Kong; Sterno Home Inc. of Coquitlam, Canada; Ningbo Huamao International Trading Co., Ltd. of Ningbo City, China; Ningbo Yinzhou Langsheng Artware Co., Ltd of Ningbo City, China; Lifetime Brands, Inc. of Garden City, New York; Scott Brothers Entertainment, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada; Nantong Ya Tai Candle Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. of San Gabriel, California; NapaStyle, Inc. of Napa, California; Veraflame International, Inc. of Vancouver, Canada (“Veraflame”); MerchSource, LLC of Irvine, California; Ningbo Mascube Import Export Company of Ningbo City, China (“Ningbo Mascube”); Decorware International Inc. dba Decorware Inc. of Rancho Cucamonga, California; Shenzhen Goldenwell Smart Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen City, China; Shenzhen Ksperway Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen City, China; Ningbo Shanhuang Electric Appliance Co. of Ningbo City, China (“Ningbo Shanhuang”); Yiwu Shengda Art Co., Ltd. of Yiwu City, China (“Yiwu Shengda”); Shenzhen Tongfang Optoelectronic Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen City, China; TFL Candles of Shenzhen City, China; Guangdong Tongfang Lighting Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong; Tongfang Optoelectronic Company of Hong Kong; and Virtual Candles Limited of Kent, United Kingdom (“Virtual Candles”). Id. at 19159. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party to the investigation. Id.

Of the twenty-two respondents, five were terminated based on consent orders, eight were terminated based on settlement agreements, three were terminated based on a voluntary withdrawal of the complaint due to an inability to serve, and one was terminated based on a summary determination of no importation. See Order No. 7 (May 4, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jun. 3, 2020); Order No. 37 (Dec. 17, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 5, 2021); Order No. 12 (Jun. 15, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jun. 20, 2020); Order No. 15 (Jul. 15, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 5, 2020); Order No. 29 (Oct. 19, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 2, 2020; Order No. 38 (Dec. 18, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 5, 2021); Order No. 39 (Dec. 18, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 5, 2021). The Commission found the following five remaining respondents in default for failing to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation and for failing to show cause why they had not done so, or for failing to participate in discovery: Veraflame, Ningbo Mascube, Ningbo Shanhuang, Yiwu Shengda, and Virtual Candles (“the Defaulting Respondents”). See Order No. 14 (Jul. 8, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 3, 2020) (finding Veraflame, Ningbo Mascube, and Virtual Candles in default); Order No. 33 (Nov. 12, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 30, 2020) (finding Yiwu Shengda and Ningbo Shanhuang in default).

On November 13, 2020, Complainants moved for a summary determination of violation as to the Defaulting Respondents and for a recommendation for the issuance of a general exclusion order. On December 4, 2020, OUII filed a response that questioned whether Complainants had satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, but otherwise supported a finding of violation of section 337 and issuing a general exclusion order. On April 2, 2021, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”), Order No. 41, granting Complainants' motion for summary determination of violation by each of the five Defaulting Respondents. Order No. 41 (Apr. 2, 2021).

On May 19, 2021, the Commission determined on its own motion to review the ID's finding that Complainants satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. 86 FR 28143-46 (May 25, 2021). On August 13, 2021, the Commission vacated the findings in the ID on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement and remanded the investigation to the then Chief Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for the issuance of a remand initial determination.

On December 29, 2021, the then Chief ALJ issued the subject RID, finding that Complainants failed to establish the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. On January 20, 2022, Complainants filed a petition for review of the RID. On January 28, 2022, OUII filed a response to Complainants' petition.

On April 1, 2022, the Commission determined to review the RID, but did not request further briefing from the parties. 87 FR 20459-60 (Apr. 7, 2022).

Having examined the record of this investigation, including the RID, the petition for review, and the response thereto, the Commission has determined to affirm the RID's finding that Complainants have failed to establish the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in this investigation. The Commission has determined to modify the RID as explained in the Commission opinion issued herewith. Accordingly, the Commission finds that there has been no violation of section 337 as to the Defaulting Respondents.

Commissioner Schmidtlein dissents from the Commission's decision and has filed a separate opinion explaining her views.

The Commission vote for this determination took place on July 14, 2022.

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

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension without Change of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: Manufacturers of Ammunition, Records and Supporting Data of Ammunition, Manufactured and Disposed of

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: None.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

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

Primary: Business or other for-profit.

Other: None.

Abstract: This collection is a recordkeeping requirement for manufacturers of ammunition. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives personnel may also use these records during criminal investigations and compliance inspections to enforce the Gun Control Act.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 188 respondents will respond to this collection once annually, and it will take each respondent approximately 2 minutes to complete their responses.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 6.2 or 6 hours, which is equal to 188 (total respondents) * 1 (# of response per respondent) * .033 (2 minutes or the time taken to prepare each response).

If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, Policy and Planning Staff, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Mail Stop 3.E-206, Washington, DC 20530.

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

1. Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection. A new OMB number is needed, as this collection was previously under 1121-0311 with the collection of prison data. They are now two separate collections.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: National Inmate Survey in Jails (NIS-4J).

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: There is no agency form number at this time. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office of Justice Programs.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Respondents will primarily be State or Local Government entities. The work under this clearance will be used to produce estimates for the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization within correctional facilities as required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-79). The Bureau of Justice Statistics uses this information in published reports and for the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the President, practitioners, researchers, students, the media, and others interested in criminal justice statistics.

In 2003, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA or the Act) was signed into law. The Act requires BJS to “carry out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape.” The Act further instructs BJS to collect survey data: “. . . the Bureau shall . . . use surveys and other statistical studies of current and former inmates. . .”

To implement the Act, BJS developed the National Prison Rape Statistics Program (NPRS), which includes four separate data collection efforts: the Survey on Sexual Violence (SSV), the National Inmate Survey (NIS), the National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC), and the National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS). The NIS collects information on sexual victimization self-reported by inmates held in adult correctional facilities, both prisons and jails. The NIS has been conducted three times, in 2007 (NIS-1), in 2008-09 (NIS-2), and in 2011-12 (NIS-3). Each iteration of NIS was conducted in at least one facility in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In each iteration of the survey, inmates completed the survey using an audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI), whereby they heard questions and instructions via headphones and responded to the survey items via a touchscreen interface.

The collection requested in this notice is the fourth iteration of the National Inmate Survey in Jails. For NIS-4, administration of the survey in prisons will take place separately from survey administration in jails. This collection request is specific to conducting the survey in adult jail facilities.

The survey instrument for the NIS-4 in Jails is slightly modified from the previous iterations. The main difference is the addition of a new set of incident-specific questions administered to respondents who affirmatively indicate they were sexually victimized at some point in the previous 12 months while housed in their current jail facility. These incident-specific questions will provide information to the public on the nature of sexual victimization in jails, such as where incidents occurred within the facility, the relationship between the victim and the alleged perpetrator(s), and whether the victim suffered any injuries as a result of the incident, among other incident characteristics.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Prior to data collection commencing in 2021, BJS will coordinate the logistics of NIS-4 survey administration with staff at jail facilities. Because the administration of this survey in prisons is not included in this request, the overall number of burden hours is lower than in the last request approved in 2010. However, the reported burden also different due to changes in reporting. It is estimated that 290 facility respondents will devote 150 minutes of time to this coordination effort, not including staff escort time. During data collection in 2023, jail staff will escort an estimated 65,360 jail inmates to/from the interviews, which consists of a short consent administration and an approximately 35-minute survey.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: This collection was previously approved for implementation in both adult prisons and jails. The current request will only be implemented in adult jails, thereby reducing the total number of facility staff and respondents required to participate. The total estimated NIS-4 Jails public burden, inclusive of facility staff and respondent burden estimates, is 64,010 hours. This comprises 17,065 hours of facility staff burden and 46,945 hours of respondent interviewing burden. This burden estimate assumes 100% participation from both facilities and inmates, but historically both facility and inmate participation have not reached 100%. For purposes of comparison, during Year 3 of the NIS, the total maximum burden was estimated at 68,078 hours for the jail sample. The total burden used was 33,022 hours.

If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

The purpose of this standard and its information collection requirements is to provide protection for workers from the adverse effects associated with occupational exposure to coke oven emissions. Employers must monitor worker exposure, reduce worker exposure to permissible exposure limits, and provide medical examinations and other information to workers pertaining to coke oven emissions. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2022 (87 FR 25674).

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

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

Agency: DOL-OSHA.

Title of Collection: Coke Oven Emissions Standard.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0128.

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

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,378.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 18,470.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 34,787 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $369,173.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2022-011-C.

Petitioner: Canyon Fuels Company, LLC, HC35, Box 380, Helper, Utah 84526.

Mine: Skyline Mine No. 3, MSHA ID No. 42-01566, located in Carbon County, Utah.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.312(c), Main mine fan examinations and records.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.312 (c) to permit an alternate method of performing the automatic fan signaling device testing without stopping the fan and without removing the miners from the mine.

The petitioner states that:

(a) Fan stoppage for testing introduces contaminants into the mine atmosphere from the worked-out area behind the longwall tailgate.

(b) Any delay of a fan restart beyond 15 minutes after shutdown for testing could result in a lengthy restart of the mine operating systems.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) Installing a valve in the system monitoring the water gauge of the fan pressure monitoring system. The water gauge installed at each main mine fan is a magnehelic gauge with electronic pickups, which are integrated into the atmospheric monitoring system (AMS). When the valve is closed, the AMS will detect zero fan pressure and activate the alarm.

(b) The electrical current of each main mine fan motor is monitored with amp gauges integrated into the AMS system. An interruption in the electrical current to a main mine fan motor will activate the audible fan alarm signal.

(c) When the fan stoppage signal system is tested, an audible fan signal alarm sounds at the surface location where a responsible person is on duty, verifying the performance of the fan alarm signal system. The responsible person is provided with two-way communication to working sections and workstations.

(d) Every 5 to 7 months, each automatic fan signal device and signal alarm shall be tested by stopping the fan to ensure that the automatic signal device activates the alarm when the fan stops.

(e) By the end of the shift on which the test of the automatic fan signal devices is completed, the person(s) performing the test(s) shall record the result of the test(s) in a secure book. The record book shall be retained at a surface location at the mine for at least 1 year and shall be made available for inspection by an authorized representative of the Secretary and the representative of the miners. Such recording shall also indicate the general repair of the system.

(f) Within 60 days of the PDO being granted, the Petitioner shall submit proposed revisions for its approved Part 48 training plan to the MSHA District Manager. These proposed revisions shall include initial and refresher training regarding compliance with the PDO.

(g) Persons performing tests under the provisions of the PDO must be specifically trained on the proper method of testing upon initial assignment to these responsibilities and at least annually thereafter

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method proposed will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the NEA Chair of March 11, 2022, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

The upcoming meetings are:

Folk & Traditional Arts Panel (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: August 2, 2022; 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Literary Arts Panel (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: August 3, 2022; 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Literary Arts Panel (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: August 4, 2022; 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Folk & Traditional Arts Panel (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: August 4, 2022; 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Folk & Traditional Arts Panel (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: August 5, 2022; 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

National Heritage Fellowships Panel (review of nominations): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: August 9, 2022; 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge Panel (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: August 17, 2022; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Independent Film and Media Arts Field-Building Initiative Panel (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

Date and time: August 31, 2022; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The NRC is considering issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77, which authorize Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, (Constellation) to operate Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Will County, Illinois. Constellation submitted its license amendment request in accordance with section 50.90 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulation (10 CFR), by letter dated June 3, 2022. If approved, the license amendments would revise TS SR in TS 3.7.9.2 to allow a temporary increase in the allowable UHS average temperature of less than or equal to (≤) 102.8 °F (39.3 degrees Celsius (°C)) through September 30, 2022. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 50.21, the NRC performed an environmental assessment (EA). Based on the results of the EA that follows, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendments and is issuing a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).

The proposed action would revise the Braidwood TS to allow a temporary increase in the allowable average temperature of water withdrawn from the UHS and supplied to the plant for cooling from ≤102 °F (38.9 °C) to ≤102.8 °F (39.3 °C) through September 30, 2022. Specifically, the proposed action would revise TS SR 3.7.9.2, which currently states, “Verify average water temperature of UHS is ≤102.8 °F until September 30, 2021. After September 30, 2021, verify average water temperature of UHS is ≤102 °F” to state “Verify average water temperature of UHS is ≤102.8 °F until September 30, 2022. After September 30, 2022, verify average water temperature of UHS is ≤102 °F.”

Under the current TS, if the average UHS temperature as measured at the discharge of the operating essential service water system pumps is greater than 102 °F (38.9 °C), TS 3.7.9 Required Actions A.1 and A.2 would be entered concurrently and would require the licensee to place Braidwood in hot standby (Mode 3) within 12 hours and cold shutdown (Mode 5) within 36 hours. The proposed action would allow Braidwood to continue to operate during times when the UHS indicated average water temperature exceeds 102 °F (38.9 °C) but is less than or equal to 102.8 °F (39.3 °C) through September 30, 2022. The current TS's UHS average water temperature limit of 102 °F (38.9 °C) would remain applicable to all other time periods beyond September 30, 2022.

The proposed action is nearly identical to previously approved license amendments that allowed for the average water temperature of the UHS to be ≤102.8 °F until September 30, 2020, and September 30, 2021. The NRC issued EAs for the 2020 and 2021 UHS amendments in the Federal Register on September 10, 2020, (85 FR 55863) and July 7, 2021, (86 FR 35831) respectively. The NRC issued the amendments on September 24, 2020, and July 13, 2021, respectively. The only difference between the previously approved amendments to SR 3.7.9.2 and the proposed action is that the proposed action would replace “2020” or “2021” with “2022.” The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated June 3, 2022.

The licensee has requested the proposed amendments in connection with historical meteorological and atmospheric conditions that have resulted in the TS UHS temperature being challenged. These conditions included elevated air temperatures, high humidity, and low wind speed. Specifically, from July 4, 2020, through July 9, 2020, northern Illinois experienced high air temperatures and drought conditions, which caused sustained elevated UHS temperatures. In response to these conditions in 2020, the licensee submitted license amendment requests contained in the licensee's letter dated July 15, 2020, as supplemented by letter dated August 14, 2020. The NRC subsequently granted the licensee's request in September 2020. A similar request was granted by NRC letter dated July 13, 2021. In February of 2022, the license for Braidwood Units 1 and 2 was transferred to Constellation by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). Constellation projects that similar conditions are likely this year.

The proposed action would provide the licensee with operational flexibility until September 30, 2022, during which continued high UHS temperatures are likely so that the plant shutdown criteria specified in the TS are not triggered.

Braidwood is in Will County, Illinois approximately 50 miles (mi); 80 kilometers (km) southwest of the Chicago Metropolitan Area and 20 mi (32 km) south-southwest of Joliet. The Kankakee River is approximately 5 mi (8 km) east of the eastern site boundary. An onsite 2,540-acre (ac); 1,030-hectare (ha) cooling pond provides condenser cooling. Cooling water is withdrawn from the pond through the lake screen house, which is located at the north end of the pond. Heated water returns to the cooling pond through a discharge canal west of the lake screen house intake that is separated from the intake by a dike. The pond typically holds 22,300 acre-feet (27.5 million cubic meters) of water at any given time. The cooling pond includes both “essential” and “non-essential” areas. The essential cooling pond is the portion of the cooling pond that serves as the UHS for emergency core cooling, and it consists of a 99 ac (40-ha) excavated area of the pond directly in front of the lake screen house. The essential cooling pond's principal functions are to dissipate residual heat after reactor shutdown and to dissipate heat after an accident. It is capable of supplying Braidwood's cooling system with water for 30 days of station operation without additional makeup water. For clarity, use of the term “UHS” in this EA refers to the 99-ac (40-ha) essential cooling pond, and use of the term “cooling pond” or “pond” describes the entire 2,540-ac (1,030-ha) area, which includes both the essential and non-essential areas.

The cooling pond is part of the Mazonia-Braidwood State Fish and Wildlife Area, which encompasses the majority of the non-UHS area of the cooling pond as well as Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) owned lands adjacent to the Braidwood site to the south and southwest of the cooling pond. The licensee and the IDNR have jointly managed the cooling pond as part of the Mazonia-Braidwood State Fish and Wildlife Area since 1991 pursuant to a long-term lease agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the public has access to the pond for fishing, waterfowl hunting, fossil collecting, and other recreational activities.

The cooling pond is a wastewater treatment works as defined by section 301.415 of Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 IAC 301.415). Under this definition, the cooling pond is not considered waters of the State under Illinois Administrative Code (35 IAC 301.440) or waters of the United States under the Federal Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230.3(s)), and so the cooling pond is not subject to State water quality standards. The cooling pond can be characterized as a managed ecosystem where IDNR fish stocking and other human activities primarily influence the species composition and population dynamics.

Since the beginning of the lease agreement between the licensee and IDNR, the IDNR has stocked the cooling pond with a variety of game fish, including largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. dolomieu), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), walleye (Sander vitreum), and tiger muskellunge (Esox masquinongy x lucius). IDNR performs annual surveys to determine which fish to stock based on fishermen preferences, fish abundance, different species' tolerance to warm waters, predator and prey dynamics, and other factors. Because of the warm water temperatures experienced in the summer months, introductions of warm-water species, such as largemouth bass and blue catfish, have been more successful than introductions of cool-water species, such as walleye and tiger muskellunge. Since annual surveys began in 1980, IDNR has collected 47 species in the cooling pond. In recent years, bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) have been among the most abundant species in the cooling pond. Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), one of the most frequently affected species during periods of elevated pond temperatures, have decreased in abundance dramatically in recent years, while bluegills, which can tolerate high temperatures with relatively high survival rates, have noticeably increased in relative abundance. IDNR stocked warm water game species, such as largemouth bass and blue catfish, continue to persist in small numbers, while cooler water stocked species, such as walleye and tiger muskellunge, no longer appear in IDNR survey collections. No federally listed species or designated critical habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) occur within or near the cooling pond.

The Kankakee River serves as the source of makeup water for the cooling pond. The river also receives continuous blowdown from the cooling pond. Water is withdrawn from a small river screen house located on the Kankakee River, and liquid effluents from Braidwood are discharged into the cooling pond blowdown line, which subsequently discharges into the Kankakee River.

The plant site and environs are described in greater detail in Chapter 3 of the NRC's November 2015 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report (NUREG 1437, Supplement 55) (herein referred to as the “Braidwood FSEIS” (Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement)). Figure 3-5 on pages 3-7 of the Braidwood FSEIS depicts the Braidwood plant layout, and Figure 3-4 on pages 3-6 depicts the cooling pond, including the portion of the pond that constitutes the essential cooling pond (or UHS) and the blowdown line to the Kankakee River.

Regarding radiological impacts, the proposed action would not result in any changes in the types of radioactive effluents that may be released from the plant offsite. No significant increase in the amount of any radioactive effluent released offsite or significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure is expected from the proposed action. Separate from this EA, the NRC staff is evaluating the licensee's safety analyses of the potential radiological consequences of an accident that may result from the proposed action. The results of the NRC staff's safety analysis will be documented in a safety evaluation (SE). If the NRC staff concludes in the SE that all pertinent regulatory requirements related to radiological effluents are met by the proposed UHS temperature limit increase, then the proposed action would result in no significant radiological impact to the environment. The NRC staff's SE will be issued with the license amendments, if approved by the NRC. If the NRC staff concludes that all pertinent regulatory requirements are not met by the proposed UHS temperature limit increase, the requested amendment would not be issued.

Regarding potential nonradiological impacts, temporarily raising the maximum allowable UHS temperature from ≤102 °F (38.9 °C) to ≤102.8 °F (39.3 °C) could cause increased cooling pond water temperatures until September 30, 2022. Because the proposed action would not affect Braidwood's licensed thermal power level, the temperature rise across the condensers as cooling water travels through the cooling system would remain constant. Thus, if water in the UHS were to rise to 102.8 °F (39.3 °C), heated water returning to the cooling pond through the discharge canal, which lies west of the river screen house, would also experience a corresponding 0.8 °F (0.4 °C) increase. That additional heat load would dissipate across some thermal gradient as discharged water travels down the discharge canal and through the 99-ac (40-ha) UHS. Fish kills are likely to occur when cooling pond temperatures rise above 95 °F (35 °C), the temperature at which most fish in the cooling pond are thermally stressed. For example, section 3.7.4 of the Braidwood FSEIS describes six fish kill events for the period of 2001 through 2015. The fish kill events, which occurred in July 2001, August 2001, June 2005, August 2007, June 2009, and July 2012, primarily affected threadfin shad and gizzard shad, although bass, catfish, carp, and other game fish were also affected. Reported peak temperatures in the cooling pond during these events ranged from 98.4 °F (36.9 °C) to over 100 °F (37.8 °C), and each event resulted in the death of between 700 to as many as 10,000 fish. During the July 2012 event, cooling pond temperatures exceeded 100 °F (37.8 °C), which resulted in the death of approximately 3,000 gizzard shad and 100 bass, catfish, and carp. This event coincided with the NRC's granting of Enforcement Discretion to allow Braidwood to continue to operate above the TS limit of ≤100 °F (37.8 °C). The IDNR attributed this event, as well as four of the other fish kill events, to high cooling pond temperatures resulting from Braidwood operation. Appendix B, section 4.1, of the Braidwood renewed facility operating licenses, requires Constellation to report to the NRC the occurrence of unusual or important environmental events, including fish kills, causally related to plant operation. Since the issuance of the Braidwood FSEIS in November 2015, the licensee has not reported any additional fish kill events to the NRC. Although not causally related to plant operation, fish kills have occurred since this time, the most recent of which occurred in August 2018 and July 2020.

In section 4.7.1.3 of the Braidwood FSEIS, the NRC staff concluded that thermal impacts associated with continued operation of Braidwood during the license renewal term would result in SMALL to MODERATE impacts to aquatic resources in the cooling pond. MODERATE impacts would primarily be experienced by gizzard shad and other non-stocked and low-heat tolerant species. As part of its conclusion, the NRC staff also noted that because the cooling pond is a highly managed system, any cascading effects that result from the loss of gizzard shad (such as reduction in prey for stocked species, which in turn could affect those stocked species' populations) could be mitigated through IDNR's annual stocking and continual management of the pond. At that time, the UHS TS limit was ≤100 °F (37.8 °C).

In 2016, the NRC granted license amendments that increased the allowable UHS average water temperature TS limit from ≤100 °F (37.8 °C) to ≤102.0 °F (38.9 °C). In the EA associated with these amendments, the NRC staff concluded that increasing the TS limit to ≤102.0 °F (38.9 °C) would have no significant environmental impacts, and the NRC issued a FONSI with the EA.

In 2020 and 2021, the NRC granted license amendments that temporarily increased the allowable UHS average water temperature TS limit from ≤102.0 °F (38.9 °C) to ≤102.8 °F (39.3 °C) until September 30, 2020, and September 30, 2021, respectively. In the EA associated with these amendments, the NRC staff concluded that temporarily increasing the TS limit to ≤102.8 °F (39.3 °C) would have no significant environmental impacts, and the NRC issued a FONSI with the EA.

The NRC staff finds that the proposed action would not result in significant impacts to aquatic resources in the cooling pond for the same reasons that the NRC staff made this conclusion regarding the 2020 and 2021 amendments. The staff's justification for this conclusion follows.

The proposed increase in the allowable UHS average water temperature limit by 0.8 °F (0.4 °C) would not increase the likelihood of a fish kill event attributable to high cooling pond temperatures because the current TS limit for the UHS of 102.0 °F (38.9 °C) already allows cooling pond temperatures above those at which most fish species are thermally stressed (95 °F (35 °C)). In effect, if the UHS temperature rises to the current TS limit, fish within or near the discharge canal, within the flow path between the discharge canal and UHS, or within the UHS itself would have already experienced thermal stress and possibly died. Thus, an incremental increase in the allowable UHS water temperature by 0.8 °F (0.4 °C) and the corresponding temperature increases within and near the discharge canal and within the flow path between the discharge canal and UHS would not significantly affect the number of fish kill events experienced in the cooling pond. Additionally, the proposed action would only increase the allowable UHS average water temperature until September 30, 2022. Thus, any impacts to the aquatic community of the cooling pond, if experienced, would be temporary in nature, and fish populations would likely recover relatively quickly.

While the proposed action would not affect the likelihood of a fish kill event occurring during periods when the average UHS water temperature approaches the TS limit, the proposed action could increase the number of fish killed per high temperature event. For fish with thermal tolerances at or near 95 °F (35 °C), there would likely be no significant difference in the number of affected fish per high temperature event because, as already stated, these fish would have already experienced thermal stress and possibly died, and the additional temperature increase would not measurably affect the mortality rate of these individuals. For fish with thermal tolerances above 95 °F (35 °C), such as bluegill, increased mortality is possible, as described in this EA.

The available scientific literature provides conflicting information as to whether incremental temperature increases would cause a subsequent increase in mortality rates of bluegill or other high-temperature-tolerant fish when temperatures exceed 100 °F (37.8 °C). For instance, in laboratory studies, Banner and Van Arman (1973) demonstrated 85 percent survival of juvenile bluegill after 24 hours of exposure to 98.6 °F (37.0 °C) water for stock acclimated to 91.2 °F (32.9 °C). At 100.0 °F (37.8 °C), survival decreased to 25 percent, and at 100.4 °F (38.0 °C) and 102.0 °F (38.9 °C), no individuals survived. Even at one hour of exposure to 102.0 °F (38.9 °C) water, average survival was relatively low at between 40 to 67.5 percent per replicate. However, in another laboratory study, Cairns (1956 in Banner and Van Arman 1973) demonstrated that if juvenile bluegill were acclimated to higher temperatures at a 3.6 °F (2.0 °C) increase per day, individuals could tolerate water temperatures up to 102.6 °F (39.2 °C) with 80 percent survival after 24 hours of exposure.

Although these studies provide inconsistent thermal tolerance limits, information from past fish kill events indicates that Cairns' results better describe the cooling pond's bluegill population because the licensee has not reported bluegill as one of the species that has been affected by past high temperature events. Thus, bluegills are likely acclimating to temperature rises at a rate that allows those individuals to remain in high temperature areas until temperatures decrease or that allows individuals time to seek refuge in cooler areas of the pond. Alternately, if Banner and Van Arman's results were more predictive, 75 percent or more of bluegill individuals in high temperature areas of the cooling pond could be expected to die at temperatures approaching or exceeding 100 °F (37.8 °C) for 24 hours, and shorter exposure time would likely result in the death of some reduced percentage of bluegill individuals.

Under the proposed action, fish exposure to temperatures approaching the proposed UHS TS average water temperature limit of 102.8 °F (39.3 °C) and those exposed to the associated discharge, which would be 0.8 °F (0.4 °C) higher than under the current TS limit, for at least one hour would result in observable deaths. However, as stated previously, the licensee has not reported bluegill as one of the species that has been affected during past fish kills. Consequently, the NRC staff assumes that bluegill and other high-temperature-tolerant species in the cooling pond would experience effects similar to those observed in Cairn's study. Based on Cairn's results, the proposed action's incremental and short-term increase of 0.8 °F (0.4 °C) could result in the death of some additional high-temperature-tolerant individuals, especially in cases where cooling pond temperatures rise dramatically over a short period of time (more than 3.6 °F (2.0 °C) in a 24-hour period).

Nonetheless, the discharge canal, flow path between the discharge canal and the UHS, and the UHS itself is a small portion of the cooling pond. Thus, while the incremental increase would likely increase the area over which cooling pond temperatures would rise, most of the cooling pond would remain at tolerable temperatures, and fish would be able to seek refuge in those cooler areas. Therefore, only fish within or near the discharge canal, within the flow path between the discharge canal and UHS, or within the UHS itself at the time of elevated temperatures would likely be affected, and fish would experience such effects to lessening degrees over the thermal gradient that extends from the discharge canal. This would not result in a significant difference in the number of fish killed per high temperature event resulting from the proposed action when compared to current operations for those species with thermal tolerances at or near 95 °F (35 °C) and an insignificant increase in the number of individuals affected for species with thermal tolerances above 95 °F (35 °C), such as bluegill. Additionally, the cooling pond is a managed ecosystem in which fish stocking, fishing pressure, and predator-prey relationships constitute the primary population pressures.

Fish populations affected by fish kills generally recover quickly, and thus, fish kills do not appear to significantly influence the fish community structure. This is demonstrated by the fact that the species that are most often affected by high temperature events (threadfin shad and gizzard shad) are also among the most abundant species in the cooling pond. Managed species would continue to be assessed and stocked by the IDNR on an annual basis in accordance with the lease agreement between Constellation and IDNR. Continued stocking would mitigate any minor effects resulting from the proposed action.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not result in significant impacts to aquatic resources in the cooling pond. Some terrestrial species, such as birds or other wildlife, rely on fish or other aquatic resources from the cooling pond as a source of food. The NRC staff does not expect any significant impacts to birds or other wildlife because, if a fish kill occurs, the number of dead fish would be a small proportion of the total population of fish in the cooling pond. Furthermore, during fish kills, birds and other wildlife could consume many of the floating, dead fish. Additionally, and as described previously, the NRC staff does not expect that the proposed action would result in a significant difference in the number or intensity of fish kill events or otherwise result in significant impacts on aquatic resources in the cooling pond.

With respect to water resources and ecological resources along and within the Kankakee River, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency imposes regulatory controls on Braidwood's thermal effluent through Title 35, Environmental Protection, section 302, “Water Quality Standards,” of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 IAC 302) and through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Section 302 of the Illinois Administrative Code stipulates that “[t]he maximum temperature rise shall not exceed 2.8 °C (5 °F) above natural receiving water body temperatures,” (35 IAC 302.211(d)) and that “[w]ater temperature at representative locations in the main river shall at no time exceed 33.7 °C (93 °F) from April through November and 17.7 °C (63 °F) in other months” (35 IAC 302.211(e)). Additional stipulations pertaining to the mixing zone further protect water resources and biota from thermal effluents. The Braidwood NPDES permit contains special conditions that mirror these temperature requirements and that stipulate more detailed temperature requirements at the edge of the mixing zone. Under the proposed action, Braidwood thermal effluent would continue to be limited by the Illinois Administrative Code and the Braidwood NPDES permit to ensure that Braidwood operations do not create adverse effects on water resources or ecological resources along or within the Kankakee River. Occasionally, the licensee has applied for a provisional variance to allow higher-than-permitted temperatures at the edge of the discharge mixing zone. For instance, Exelon, the license holder at the time, applied for and the IEPA granted one provisional variance in 2012 during a period of extremely warm weather and little to no precipitation. Exelon reported no fish kills or other events to the IEPA or the NRC that would indicate adverse environmental effects resulting from the provisional variance. The details of this provisional variance are described in section 4.7.1.3 of the Braidwood FSEIS.

Under the proposed action, Constellation would remain subject to the regulatory controls described in this notice. The NRC staff finds it reasonable to assume that Constellation's continued compliance with, and the State's continued enforcement of, the Illinois Administrative Code and the Braidwood NPDES permit would ensure that Kankakee River water and ecological resources are protected. Further, the proposed action would not alter the types or amounts of effluents being discharged to the river as blowdown. Therefore, the NRC staff does not expect any significant impacts to water resources or ecological resources within and along the Kankakee River from temporarily increasing the allowable UHS average water temperature TS limit.

With respect to federally listed species, the NRC staff consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the ESA during its license renewal environmental review for Braidwood. During that consultation, the NRC staff found that the sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) and snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) mussels had the potential to occur in the areas that would be directly or indirectly affected by license renewal ( i.e., the action area). In September 2015, Exelon transmitted the results of a mussel survey to the NRC and FWS. The survey documented the absence of federally listed mussels near the Braidwood discharge site in the Kankakee River. Based on this survey and other information described in the Braidwood FSEIS, the NRC concluded that the license renewal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the sheepnose mussel, and the NRC determined that license renewal would have no effect on the snuffbox mussel. The FWS concurred with the NRC's “not likely to adversely affect” determination in a letter dated October 20, 2015. The results of the consultation are further summarized in the Record of Decision for Braidwood license renewal.

As previously described, impacts of the proposed action would be confined to the cooling pond and would not affect water resources or ecological resources along and within the Kankakee River. The NRC's previous ESA, section 7, consultation confirmed that no federally listed aquatic species occur within or near the cooling pond. The NRC has not identified any information indicating the presence of federally listed species in the area since that consultation concluded, and the FWS has not listed any new aquatic species that may occur in the area since that time. The proposed action would not result in any disturbance or other impacts to terrestrial habitats, and thus, no federally listed terrestrial species would be affected. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on federally listed species or designated critical habitat. Consultation with the FWS regarding the proposed action is not necessary because Federal agencies are not required to consult with the FWS if the agency determines that an action will have no effect on listed species or critical habitat.

The NRC staff has identified no foreseeable land use, visual resource, noise, or waste management impacts given that the proposed action would not result in any physical changes to Braidwood facilities or equipment or changes any land uses on or off site. The NRC staff has identified no air quality impacts given that the proposed action would not result in air emissions beyond what would be experienced during current operations. Additionally, there would be no socioeconomic, environmental justice, or historic and cultural resource impacts associated with the proposed action since no physical changes would occur beyond the site boundaries and any impacts would be limited to the cooling pond.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no significant environmental impacts.

As an alternative to the propossed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action ( i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered the denial of the proposed action ( i.e., the “no action” alternative). Denial of the proposed action would result in no changes to the current TS. Thus, under the proposed action, the licensee would continue to be required to place Braidwood in hot standby (Mode 3) if average UHS water temperatures exceed 102 °F (38.9°C) for the temporary period of July 2022 through September 2022. The no-action alternative would result in no change in current environmental conditions or impacts at Braidwood.

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

No additional agencies or persons were consulted regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.

The NRC is considering issuing amendments for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77, issued to Constellation for operation of Braidwood that would revise the TS for the plant to temporarily increase the allowable average temperature of the UHS.

On the basis of the EA included in Section II and incorporated by reference in this finding, the NRC concludes that the proposed action would not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment. The NRC's evaluation considered information provided in the licensee's application as well as the NRC's independent review of other relevant environmental documents. Section IV lists the environmental documents related to the proposed action and includes information on the availability of these documents. Based on its finding, the NRC has decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

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

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

Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

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

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

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

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

1. Docket No(s).: MC2022-83 and CP2022-87; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 218 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: July 13, 2022; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: July 21, 2022.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2022-84 and CP2022-88; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Package Service & Parcel Select Contract 16 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: July 13, 2022; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: July 21, 2022.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

On July 13, 2022, the United States Postal Service filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Remove USPS Retail Ground from the Competitive Product List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642. Documents pertinent to this request are available at https://www.prc.gov, Docket No. MC2022-81.

On June 22, 2022, pursuant to their authority under 39 U.S.C. 3632, the Governors of the Postal Service established classification changes for competitive products. The Governors' Decision and the record of proceedings in connection with such decision are reprinted below in accordance with section 3632(b)(2).

Pursuant to authority under section 3632 of title 39, as amended by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (“PAEA”), we establish changes in classifications of general applicability for certain of the Postal Service's competitive products. The changes are described generally below, with a detailed description of the changes in the attachment. The attachment includes the draft Mail Classification Schedule sections with classification changes in legislative format.

The classification changes established herein are designed to simplify and streamline the Postal Service's ground competitive package offerings under one product. Beginning in January 2023, the existing First-Class Package Service product will be expanded to packages up to 70 pounds to establish an enhanced ground package product. The Retail and Commercial price categories within First-Class Package Service will still be maintained, and the Retail price category will retain its seal against inspection. The enhanced First-Class Package Service product will also include up to $100 of insurance as well as cubic pricing tiers up to one cubic foot (1 cu. ft.).

In accordance with these enhancements and to avoid redundant offerings, the USPS Retail Ground product will be removed from the competitive product list and the Parcel Select Ground price category will no longer be available within the Parcel Select product. Both offerings would be subsumed under the newly-enhanced First-Class Package Service product. The Postal Service expects that its retail and commercial customers will all benefit from this simplified and streamlined ground package offering, and from the overall enhanced First-Class Package Service product.

The changes in classes set forth herein shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 8, 2023. We direct the Secretary to have this decision published in the Federal Register in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(2) and direct management to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission appropriate notice of these changes.

Consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632(a), I hereby certify that, on June 22, 2022 the Governors voted on adopting Governors' Decision No. 22-2, and that a majority of the Governors then holding office voted in favor of that Decision.

Date: June 22, 2022