Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from the People's Republic of China (China). 1 The review covers 48 companies, including mandatory respondent, Senmao.

For events that occurred since the Initiation Notice and the analysis behind our preliminary results herein, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice.

The product covered by the Order is MLWF from China. For a complete description of the scope of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

On May 1, 2023, Kahrs International Inc. (Kahrs) timely withdrew its request for review of the Fusong Jinlong Group (Jinlong). 4 No other parties requested a review of this company. 5 Accordingly, Commerce is rescinding the administrative review with respect to Jinlong. 6

Based on an analysis of information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), no shipment certifications, and other record information, we preliminarily determine that 23 companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. For a listing of these companies, see Appendix II of this notice. Consistent with our practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, we are not rescinding this review with respect to these companies but, rather, intend to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review. 7

We preliminarily determine that, in addition to Senmao, two companies not individually-examined are eligible for separate rates in this administrative review, Dalian Deerfu Wooden Product Co., Ltd. (Deerfu) and Dalian Jaenmaken Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Jaenmaken). 8 The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a separate rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for separate-rate respondents which Commerce did not examine individually in an administrative review. For the preliminary results of this review, Commerce has determined the estimated dumping margin for Senmao to be zero. 9 For the reasons explained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we are assigning this rate to Deerfu and Jaenmaken, i.e., the non-examined respondents which qualify for a separate rate in this review.

Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review. 10 Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, the entity is not under review, and the entity's rate ( i.e. 85.13 percent) is not subject to change. See the Preliminary Decision Memorandum for further discussion.

Aside from the companies for which we preliminarily find no shipments and the company for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce considers all other companies for which a review was requested and did not demonstrate separate rate eligibility to be part of the China-wide entity. 11 For the preliminary results of this review, we consider 21 companies to be part of the China-wide entity. For a listing of these companies, see Appendix II of this notice.

We are conducting this administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. We calculated export prices for Senmao in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because China is an NME country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR December 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to interested parties with an Administrative Protective Order within five days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. 12

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 13 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 14 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 15 As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this administrative review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 16 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 17

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically-filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 18

Unless the deadline is extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register , pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b).

If Senmao's ad valorem weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, Commerce will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total quantity of those sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 19 Commerce will also calculate (estimated) ad valorem importer-specific assessment rates with which to assess whether the per-unit assessment rate is de minimis. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis.

For Deerfu and Jaenmaken, i.e., the respondents that were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review that qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be the separate rate established in the final results of this administrative review. If, in the final results, the respondents' weighted-average dumping margins continue to be zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 20

For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by Senmao during this review, and for the 21 companies that do not qualify for a separate rate, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate ( i.e., 85.13 percent). 21 In addition, if we continue to find no shipments of subject merchandise for the 23 companies for which we preliminarily find no such shipments during the POR, 22 any suspended entries of subject merchandise associated with those companies will be liquidated at the China-wide rate. 23

For Jinlong, i.e., the company for which the administrative review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions with respect to Jinlong, i.e., the company for which this administrative review is rescinded, to CBP 35 days after the publication of the preliminary results in the Federal Register . For all other companies that continue to be subject to review, we intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 35 days after the publication of the final results in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters for which a review was not requested and that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-wide entity ( i.e., 85.13 percent); and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

On July 31, 2023, Commerce published the preliminary results of the 2021-2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid from Belgium, covering one producer/exporter of subject merchandise, Citribel, and invited interested parties to comment. 1 On August 30, 2023, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Primary Products Ingredients Americas LLC (collectively, the petitioners), and Citribel timely submitted case briefs regarding Commerce's Preliminary Results. 2 On September 6, 2023, the petitioners timely submitted a rebuttal case brief. 3 For a summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise covered by this order includes all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

Based on a review of the record and analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the preliminary weighted-average dumping margin for Citribel. For detailed information, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce determines that, for the period of July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022, the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these final results to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondent did not report entered value, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate for each importer by dividing the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made to that importer by the total quantity associated with those sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 5 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Citribel for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 6 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior complete segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 19.30 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 7 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

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

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

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

In the event that Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( e.g., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating AD rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this AD proceeding ( e.g., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review, or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection.

Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (Q&V) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

With respect to AD administrative reviews, we intend to rescind the review where there are no suspended entries for a company or entity under review and/or where there are no suspended entries under the company-specific case number for that company or entity. Where there may be suspended entries, if a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the POR, it may notify Commerce of this fact within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register for Commerce to consider how to treat suspended entries under that producer's or exporter's company-specific case number.

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

Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. 1 Section 773(e) of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

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

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

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

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

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding  2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name, 3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Application will be available on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Applications are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

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

Initiation of Reviews: In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than November 30, 2024.

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

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

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

Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the Final Rule, 6 available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-07-17/pdf/2013-17045.pdf, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 7

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the Final Rule. 8 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable certification requirements.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. 9 In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) Q&V questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This policy also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which Commerce will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Please review the Final Rule, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

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

Statutory Authority and Function: The Governing Board is established under the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act, (20 U.S.C. 9621). Information on the Governing Board and its work can be found at www.nagb.gov. Notice of the meeting is required under section 1009(a)(2) of 5 U.S.C. chapter 10 (Federal Advisory Committees).

The Governing Board formulates policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The Governing Board's responsibilities include:

(1) selecting the subject areas to be assessed; (2) developing appropriate student achievement levels; (3) developing assessment objectives and testing specifications that produce an assessment that is valid and reliable, and are based on relevant widely accepted professional standards; (4) developing a process for review of the assessment which includes the active participation of teachers, curriculum specialists, local school administrators, parents, and concerned members of the public; (5) designing the methodology of the assessment to ensure that assessment items are valid and reliable, in consultation with appropriate technical experts in measurement and assessment, content and subject matter, sampling, and other technical experts who engage in large scale surveys; (6) measuring student academic achievement in grades 4, 8, and 12 in the authorized academic subjects; (7) developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results; (8) developing standards and procedures for regional and national comparisons; (9) taking appropriate actions needed to improve the form, content use, and reporting of results of an assessment; and (10) planning and executing the initial public release of NAEP reports.

The Assessment Development Committee will meet virtually on January 26th from 3-3:15 p.m. ET to take action on the Assessment and Item Specifications for the 2028 NAEP Science Assessment Framework.

Governing Board policy articulates the Board's commitment to a comprehensive, inclusive, and deliberative process to determine and update the content and format of all NAEP assessments. For each NAEP assessment, this process results in a NAEP framework, outlining what is to be measured and how it will be measured. Periodically, the Governing Board reviews existing NAEP frameworks to determine if changes are warranted. Each NAEP framework development and update process considers a wide set of factors, including but not limited to reviews of recent research on teaching and learning, changes in state and local standards and assessments, and the latest perspectives on the nation's future needs and desirable levels of achievement.

In 2021, the Board initiated a preliminary review of the NAEP Science Framework, which included an initial public comment on whether and how the framework should be updated as well as expert commentary to determine the type of updates needed. In May 2022, the Governing Board formally decided to initiate an update to the NAEP Science Framework and issued a Board Charge providing guidance to the panels of experts who were tasked with developing the framework recommendations. Public comment on draft framework recommendations was sought in March-April 2023 and feedback was incorporated. The Governing Board adopted the 2028 NAEP Science Assessment Framework during its November 2023 quarterly meeting.

The Science Assessment and Item Specifications document provides additional technical and operational details for implementing the framework. During the November 2023 quarterly Board meeting, the Governing Board delegated authority for adopting the Science Assessment and Item Specifications to the Assessment Development Committee.

Statutory Authority and Function: NACIE is authorized by section 6141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended (20 U.S.C. 7471). The work of NACIE was expanded by Executive Order 14049. In accordance with Section 6141 of the ESEA, NACIE shall advise the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Interior on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations and administrative policies and practices) of any program, including any program established under title VI, part A of the ESEA, with respect to which the Secretary of Education has jurisdiction and (1) that includes Indian children or adults as participants or (2) that may benefit Indian children or adults. Also in accordance with section 6141 of the ESEA, NACIE shall make recommendations to the Secretary of Education for filling the position of Director of Indian Education whenever a vacancy occurs and shall submit to the Congress, no later than June 30 of each year, a report on its activities that includes recommendations that are considered appropriate for the improvement of Federal education programs that include Indian children or adults as participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults, and recommendations concerning the funding of any such program. In accordance with section 3 of Executive Order 14049, NACIE shall advise the Co-Chairs of the White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities (WHI-NATCU), in consultation with the WHI-NATCU, on (1) what is needed for the development, implementation, and coordination of educational programs and initiatives to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for Native Americans; (2) how to promote career pathways for in-demand jobs for Native American students, including registered apprenticeships as well as internships, fellowships, mentorships, and work-based learning initiatives; (3) ways to strengthen Tribal Colleges and Universities and increase their participation in agency programs; (4) how to increase public awareness of, and generate solutions for, the educational and training challenges and equity disparities that Native American students face and the causes of these challenges and disparities; (5) approaches to establish local and national partnerships with public, private, philanthropic, and nonprofit stakeholders to advance the policy set forth in Section 1 of Executive Order 14049, consistent with applicable law; and (6) actions for promoting, improving, and expanding educational opportunities for Native languages, traditions, and practices to be sustained through culturally responsive education. Also, in accordance with section 3 of Executive Order 14049, NACIE and the Executive Director of the WHI-NATCU (Executive Director) shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, facilitate frequent collaborations between the WHI-NATCU and Tribal Nations, Alaska Native Entities, and other Tribal organizations. Finally, in accordance with Section 3 of Executive Order 14049, NACIE shall consult with the Executive Director so that the Executive Director can address NACIE's efforts pursuant to section 3(a) of Executive Order 14019 in the annual report of the WHI-NATCU submitted to the President.

Notice of this meeting is required by section 1009(a)(2) of 5 U.S.C. chapter 10 (Federal Advisory Committees).

Meeting Agenda: The purpose of this meeting is to convene NACIE and conduct the following business: discuss fiscal year (FY) 2024 meeting calendar and agendas, Annual Report to Congress, and activity planning; hold an open public comment session; and engage in discussions with federal stakeholders ( e.g., U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), WHI-NATCU, U.S. Department of Labor, and U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education).

Instructions for Accessing the Meeting:

Members of the public may access the NACIE meeting via virtual teleconference. Up to 350 lines will be available on a first come, first served basis for those who wish to join via teleconference. The dial-in, listen only phone number for the meeting is: 1-669-254-5252 and Meeting ID is: 160 250 9522, Passcode: 140923, and Dial-in number: 1-669-254-5252. The web link to register to access the meeting via Zoom.gov is: https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJItdeyopz4oGLtbQCpCY4h1bYrMVf3v8WE.

Public Comment: Members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so via email to Crystal Moore at Crystal.Moore@ed.gov by 11:59 p.m. eastern time (ET) on January 22, 2024. Please note that written comments should pertain to the work of NACIE. Members of the public may also make oral comment during the open meeting. Requests to make oral comment will be accepted on a first requested, first served basis. Each commenter will have a maximum of two minutes to state his or her comment and/or question. Oral comments made during the open meeting should pertain to the work of NACIE.

Reasonable Accommodations: The virtual meeting is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service for the meeting ( e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice no later than January 22, 2024. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official minutes of this meeting on the OESE website, https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-indian-education/national-advisory-council-on-indian-education-oie/, within 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(b), the public may also inspect NACIE records at the Office of Indian Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202, Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET. Please email Crystal Moore at Crystal.Moore@ed.gov to schedule an appointment.

Electronic Access to this Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You also may access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Authority: Section 6141 of the ESEA, as amended (20 U.S.C. 7471).

This notice is required under section 114(e)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).

The NACIQI is established under Section 114 of the HEA, and is composed of a maximum of 18 appointed members—

(A) On the basis of the individuals' experience, integrity, impartiality, and good judgment;

(B) From among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, representing all sectors and types of institutions of higher education; and,

(C) On the basis of the individuals' technical qualifications, professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge in the fields of accreditation and administration of higher education.

The NACIQI meets at least twice a year and advises the Secretary of Education with respect to:

• The establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2, part H, title IV of the HEA, as amended;

• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations;

• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations;

• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under title IV of the HEA and part C, subchapter I, chapter 34, Title 42, together with recommendations for improvements in such process;

• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions; and

• Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary of Education may prescribe by regulation.

The term of office of each member is six years. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term.

The current members of the NACIQI are:

Members Appointed by the Secretary of Education with Terms Expiring September 30, 2025:

• Wallace E. Boston, Ph.D., President Emeritus, American Public University System, Inc., Charles Town, West Virginia. Appointed by Secretary Betsy DeVos.

• Keith Curry, Ed.D., President/Chief Executive Officer, Compton College and Compton Community College District, Compton, California. Appointed by Secretary Miguel Cardona.

• David A. Eubanks, Ph.D., Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina. Appointed by Secretary Betsy DeVos.

• Molly E. Hall-Martin, Ph.D., Director, W-SARA, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder, Colorado. Appointed by Secretary Miguel Cardona.

• D. Michael Lindsay, Ph.D., President, Taylor University, Upland, Indiana. Appointed by Secretary Betsy DeVos.

• Mary Ellen Petrisko, Ph.D., Former President, WASC Senior College and University Commission, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Appointed by Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Members Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives with Terms Expiring September 30, 2026:

• Kathleen Sullivan Alioto, Ed.D., Strategic Advisor, Fundraiser, and Consultant, New York, New York, San Francisco, California, and Boston, Massachusetts. Appointed by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

• Roslyn Clark Artis, J.D., Ed.D., President, Benedict College, Columbia, South Carolina. Appointed by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

• Jennifer Blum, J.D., Principal, Blum Higher Education Advising, PLLC, Washington, DC. Appointed by Congressman Kevin McCarthy.

• Arthur E. Keiser, Ph.D., Chancellor, Keiser University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Appointed by Congressman Kevin McCarthy.

• Robert Mayes, Jr., CEO, Columbia Southern Education Group, Elberta, Alabama. Appointed by Congressman Kevin McCarthy.

• Robert Shireman, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation, Berkeley, California. Appointed by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Members Appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate with Terms Expiring September 30, 2028:

• Debbie Cochrane, Bureau Chief, California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, Alameda, California. Appointed by Senator Chuck Schumer.

• Zakiya Smith Ellis, Ed.D., Principal, Education Counsel, Atlanta, Georgia. Appointed by Senator Chuck Schumer.

• Michael Poliakoff, Ph.D., President, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Washington, DC. Appointed by Senator Mitch McConnell.

• Claude O. Pressnell Jr., Ed.D., President, Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association, Nashville, Tennessee. Appointed by Senator Mitch McConnell.

• José Luis Cruz Rivera, Ph.D., President, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Appointed by Senator Chuck Schumer.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1011c.

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).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The FDACS has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of clothianidin as a soil drench application on immature (3-5 years old) citrus trees to control the transmission of HLB disease vectored by ACP. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.

As part of this request, the applicant asserts that clothianidin is needed to suppress the transmission of HLB disease vectored by ACP due to the lack of available alternative pesticides and effective control practices. Without this tool, Florida citrus growers are expected to experience significant economic losses due to the severity of this invasive disease and vector complex.

The Applicant proposes to make no more than two applications of clothianidin at a maximum rate of 0.4 lb. a.i./A (24.0 fl. oz per acre) per 12-month period on up to 125,376 acres of immature (3-5 years old) citrus grown in Florida from February 1, 2024, to February 1, 2025. A total of 25,037 lbs. active ingredient of clothianidin may be used on the maximum acreage 125,376 at the highest application rate.

This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing a use which is supported by the Inter- Regional Project Number (IR-4) program that has been requested in 5 or more previous years, and for which a complete application for registration of that use and/or petition for tolerance of residues in or on the commodity has not yet been submitted to the Agency. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.

In 2011, the FDACS submitted a petition for tolerance to EPA that was subsequently withdrawn, and an application/petition has not been resubmitted to the Agency. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application. EPA will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the FDACS.

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

How to Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at https://www.regulations.gov.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0830 for the BMD model code and BMD modeling output files for the draft inorganic arsenic IRIS assessment, by one of the following methods:

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Email: Docket_ORD@epa.gov.

• Fax: 202-566-9744.

• Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (ORD Docket), Mail .

Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752.

For information on visiting the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. The public can submit comments via www.regulations.gov or email.

Instructions: Direct your comments on the BMD model code and BMD modeling output files to docket number EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0830 for Inorganic Arsenic IRIS Assessment.

Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or as a hard copy at the ORD Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

This notice serves to update and modify FCC/OMD-24, as a result of various necessary changes and updates. The substantive changes and modifications to the previously published version of the FCC/OMD-24 system of records include:

1. Updating the language in the Security Classification to follow OMB guidance.

2. Updating the language in the Purposes section to be consistent with the language and phrasing currently used generally in the FCC's SORNs and to reflect how the system is currently used ( e.g., the system no longer covers frequent visitors, credit union employees, restaurant employees, or parking permit data).

3. Modifying the language in the Categories of Individuals and Categories of Records for clarity; and for consistency with the current uses of the system (which now excludes frequent visitors, credit union employees, restaurant employees, and parking permit data) and with the language and phrasing currently used in the FCC's SORNs.

4. Updating and/or revising language in five routine uses (listed by current routine use number): (1) Litigation; (2) Adjudication; (3) Law Enforcement and Investigation; (4) Congressional Inquiries; and (5) Government-wide Program Management and Oversight.

5. Adding three new routine uses (listed by current routine use number): (11) Breach Notification, the addition of which is as required by OMB Memorandum No. M-17-12; (12) Assistance to Federal Agencies and Entities Related to Breaches, the addition of which is required by OMB Memorandum No. M-17-12; and (13) Non-Federal Personnel.

6. Updating the SORN to include the relevant National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) records schedules.

The system of records is also updated to reflect various administrative changes related to the system managers and system addresses; policy and practices for storage and retrieval of the information; administrative, technical, and physical safeguards; and updated notification, records access, and contesting records procedures.

As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (e)(11), this document sets forth notice of the proposed modification of a system of records maintained by the FCC. The FCC previously provided notice of the system of records FCC/OMD-18 by publication in the Federal Register on March 10, 2017 (82 FR 13348). This notice serves to modify FCC/OMD-18 to make various necessary changes and updates, including renaming and clarifying the purpose of the system, making formatting changes required by OMB Circular A-108, and revising existing routine uses. The substantive changes and modifications to the previously published version of the FCC/OMD-18 system of records include:

1. Narrowing the scope of the SORN and renaming the system of records to reflect that only information about FCC employee wireless communications equipment, functions, and services is maintained in this system.

2. Updating the system's description to reflect the transition to a vendor-provided solution;

3. Modifying the language in the Categories of Individuals and Categories of Records to reflect changes to the system;

4. Updating and/or revising language in the following routine uses (listed by current routine use number): the former Litigation and Adjudication routine use has been modified into two revised routine uses—(1) Litigation, and (2) Adjudication; (3) Law Enforcement and Investigation; (4) Congressional Inquiries; (5) Government-wide Program Management and Oversight; (9) Communications Providers; and (10) Non-Federal Personnel.

5. Deleting two routine uses (listed by former routine use number), which no longer reflect uses or disclosures of records from this system: (5) Employment, Clearances, Licensing, Contract, Grant, or other Benefits Decisions by the Agency; and (6) Employment, Clearances, Licensing, Contract, Grant, or other Benefits Decisions by Other than the Agency

6. Updating the existing records retention and disposal schedule with a new records schedule: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule 5.5: “Mail, Printing, and Telecommunication Service Management Records.”

The system of records is also revised for clarity and updated to reflect various administrative changes related to the system managers and system addresses; policy and practices for storage and retrieval of the information; administrative, technical, and physical safeguards; and updated notification, records access, and contesting records procedures.

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 with change to the currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Bid Pricing Tool (BPT) for Medicare Advantage (MA) Plans and Prescription Drug Plans (PDP; Use: Medicare Advantage organizations (MAO) and Prescription Drug Plans (PDP) are required to submit an actuarial pricing “bid” for each plan offered to Medicare beneficiaries for approval by CMS. The MAOs and PDPs use the Bid Pricing Tool (BPT) software to develop their actuarial pricing bid. The competitive bidding process defined by the “The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act” (MMA) applies to both the MA and Part D programs. It is an annual process that encompasses the release of the MA rate book in April, the bid's that plans submit to CMS in June, and the release of the Part D and RPPO benchmarks, which typically occurs in August.

Form Number: CMS-10142 (OMB control number: 0938-0832); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector—(Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); 555; Total Annual Responses: 4,995; Total Annual Hours: 149,850 (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Rachel Shevland at 410-786-3026).

The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).

The Panel, which was first chartered in 1999, advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Health Insurance Marketplace outreach and education programs.

The APOE has focused on a variety of laws, including the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173), and the Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (Pub. L. 111-148) and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152)).

The APOE helps the Department determine the best communication channels and tactics for various programs and priorities, as well as new rules and laws. In the coming years, we anticipate the American Rescue Plan, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the SUPPORT Act will be some of the topics the Panel will discuss. The Panel will provide feedback to CMS staff on outreach and education strategies, communication tools and messages and how to best reach minority, vulnerable and Limited English Proficiency populations.

The Panel's charter was renewed on January 19, 2023, and will terminate on January 19, 2025, unless renewed by appropriate action. The Charter can be found at https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/guidance/faca/apoe.

In accordance with the renewed charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the CMS Administrator concerning optimal strategies for the following:

• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, the CHIP, and coverage available through the Health Insurance Marketplace® and other CMS programs.

• Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, or the Health Insurance Marketplace® consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, pursuant to education and outreach programs regarding these programs, including public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, partners and stakeholders.

• Expanding outreach to minority and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the Health Insurance Marketplace® education programs and other CMS programs as designated.

• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructure for information, counseling, and assistance.

• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

The current members of the Panel as of September 21, 2023, are as follows:

• Mitchell Balk, President, The Mt. Sinai Health Foundation.

• Paula Campbell, Director of Health Equity and Emergency Response, Illinois Primary Care Association .

• Andrea Haynes, MD, Attending Physician, PPC Austin Family Health Center .

• Lydia Isaac, Vice President for Health Equity and Policy, National Urban League.

• Vacheria Keys, Director of Policy and Regulatory Affairs, National Association of Community Health Centers

• Daisy Kim, Principal Legislative Analyst, University of California System.

• Lynn Kimball, Executive Director, Aging and Long-Term Care of Eastern Washington.

• Erin Loubier, Senior Director for Health and Legal Integration and Payment Innovation, Whitman-Walker Health.

• Dr. Alister Martin, CEO, A Healthier Democracy; Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital; Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School.

• Neil Meltzer, President and CEO, LifeBridge Health.

• Dr. Carol Podgorski, Professor of Psychiatry, Associate Chair of Academic Affairs, University of Rochester Medical Center.

• Melanie Prince, President/CEO MAPYourWay, LLC; Immediate Past President, Case Management Society of America.

• Jina Ragland, Associate State Director of Advocacy and Outreach, AARP Nebraska.

• Carrie Rogers, Associate Director, Community Catalyst.

• Tricia Sandiego, Senior Advisor, Caregiving and Health Team, AARP.

• Marsha Schofield, President, Marsha Schofield & Associates LLC.

• Mina Schultz, Health Policy and Advocacy Manager, Young Invincibles.

• Matthew Snider, JD, Senior Policy Analyst, Unidos US.

• Daniel Spirn, Vice President, Government Relations, Utilization Review Accreditation Commission.

• Emily Whicheloe, Director of Education, Medicare Rights Center.

In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the February 1, 2024 meeting will include the following:

• Welcome and opening remarks from CMS leadership.

• Recap of the previous (September 21, 2023) meeting.

• Presentations on CMS programs, initiatives, and priorities; discussion of panel recommendations.

• An opportunity for public comment.

• Meeting adjourned.

Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to registered participants. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register at the following weblink https://CMS-APOE-Feb2024.rsvpify.com or by contacting the DFO at the address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. This meeting will be held virtually. Individuals who are not registered in advance will be unable to attend this meeting.

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Chyana Woodyard, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: National Health Service Corps Scholar/Students to Service Travel Worksheet, OMB No. 0915-0278—Revision.

Abstract: Clinicians participating in the HRSA National Health Service Corps (NHSC) Scholarship Program and the Students to Service (S2S) Loan Repayment Program use the online Travel Request Worksheet to request and receive travel funds from the federal government to visit eligible NHSC sites to which they may be assigned in accordance with the Public Health Service Act, section 331(c)(1).

The travel approval process is initiated when an NHSC scholar or S2S participant notifies the NHSC of an impending interview at one or more NHSC-approved practice sites. The Travel Request Worksheet is also used to initiate the relocation process after an NHSC scholar or S2S participant has successfully been matched to an approved practice site in accordance with the Public Health Service Act, section 331(c)(3). Upon receipt of a completed Travel Request Worksheet, the NHSC will review and approve or disapprove the request and promptly notify the NHSC scholar or S2S participant and the NHSC logistics contractor regarding travel arrangements and authorization of the funding for the site visit or relocation.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: This information will facilitate NHSC scholar and S2S participants' receipt of federal travel funds that are used to visit high-need NHSC-approved practice sites. The Travel Request Worksheet is also used to initiate the relocation process after a NHSC scholar or S2S participant has successfully been matched to an approved practice site.

Likely Respondents: Clinicians participating in the NHSC Scholarship Program and the S2S Loan Repayment Program.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Notice of the meeting of the National Chemical Transportation Safety Advisory Committee is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 117-286, 5. U.S.C. ch. 10). The Committee is authorized by section 601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-282, 132 Stat. 4192) and is codified in 46 U.S.C. 15101. The Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 46 U.S.C. 15109. The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard on matters related to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials. The subcommittees listed in the agenda below were established specifically to address open task statements and will be closed upon issuance of final report.

Two subcommittees will meet to discuss the following task statements:

Task Statement 22-03: Recommendations on Testing Requirements for Anti-Flashback Burners for Vapor Control Systems.

Task Statement 21-01: Recommendations on Loading Limits of Gas Carriers and USCG Supplement to International Hazardous Zone Requirements.

Two subcommittees will meet to discuss the following task statements:

Task Statement 22-01: Recommendations to Support Reductions to Emissions and Environmental Impacts Associated with Marine Transport of Chemicals, Liquefied Gases and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

Task Statement 22-02: Recommendations on Industry Best Practices and Regulatory Updates Related to the Maritime Transportation of Lithium Batteries.

The task statements and other subcommittee information are located at Homeport at the following address: https://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/federal-advisory-committees/national-chemical-transportation-safety-advisory-committee-(nctsac)/task-statements. The agenda for the discussion of each task statement will include the following:

(1) Introduction and review subcommittee task statement.

(2) Public comment period.

(3) Subcommittee discussion and preparation of any proposed recommendations for the full Committee meeting on February 1, 2024.

(4) Adjournment of meeting.

The agenda for the National Chemical Transportation Safety Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, February 1, 2024 is as follows:

(1) Call to order.

(2) Roll call and determination of quorum.

(3) Remarks from U.S. Coast Guard leadership.

(4) Chairman and Designated Federal Officer's remarks.

(5) Acceptance of June 15, 2023 meeting minutes and status of task items.

(6) Committee will review, discuss, and formulate recommendations on the following items:

a. Task Statement 21-01: Recommendations on Loading Limits of Gas Carriers and U.S. Coast Guard Supplement to International Hazardous Zone Requirements;

b. Task Statement 22-01: Recommendations to Support Reductions to Emissions and Environmental Impacts Associated with Marine Transport of Chemicals, Liquefied Gases and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG);

c. Task Statement 22-02: Recommendations on Industry Best Practices and Regulatory Updates Related to the Maritime Transportation of Lithium Batteries;

d. Task Statement 22-03: Recommendations on Testing Requirements for Anti-Flashback Burners for Vapor Control Systems.

(7) Subcommittee recommendation discussion.

(8) Presentation of Task Statement 23-01: Recommendations to Update CG-ENG Policy Letter 02-15.

(9) Task statement tracking discussion.

(10) Public comment period.

(11) Set next meeting date and location.

(12) Adjournment of meeting.

A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at: https://homeportr.uscg.mil/missions/federal-advisory-committees/national-chemical-transportation-safety-advisory-committee-(nctsac)/committee-meetings no later than January 24, 2024. Alternatively, you may contact Lieutenant Ethan Beard as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Public comments or questions will be taken throughout the meetings as the Committee discusses the issues and prior to deliberations and voting. There will be a final public comment period at the end of meetings. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two minutes. Contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above, to register as a speaker.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 117-286, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10.

In accordance with the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1) how to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a) flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4) procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) a description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.

Agenda: The purpose of this meeting is for the TMAC members to discuss the content of the 2023 TMAC Annual Report. Any related materials will be available upon request prior to the meeting to provide the public with an opportunity to review the materials. The full agenda and related meeting materials will be available upon request by Wednesday, January 17, 2024. To receive a copy of any relevant materials, please send the request to: FEMA-TMAC@fema.dhs.gov (Attn: Brian Koper).

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 117-286, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10.

In accordance with the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1) how to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a) flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4) procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) a description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.

Agenda: The purpose of this meeting is for the TMAC members to discuss and vote on the content of the 2023 TMAC Annual Report. Any related materials will be available upon request prior to the meeting to provide the public with an opportunity to review the materials. The full agenda and related meeting materials will be available upon request by Wednesday, February 21, 2024. To receive a copy of any relevant materials, please send the request to: FEMA-TMAC@fema.dhs.gov (Attn: Brian Koper).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD; applicant) for a 30-year Permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). In support of the application, the applicant prepared a draft habitat conservation plan (plan) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The plan includes seven covered species that are all federally listed as threatened or endangered under the Act. These species comprise five animals and two plants: California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) Central California distinct population segment; giant garter snake ( Thamnophis gigas ); valley elderberry longhorn beetle ( Desmocerus californicus dimorphus ); vernal pool fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta lynchi ); vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ); Sacramento Orcutt grass ( Orcuttia viscida ); and slender Orcutt grass ( Orcuttia tenuis ). The plan also includes a conservation strategy to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for covered activities. The applicant requests the permit for incidental take of the five covered animal species incidental to the applicant's ongoing operations and maintenance activities for the applicant's energy infrastructure in Sacramento County and surrounding areas, as well as new construction activities associated with providing energy to its users in Sacramento County, California.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered (16 U.S.C. 1538), where take is defined to include the following activities: “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). Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), we may issue permits to authorize take of listed fish and wildlife species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Issuance of a permit also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. The permittee would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).

As described in the applicant's draft plan, the applicant is proposing to conduct various activities necessary for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the applicant's energy infrastructure in Sacramento County and surrounding areas, as well as some construction of new energy infrastructure to replace or supplement the existing infrastructure. All seven covered species have known occurrences and suitable habitat present within or near the locations where these activities would occur. Therefore, take of the five covered animal species and adverse effects to the two covered plant species could occur in association with the proposed activities. The plan includes a conservation strategy to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to covered species from the proposed activities. Avoidance and minimization measures for the covered species will reduce the impacts to covered species, and the applicant will mitigate for the remaining unavoidable impacts.

The draft environmental assessment was prepared to analyze the impacts of issuing a permit based on the plan and to inform the public of the proposed action, alternatives, and associated impacts and disclose any irreversible commitments of resources. The proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The proposed action presented in the draft environmental assessment is compared to the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative represents estimated future conditions to which the proposed action's estimated future conditions can be compared. The Service also considered eight other alternatives, but these were eliminated from further consideration because they did not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action or the applicant's objectives.

The Service will evaluate the application and the comments received to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act have been met. If met, the Service will issue the permit.

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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) and the Department of the Interior's National Environmental Policy Act regulations (43 CFR 46).

The Council provides recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning issues relating to land use planning and the management of the public land resources located within the State of Wyoming. The Council will participate in a field tour to the National Historic Trails Center. Members of the public are welcome on field tours but must provide their own transportation and meals. Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodations. We ask that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting to give the BLM sufficient time to process your request. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis. Agenda topics may include updates and discussions on statewide planning efforts, district and field manager updates, State Director comments, and other resource management issues the Council may raise. The final agenda will be posted on the Council's web page listed above 2 weeks in advance of the meeting.

A public comment period will be offered at 2:25 p.m. MT. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak and the time available, the amount of time for oral comments may be limited. Written comments for the Council may be sent electronically in advance of the scheduled meeting to Public Affairs Specialist Azure Hall at ahall@blm.gov, or in writing to BLM Wyoming/Public Affairs, 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Cheyenne, WY 82009. All comments received will be provided to the Council. 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. While the business meeting and field tour are scheduled from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. MT, they may end earlier or later depending on the needs of group members. Therefore, members of the public interested in a specific agenda item or discussion at the meeting should schedule their arrival accordingly.

Detailed minutes for Council meetings will be maintained in the BLM Wyoming State Office. Minutes will also be posted to the Council's web page at https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/resource-advisory-council/near-you/wyoming.

The purpose of this Federal action is for the BLM is to respond to a right-of-way application from Southern California Edison for construction, operations, and maintenance of the Control-Silver Peak 55 kilovolt (kV) transmission line on BLM-managed lands, consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to grant rights-of-way on public lands for systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy (43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4)); the need for the BLM's action is established by this delegated authority under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

Southern California Edison is proposing to update and reconfigure approximately 61 linear miles of two existing 55 kV sub-transmission lines originally designed and built in the 1930s. Collectively referred to as the Control-Silver Peak Project, the utility line spans Inyo and Mono counties and the city of Bishop, California.

The proposed project involves approximately 322 acres, of which approximately 76 acres are on BLM-managed public lands, 152 acres are on USFS-managed lands, and 94 acres are on private, State, and local government lands. Updating these transmission lines is mandated by the California Public Utilities Commission.

To address existing overhead electric line non-compliance with the California Public Utilities Commission's General Order 95 and National Electric Reliability Corporation reliability standards, Southern California Edison proposes to conduct the following activities:

• Segment 1—Control Substation to west of the city of Bishop (3.4-mile segment located on BLM-managed lands): The Control-Silver Peak `A' and `C' 55 kV sub-transmission lines are each predominately supported on single-circuit lightweight steel poles. Optical groundwire and/or all-dielectric self-supporting (ADSS) fiber optic cable (collectively referred to as telecommunication cable) would be installed on the same existing poles in Segment 1, or ADSS fiber optic cable would be installed underground. All infrastructure installed in Segment 1 would be located within an existing right-of-way. At Control Substation, system protection and telecommunications-associated equipment would be installed.

• Segment 2—west of the city of Bishop to northwest of the city of Bishop (1.4-mile segment not located on Federal lands): Each sub-transmission line in Segment 2 would be rebuilt within the existing rights-of-way. The rebuilt 55 kV sub-transmission lines would utilize two existing single-circuit tubular steel poles (TSPs) and new single-circuit wood pole-equivalent poles. Approximately 25 single-circuit wood pole-equivalents would be installed, two existing single-circuited tubular steel poles would be modified, 49 existing poles would be removed, conductor lines would be replaced along both pole lines, and overhead groundwire and optical groundwire would be installed on one of the two pole lines.

• Segment 3—northwest of the city of Bishop to the California-Nevada border (37.2-mile segment located on both BLM- and USFS-managed lands): The existing sub-transmission poles along the two 55 kV transmission routes would be replaced by one double-circuit sub-transmission line within portions of each of the two existing rights-of-way and within a new right-of-way. The new 55 kV sub-transmission infrastructure would include double-circuit TSPs, double-circuit wood pole-equivalents, and single-circuit H-frames. Optical groundwire would be installed along the length of Segment 3. Approximately 529 double-circuit wood pole-equivalents would be installed; 137 double-circuit TSPs would be installed; 8 single-circuit TSP H-frames would be installed; 1,508 existing structures would be removed; and conductors would be replaced. Optical groundwire and/or fiber optic cable would be installed, as well as system protection and telecommunications-associated equipment at White Mountain Substation and the Fish Lake Valley Metering Station.

• Segment 4—Chalfant Valley between the city of Bishop and the community of Hammil (16-mile segment located in part on BLM-managed lands): Segment 4 consists of the Zack Tap portion of the Control-Silver Peak `C' 55 kV sub-transmission line. All infrastructure installed in Segment 4 would be located within an existing right-of-way. Approximately two single-circuit wood pole-equivalents would be installed, two existing single-circuit wood poles would be removed, and existing sub-transmission and distribution conductors would be transferred to the replacement poles.

• Segment 5—Deep Springs Valley (2.4-mile segment located in part on BLM lands): Segment 5 consists of the Deep Spring Tap portion of the Control-Silver Peak `A' 55 kV sub-transmission line. One replacement pole would be located in a new Federal right-of-way; the remaining infrastructure installed in Segment 5 would be located within an existing easement. Approximately eight single-circuit wood pole-equivalents would be installed, eight existing single-circuit wood pole-equivalents would be removed, and the existing sub-transmission conductor would be transferred to the replacement wood pole-equivalents.

A range of reasonable alternatives will be developed and analyzed in the EIS after considering information received during the scoping period. Preliminary action alternatives include a realignment of the line via California State Highway 6 and Nevada State Highway 264. The range of reasonable alternatives will include a no action alternative. Under the no action alternative, the BLM and the USFS would deny the application, and the Control Silver Peak line would remain as existing with ongoing maintenance activities as needed. The BLM welcomes comments on all preliminary alternatives as well as suggestions for additional alternatives; please indicate the purpose of any suggested alternative.

Preliminary issues for the Project, either beneficial or adverse and of varying intensity, have been identified by BLM personnel and in consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; and Cooperating Agencies. These preliminary issues include potential impacts to:

• Special status wildlife and vegetation species;

• Visual resources;

• Cultural resources; and

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The public scoping process will guide determination of relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives and mitigation measures. The EIS will identify and describe the effects of the Proposed Action on the human environment. The BLM also requests the identification of potential impacts that should be analyzed. Impacts should be a result of the action; therefore, please identify the activity along with the potential impact.

If approved, the BLM would issue a right-of-way grant for BLM-managed lands, and the USFS would amend the existing transmission easement for the Control Silver Peak 55 kV transmission line for USFS-managed lands. Other Federal, State, and local authorizations will be required for the Project. These could include authorizations under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, 14 CFR part 77, and other laws and regulations determined to be applicable to the Project.

The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with the NEPA process, including a 45-day comment period on the draft EIS. The draft EIS is anticipated to be available for public review late summer 2024; the final EIS is anticipated to be released in fall 2025 and the Record of Decision in winter 2025/2026.

This notice initiates the scoping period.

The BLM will be holding two public scoping meetings and one virtual meeting. The in-person public meetings will be held at the BLM Bishop Field Office—USFS Inyo National Forest Office in Bishop, CA. The specific dates and times of the in-person and virtual scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, a news release, social media, and the BLM National NEPA Register (see ADDRESSES ). Participants must register in advance to attend the virtual scoping meeting.

The date(s) and location(s) of any additional scoping meetings will be announced in advance through local media, a BLM-California news release, social media, and the BLM National NEPA Register (see ADDRESSES ).

The BLM is the lead Federal agency for this EIS and the related National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process. The following have agreed to participate in the environmental analysis of the Project as Cooperating Agencies: USFS Inyo National Forest, Inyo County, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Additional Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; and eligible stakeholders interested in the scoping process may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the EIS as a Cooperating Agency.

The BLM California State Director is the responsible official who will make the decisions below.

The BLM will use the analysis in the EIS to inform the following: whether to grant, grant with conditions, or deny the application for a right-of-way. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2805.10, if the BLM issues a grant, the BLM decision maker may include terms, conditions, and stipulations determined to be in the public interest.

The BLM will identify, analyze, and consider mitigation to address the reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources from the proposed action and all analyzed reasonable alternatives and, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14(e), include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. Mitigation may include avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction or elimination over time, and compensation; and may be considered at multiple scales, including the landscape scale.

The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA process to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), including public involvement requirements of Section 106. The information about historic and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected by the proposed project will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.

The BLM will consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual Section 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Indian Tribal Nations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed Project are invited to participate in the scoping process and may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency. The BLM has sent invitations to potentially affected Tribal Nations and initiated government-to-government consultation meetings and intends to continue coordination throughout the NEPA process.

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.

This document provides notice that the BLM has prepared a final programmatic EIS for a review of active ingredients that may be approved for use in vegetation treatments on BLM-managed public lands.

The BLM's purpose and need is to improve the effectiveness of its invasive plant management efforts by allowing the use of EPA-registered active ingredients not currently authorized for use on BLM public lands. Approving additional active ingredients would diversify the BLM's herbicide treatment options and help meet the purposes that were first identified in the 2007 and 2016 programmatic EISs related to vegetation treatments, which are to make herbicides available for vegetation treatment on public lands and to describe the stipulations that apply to their use.

The proposed action is to approve the following herbicide active ingredients for use in vegetation treatments on public lands: aminocyclopyrachlor, clethodim, fluozifop-p-butyl, flumioxazin, imazamox, indaziflam, and oryzalin. These active ingredients are registered by the EPA. As part of the process for evaluating whether to approve these active ingredients, the BLM will adopt and depend on Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments prepared by the U.S. Forest Service.

The BLM anticipates releasing a Record of Decision in January 2024.

Assistant Director for Resources and Planning.

Through this process, the BLM will decide whether to approve the seven additional herbicide active ingredients identified earlier for use on BLM-managed public lands. This decision will be based on the best available science and current needs for vegetation management. Any authorization to apply any of these active ingredients at a particular site will be made through a separate, site-specific decision and so is not within the scope of the programmatic EIS or potential decision described in this notice.

In addition to making the draft programmatic EIS available for public comment and review, the BLM hosted a virtual public meeting during the public comment period. The agency received 46 comments, which were incorporated in the final programmatic EIS as appropriate. In coordination with comments received from Native American Tribes, the BLM emphasizes, in the EIS, the need to coordinate with local Tribes during implementation-level analyses and authorizations to reduce and avoid impacts to Tribes that may gather and use native plant materials for cultural or subsistence purposes.

Comments on the draft EIS received from the public and from internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the final EIS. These comments resulted in the addition of clarifying text but did not significantly change the impact analysis.

Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2023).

Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on December 22, 2023, Ordered that —

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1 and 12-14 of the '511 patent and claims 1 and 3 of the '260 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “optical line termination (OLT) and optical network unit/terminal (ONU/ONT) equipment that conform to passive optical network standards of ITU-T Recommendation series G.984.x for Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Network (G-PON) and its successor standards, including 10GPON/XGS-PON (ITU-T Rec. G.987.3) and TWDM-PON/NG-PON2 (ITU-T Rec. G.989.3) as well as IEEE 802.3ah (EPON) and 802.3av (10G-EPON)”;

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

Optimum Communications Services, Inc., 344 Grove Street #242, Jersey City, NJ 07302

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

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

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

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

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

As early as 2011, NASA began integrating and optimizing operations across centers and mission support facilities ( i.e., technical capability facilities) to reduce costs and revitalize the capabilities required to enable NASA's portfolio of missions (NASA 2011, 26). In 2015, the Executive Office of the President distributed Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2015-01, tasking federal agencies to “move aggressively to dispose of surplus properties held by the federal government, make more efficient use of the government's real property assets, and reduce the total square footage of their domestic office and warehouse inventory relative to an established baseline.” This directive set agency planning goals that were disseminated to centers.

To better achieve its infrastructure reduction targets, NASA proposes to implement a centralized and standardized Agency Master Plan administrative process. This Proposed Action will help ensure program management and planning efforts are aligned across all mission areas and geographically separate centers and facilities, as well as implement a consistent and cost-effective set of processes, systems, and tools for enterprise-wide master planning. The Proposed Action is supported by NASA's 2018 Strategic Plan, which recommended NASA develop an Agency Master Plan that identifies agency facility priorities over a 20-year timeframe (NASA 2018a). The implementation of an Agency Master Plan provides a framework upon which each NASA center is to develop its own Center Master Plan (CMP) tied to Agency-wide requirements, thereby allowing the agency to meet its overall infrastructure management targets and more efficiently ( i.e., cost-effectively) achieve its mission as well as sustainment and infrastructure reduction goals.

The text of the exemption is attached.

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1 (IP1) permanently ceased generation on October 31, 1974, and all fuel was removed from the IP1 reactor vessel by January 1976. In 1996, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) issued an order approving the safe-storage condition of IP1. In 2003, the NRC issued Amendment No. 52 to IP1's provisional operating license, which changed the expiration date of the provisional license to be consistent with that of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2) facility license at that time. Pursuant to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 50.82(a)(2), the IP1 license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel. There is no IP1 spent fuel in wet storage at the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) site; IP1 spent fuel is stored onsite in dry cask storage at the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).

By letter dated February 8, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML17044A004), Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (the IPEC licensees at that time, collectively, Entergy) certified to the NRC that they planned to permanently cease power operations at IP2 and Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3) by April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021, respectively. By letters dated May 12, 2020, and May 11, 2021 (ML20113J902 and ML21131A157), Entergy certified to the NRC that power operations permanently ceased at IP2 and IP3 on April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021, respectively. In the same letters, Entergy certified to the NRC that the fuel was permanently removed from the IP2 and IP3 reactor vessels and placed in the IP2 and IP3 spent fuel pools (SFPs) as of May 12, 2020, and May 11, 2021, respectively.

Based on the docketing of these certifications for permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessels, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR part 50 renewed facility licenses for IP2 and IP3 (Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64, respectively) no longer authorize operation of the reactors or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessels. The facility is still authorized to possess, and store irradiated ( i.e., spent) nuclear fuel. At the time of the exemption request described below, spent fuel was stored onsite at the IP2 and IP3 facilities in the SFPs and in a dry cask ISFSI.

By letter dated March 25, 2022 (ML22084A103), Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI), one of the licensees of IPEC and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Holtec International (Holtec), requested an exemption on behalf of Holtec Indian Point 2, LLC (a licensee of IP1 and IP2, referred to as Holtec IP2) and Holtec Indian Point 3, LLC (a licensee of IP3, referred to as Holtec IP3), from the requirements of 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) concerning offsite primary and secondary liability insurance.

HDI, Holtec IP2, and Holtec IP3 are hereafter collectively referred to as the licensee. The exemption from 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) would permit the licensee to reduce the required level of primary offsite liability insurance from $450 million to $100 million and to eliminate the requirement to carry secondary financial protection for IPEC.

The regulation at 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) requires licensees to have and maintain primary financial protection in an amount of $450 million. In addition, licensees are required to participate in an industry retrospective rating plan (secondary financial protection) that commits licensees to pay into an insurance pool to be used for damages that may exceed primary insurance coverage. Participation in the industry retrospective rating plan will subject the licensee to deferred premium charges up to a maximum total deferred premium of $131,056,000 with respect to any nuclear incident at any operating nuclear power plant and up to a maximum annual deferred premium of $20,496,000 per incident.

Many of the accident scenarios postulated in the updated safety analysis reports for operating power reactors involve failures or malfunctions of systems, which could affect the fuel in the reactor core and, in the most severe postulated accidents, would involve the release of large quantities of fission products. With the permanent cessation of power operations at IPEC and the permanent removal of the fuel from the reactor vessel, many accidents are no longer possible. Similarly, the associated risk of offsite liability damages that would require insurance or indemnification is commensurately lower for such plants. Therefore, the licensee requested an exemption from 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) to permit a reduction in primary offsite liability insurance and to withdraw from participation in the industry retrospective rating plan.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 140.8, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application of any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in 10 CFR part 140 when the exemptions are authorized by law and are otherwise in the public interest. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's request for an exemption from 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) and has concluded that the requested exemption is authorized by law and is otherwise in the public interest.

The Price Anderson Act of 1957 (PAA) requires that nuclear power reactor licensees have insurance to compensate the public for damages arising from a nuclear incident. Specifically, the PAA requires licensees of facilities with a “rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more” to maintain the maximum amount of primary offsite liability insurance commercially available (currently $450 million) and a specified amount of secondary insurance coverage (currently up to $131,056,000 per reactor). In the event of an accident causing offsite damages in excess of $450 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess damages, up to $131,056,000 per reactor, for a total of approximately $13 billion per nuclear incident. The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) implement these PAA insurance requirements and set forth the amount of primary and secondary insurance each power reactor licensee must have.

As noted above, the PAA requirements with respect to primary and secondary insurance and the implementing regulations at 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) apply to licensees of facilities with a “rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more.” In accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the license for a power reactor no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel upon the docketing of the certifications for permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel. Therefore, the reactor cannot be used to generate power.

Accordingly, a reactor that is undergoing decommissioning has no “rated capacity.” Thus, the NRC may take the reactor licensee out of the category of reactor licensees that are required to maintain the maximum available insurance and to participate in the secondary retrospective insurance pool.

The financial protection limits of 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) were established to require licensees to maintain sufficient insurance, as specified under the PAA, to satisfy liability claims by members of the public for personal injury, property damage, and the legal cost associated with lawsuits as the result of a nuclear accident at an operating reactor with a rated capacity of 100,000 kilowatts electric or greater. Thus, the insurance levels established by this regulation, as required by the PAA, were associated with the risks and potential consequences of an accident at an operating reactor with a rated capacity of 100,000 kilowatts electric or greater.

The legal and associated technical basis for granting exemptions from 10 CFR part 140 is set forth in SECY-93-127, “Financial Protection Required of Licensees of Large Nuclear Power Plants During Decommissioning,” dated May 10, 1993 (ML12257A628). The legal analysis underlying SECY-93-127 concluded that, upon a technical finding that lesser potential hazards exist after permanent cessation of power operations (and the reactor having no “rated capacity”), the Commission has the discretion under the PAA to reduce the amount of insurance required of a licensee undergoing decommissioning.

As a technical matter, the fact that a reactor has permanently ceased power operations is not itself determinative as to whether a licensee may cease providing the offsite liability coverage required by the PAA and 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4). In light of the presence of freshly discharged irradiated fuel in the SFP at a recently shutdown reactor, the potential for an offsite radiological release from a zirconium fire with consequences comparable in some respects to an operating reactor accident remains. That risk is very low at the time of reactor shutdown because of design provisions that prevent a significant reduction in coolant inventory in the SFP under normal and accident conditions and becomes no longer credible once the continual reduction in decay heat provides ample time to restore coolant inventory and permits air cooling in a drained SFP. After that time, the probability of a large offsite radiological release from a zirconium fire is negligible for permanently shutdown reactors, but the SFP is still operational, and an inventory of radioactive materials still exists onsite. Therefore, an evaluation of the potential for offsite damage is necessary to determine the appropriate level of offsite insurance post shutdown, in accordance with the Commission's discretionary authority under the PAA to establish an appropriate level of required financial protection for such permanently shutdown facilities.

The NRC staff has conducted an evaluation and concluded that, aside from the handling, storage, and transportation of spent fuel and radioactive materials for a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, no reasonably conceivable potential accident exists that could cause significant offsite damage. During normal power reactor operations, the forced flow of water through the reactor coolant system (RCS) removes heat generated by the reactor. The RCS transfers this heat away from the reactor core by converting reactor feedwater to steam, which then flows to the main turbine generator to produce electricity. Most of the accident scenarios postulated for operating power reactors involve failures or malfunctions of systems that could affect the fuel in the reactor core, which in the most severe postulated accidents would involve the release of large quantities of fission products. With the permanent cessation of reactor operations at IPEC and the permanent removal of the fuel from the reactor core, such accidents are no longer possible. The reactor, RCS, and supporting systems no longer operate and have no function related to the storage of the irradiated fuel. Therefore, postulated accidents involving failure or malfunction of the reactor, RCS, or supporting systems are no longer applicable.

During reactor decommissioning, the principal radiological risks are associated with the storage of spent fuel onsite. On a case-by-case basis, licensees undergoing decommissioning have been granted permission to reduce the required amount of primary offsite liability insurance coverage from $450 million to $100 million and to withdraw from the secondary insurance pool. One of the technical criteria for granting the exemption is that the possibility of a design-basis event that could cause significant offsite damage has been significantly reduced.

The NRC staff performed an evaluation of the design-basis accidents for IPEC when permanently defueled as part of SECY-22-0102, “Request by Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC For Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3,” dated November 18, 2022 (ML22231A155). Based on its configuration and licensing basis, with no spent fuel stored in the IP1 SFP and a prohibition against storing any fuel in the pool in the future, there are no postulated Design Basis Accidents (DBAs) that remain applicable to IP1. The IP1 SFP is no longer in use because all spent fuel and other material has been removed, and the IP1 SFP has been drained. At the time of the exemption request, spent fuel was stored onsite in the IP2 and IP3 SFPs, with plans to move all spent fuel to dry cask storage at the onsite ISFSI in accordance with the licensee's Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report dated December 19, 2019 (ML19354A698).

HDI has stated, and the NRC staff agrees, that while spent fuel remains in the SFPs, the only postulated design-basis accidents that would remain applicable to IPEC in the permanently defueled condition that could contribute a significant dose would be: (1) a fuel handling accident (FHA) in the fuel storage buildings; (2) an accidental release of waste gas; and (3) an accidental release-recycle of waste liquid. For completeness, the NRC staff also evaluated the applicability of other design-basis accidents documented in the IPEC Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for IP2 and IP3 (ML20259A199 and ML19282B159), respectively to ensure that these accidents would not have consequences that could potentially exceed the 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits and Regulatory Guide 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors” (ML003716792), dose acceptance criteria or approach the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) early phase protective action guides (PAGs) (ML17044A073).

In the IPEC UFSAR, the licensee determined that after a decay time of at least 720 hours (30 days) following permanent cessation of power operations of each unit, the FHA doses would decrease to a level that would not warrant protective actions under the EPA early phase PAG framework, notwithstanding meeting the dose limit requirements under 10 CFR 50.67 and dose acceptance criteria under Regulatory Guide 1.183. The NRC staff notes that the doses from an FHA are dominated by relatively short-lived isotopes such as Iodine-131. Based on the permanent shutdown of IP3 on April 30, 2021, after over two years of decay, the thyroid dose from an FHA would be negligible. The only isotope remaining in significant amounts, among those postulated to be released in a DBA FHA, would be Krypton-85. Because Krypton-85 primarily decays by beta emission, the calculated skin dose from an FHA release would make an insignificant contribution to the total effective dose equivalent, which is the parameter of interest in the determination of the EPA early phase PAGs for sheltering or evacuation. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the dose consequence from an FHA for the permanently shutdown IPEC facility would not approach the EPA early phase PAGs.

As part of the supporting documentation for an application for exemptions from various emergency planning requirements, HDI performed an analysis that includes the determination of the dose consequences for a waste gas decay tank rupture accident. In that analysis, HDI reevaluated the dose from an accidental release of waste gas to reflect the removal of the waste gas decay tank(s) from operation and to reevaluate the dose at 15 months after the shutdown of IP3. Based on the revised analysis, the radiological consequences of a postulated waste gas decay tank rupture were determined to be negligible because the tanks are removed from operation, and depressurized and vented to atmosphere.

Section 6.4, “Accidental Release-Recycle of Waste Liquid,” of the IP2 and IP3 Defueled Safety Analysis Reports (DSARs) (ML20259A199 and ML21270A059, respectively) addresses the accidental release of waste liquid and states that the hazard from these releases is derived only from any volatized components. The volatilized components are what comprise the waste gas accident. Thus, the accidental release of liquid waste is evaluated in the analysis for an accidental release of waste gas.

The NRC staff reviewed the consequences of an FHA, waste gas release accident, and liquid tank failure accident in detail during the review of previously approved license amendment requests and exemptions for IPEC and found them to be acceptable. Since this technical information has not changed in relation to this exemption request, the NRC staff relied on these previous conclusions to conduct portions of the review for this exemption request. The NRC staff notes that while HDI continues to rely on the information from previously approved licensing actions, the calculated doses would be expected to be lower when this exemption is implemented due to additional decay time beyond the time assumed in the previously approved actions. Any offsite consequence from a design-basis radiological release is highly unlikely and, thus, a significant amount of offsite liability insurance coverage is not required.

The licensee also analyzed the bounding radiological consequences of a postulated complete loss of SFP water from either the IP2 and IP3 SFPs ( i.e., a pool draindown event), which NUREG-0586, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,” Supplement 1 (ML023470327 and ML023500228), section 4.3.9, identifies is a beyond design-basis event. The HDI analysis considered the distances from both SFPs to both control rooms and the site boundary, as well as a combination of IP3 fuel in the IP2 SFP, to bound the analysis for both units. The analysis considered that the SFP water and the concrete SFP structures serve as radiation shielding. Therefore, a loss of water shielding above the fuel could increase the offsite radiation levels because of the gamma rays streaming out of the SFP and being scattered back to a receptor at the site boundary. The analysis determined that the limiting dose rate in the IP2 and IP3 control rooms at one year after permanent shutdown are less than 0.0259 millirem per hour (mrem/hr) and the dose rate to a receptor at the site boundary is less than 11.55 mrem/hr. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the dose consequence from a SFP draindown for the permanently shutdown IPEC facility would not approach the EPA early phase PAGs.

The only beyond design-basis event that has the potential to lead to a significant radiological release at a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor is a zirconium fire in the SFP. The zirconium fire scenario is a postulated, but highly unlikely, accident scenario that involves the loss of water inventory from the SFP resulting in a significant heatup of the spent fuel and culminating in substantial zirconium cladding oxidation and fuel damage. The probability of a zirconium fire scenario is related to the decay heat of the irradiated fuel stored in the SFP. Therefore, the risks from a zirconium fire scenario continue to decrease as a function of the time that IPEC has been permanently shut down.

In SECY-93-127 the NRC staff concluded that there was a low likelihood and reduced short-term public health consequences of a zirconium fire once a decommissioning plant's spent fuel has sufficiently decayed. In its Staff Requirements Memorandum, “Financial Protection Required of Licensees of Large Nuclear Power Plants during Decommissioning,” dated July 13, 1993 (ML003760936), the Commission approved a policy that authorized, through the exemption process, withdrawal from participation in the secondary insurance layer and a reduction in commercial liability insurance coverage to $100 million when a licensee is able to demonstrate that the spent fuel could be air-cooled if the SFP was drained of water.

The NRC staff has used this technical criterion to grant similar exemptions to other decommissioning reactors ( e.g., Duane Arnold Energy Center, published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2021 (86 FR 26961)). Additional discussions of other decommissioning reactor licensees that have received exemptions to reduce their primary insurance level to $100 million are provided in SECY-96-256, “Changes to the Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors, 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11,” dated December 17, 1996 (ML15062A483). These prior exemptions were based on the licensee demonstrating that the SFP could be air-cooled consistent with the technical criterion discussed above.

In SECY-00-0145, “Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning,” dated June 28, 2000, and SECY-01-0100, “Policy Issues Related to Safeguards, Insurance, and Emergency Preparedness Regulations at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Storing Fuel in Spent Fuel Pools,” dated June 4, 2001 (ML003721626 and ML011450420, respectively), the NRC staff discussed additional information concerning SFP zirconium fire risks at decommissioning reactors and associated implications for offsite insurance. Analyzing when the spent fuel stored in the SFP is capable of adequate air-cooling is one measure that demonstrates when the probability of a zirconium fire would be exceedingly low.

The NRC staff evaluated the issue of zirconium fires and presented independent evaluations of SFP accident risk in NUREG-1738, “Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants” (ML010430066); NUREG/CR- 6451, “A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR [Boiling Water Reactor] and PWR [Pressurized Water Reactor] Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants” (ML082260098); and NUREG/CR-6441, “Analysis of Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water in a Spent Fuel Pool” (ML021050336). These documents describe the considerations surrounding a seismic event with the potential to result in a loss of SFP coolant that uncovers fuel and discuss the parameters under which the fuel is able to be air cooled in such a scenario.

The NRC staff compared the IPEC facility with the reference plant in NUREG- 6451 and confirmed that the fuel assembly and spent fuel rack parameters for IP2 and IP3 are consistent with those assumed in NUREG-6451, or are conservative when compared to the generic values. Therefore, the NRC staff has high confidence that the stored fuel in the IPEC SFPs will remain in a coolable configuration following a beyond design basis seismic event. Additionally, the NRC staff compared the site-specific conditions at IPEC with the generic risk assumptions in NUREG-1738 and determined that the risk values in NUREG-1738 bound the risks presented by IPEC. Based on IPEC's conformance with the analysis in NUREG-6451 and NUREG-1738, the NRC finds there is reasonable assurance that the fuel stored in IPEC SFPs is air coolable 15 months after permanent shutdown of the reactor.

In addition, the licensee performed a bounding analysis for the IP2 and IP3 SFPs demonstrating that after the spent fuel has decayed for 15 months, with a complete loss of SFP water inventory with no heat loss or credit for air-cooling ( i.e., adiabatic heat-up), a minimum of 10 hours would be available before any fuel cladding temperature reaches 900 degrees Celsius (°C) from the time all cooling is lost. The 10-hour criterion, conservatively, does not consider the time to uncover the fuel and assumes instantaneous loss of cooling to the fuel. The 10-hour time period is also not intended to represent the time that it would take to repair all key safety systems or to repair a large SFP breach. The 10-hour criterion is a conservative period of time in which pre-planned mitigation measures to provide makeup water or spray to the SFP can be reliably implemented before the onset of a zirconium cladding ignition. In addition, in the unlikely event that a release is projected to occur, 10 hours would provide sufficient time for offsite agencies, if deemed warranted, to take appropriate action to protect the health and safety of the public.

Given the permanent shutdown date of IP3 of April 30, 2021, the period in which the spent fuel could heat up to clad ignition temperature within 10 hours under adiabatic conditions ended on August 1, 2022, after 15 months of fuel decay time. This analysis, “Holtec Spent Fuel Pool Heat Up Calculation Methodology Topical Report, Revision 2,” dated December 22, 2021 (ML21357A005 [non-public]), was submitted by HDI in support of a request for exemptions from certain emergency planning requirements, dated December 22, 2021 (ML21356B693). HDI provided further information in Enclosure 1, “Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Spent Fuel Pool Heat Up Calculations,” to HDI's supplemental letter dated February 1, 2022 (ML22032A117).

In the NRC staff's evaluation contained in SECY-22-0102, the NRC staff assessed the HDI accident analyses associated with the radiological risks from a zirconium fire at a permanently shutdown and defueled IPEC after 15 months of fuel decay. For the highly unlikely beyond design-basis accident scenario where the SFP coolant inventory is lost in such a manner that all methods of heat removal from the spent fuel are no longer available, the NRC staff found that there will be a minimum of 10 hours from the initiation of the accident until the cladding reaches a temperature where offsite radiological release might occur. The NRC staff finds that 10 hours is sufficient time to support deployment of mitigation equipment, consistent with plant conditions, to prevent the zirconium cladding from reaching a point of rapid oxidation. As a result, the likelihood that such a scenario would progress to a zirconium fire is deemed not credible.

Based on the above considerations, the NRC staff has determined that the licensee's proposed reduction in primary offsite liability coverage to a level of $100 million and the licensee's proposed withdrawal from participation in the secondary insurance pool for offsite financial protection are consistent with the policy established in SECY-93-127 and subsequent insurance considerations resulting from zirconium fire risks, as discussed in SECY-00-0145 and SECY-01-0100. The NRC has previously determined in SECY-00-0145 that the minimum offsite financial protection requirement may be reduced to $100 million and that secondary insurance is not required once it is determined that the spent fuel in the SFP is no longer thermal-hydraulically capable of sustaining a zirconium fire based on a plant-specific analysis. In addition, the NRC staff notes that similar exemptions from these insurance requirements have been granted to other permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors upon satisfactory demonstration that the zirconium fire risk from the irradiated fuel stored in the SFP is of negligible concern.

The PAA and its implementing regulations in 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) require licensees of nuclear reactors that have a rated capacity of 100,000 kilowatts electric or more to have and maintain $450 million in primary financial protection and to participate in a secondary retrospective insurance pool. In accordance with 10 CFR 140.8, the Commission may grant exemptions from the regulations in 10 CFR part 140 as the Commission determines are authorized by law. The legal and associated technical basis for granting exemptions from 10 CFR part 140 are set forth in SECY-93-127. The legal analysis underlying SECY-93-127 concluded that, upon a technical finding that lesser potential hazards exist after permanent cessation of operations, the Commission has the discretion under the PAA to reduce the amount of insurance required of a licensee undergoing decommissioning.

Based on its review of the exemption request, the NRC staff concludes that the technical criteria for relieving the licensee from its existing primary and secondary insurance obligations have been met. As explained above, the NRC staff found that no reasonably conceivable design-basis accident exists that could cause an offsite release greater than the EPA PAGs and, therefore, that any offsite consequence from a design- basis radiological release is highly unlikely and the need for a significant amount of offsite liability insurance coverage is unwarranted. Additionally, the NRC staff determined that, after 15 months decay, the fuel stored in the IPEC SFPs will be capable of being adequately cooled by air in the highly unlikely event of pool drainage. Moreover, in the highly unlikely beyond design-basis accident scenario where the SFP coolant inventory is lost in such a manner that all methods of heat removal from the spent fuel are no longer available, the NRC staff has determined that at least 10 hours would be available and is sufficient time to support deployment of mitigation equipment, consistent with plant conditions, to prevent the zirconium cladding from reaching a point of rapid oxidation. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the fuel stored in the IPEC SFP will have decayed sufficiently by the requested effective date for the exemption of 15 months after permanent cessation of power operations to support a reduction in the required offsite insurance consistent with SECY-00-0145.

The NRC staff has determined that granting the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, section 170, or other laws, as amended, which require licensees to maintain adequate financial protection.

Accordingly, consistent with the legal standard presented in SECY-93-127, under which decommissioning reactor licensees may be relieved of the requirements to carry the maximum amount of insurance available and to participate in the secondary retrospective premium pool where there is sufficient technical justification, the NRC staff concludes that the requested exemption is authorized by law.

The financial protection limits of 10 CFR 140.11 were established to require licensees to maintain sufficient offsite liability insurance to ensure adequate funding for offsite liability claims following an accident at an operating reactor. However, the regulation does not consider the reduced potential for and consequence of nuclear incidents at permanently shutdown and decommissioning reactors.

The basis provided in SECY-93-127, SECY-00-0145, and SECY-01-0100 allows licensees of decommissioning plants to reduce their primary offsite liability insurance and to withdraw from participation in the retrospective rating pool for deferred premium charges. As discussed in these documents, once the zirconium fire concern is determined to be negligible, possible accident scenario risks at permanently shutdown and defueled reactors are greatly reduced when compared to the risks at operating reactors, and the associated potential for offsite financial liabilities from an accident are commensurately less. The licensee analyzed and the NRC staff confirmed that the risks of accidents that could result in an offsite radiological release are minimal, thereby justifying the proposed reductions in offsite primary liability insurance and withdrawal from participation in the secondary retrospective rating pool for deferred premium charges.

Additionally, participation in the secondary retrospective rating pool could potentially have adverse consequences on the safe and timely completion of decommissioning. If a nuclear incident sufficient to trigger the secondary insurance layer occurred at another nuclear power plant, the licensee could incur financial liability of up to $131,056,000. However, because IPEC is permanently shut down, it cannot produce revenue from electricity generation sales to cover such a liability. Therefore, such liability if subsequently incurred could significantly affect the ability of the facility to conduct and complete timely radiological decontamination and decommissioning activities. In addition, as SECY-93-127 concluded, the shared financial risk exposure to the licensee is greatly disproportionate to the radiological risk posed by IPEC when compared to operating reactors.

The reduced overall risk to the public at decommissioning power plants does not warrant that the licensee be required to carry full operating reactor insurance coverage after the requisite spent fuel cooling period has elapsed following final reactor shutdown. The licensee's proposed financial protection limits will maintain a level of liability insurance coverage commensurate with the risk to the public. These changes are consistent with previous NRC policy as discussed in SECY-00-0145 and exemptions approved for other decommissioning reactors. Thus, the underlying purpose of the regulations will not be adversely affected by the reductions in insurance coverage. Accordingly, an exemption from participation in the secondary insurance pool and a reduction in the primary insurance to $100 million, a value more in line with the potential consequences of accidents, would be in the public interest in that this ensures that there will be adequate funds to address any of those consequences and helps to ensure the safe and timely decommissioning of the reactors.

Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that an exemption from 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4), which would permit the licensee to lower the IPEC primary insurance levels and to withdraw from the secondary retrospective premium pool at the requested effective date of 15 months after the permanent cessation of power operations, is in the public interest.

The NRC's approval of an exemption from insurance or indemnity requirements belongs to a category of actions that the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion after first finding that the category of actions does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the exemption is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25).

Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation of Chapter I to 10 CFR is a categorical exclusion provided that: (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought involve surety, insurance, or indemnity requirements.

As the Director of the Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, I have determined that approval of the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration, as defined in 10 CFR 50.92, because reducing the licensee's offsite liability requirements for IPEC does not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The exempted financial protection regulation is unrelated to the operation of IPEC or site activities. Accordingly, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. The exempted regulation is not associated with construction so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulation does not concern the source term ( i.e., potential amount of radiation in an accident) or any activities conducted at the site. Therefore, there is no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences of, a radiological accident. In addition, there would be no significant impacts to biota, water resources, historic properties, cultural resources, or socioeconomic conditions in the region resulting from issuance of the requested exemption. The requirement for offsite liability insurance involves surety, insurance, or indemnity matters only.

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 51.22(c)(25), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 140.8, the exemption is authorized by law and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) for IPEC. IPEC permanently ceased power operations on October 31, 1974, April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021, for IP1, IP2 and IP3, respectively. The exemption from 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) permits IPEC to reduce the required level of primary financial protection from $450 million to $100 million and to withdraw from participation in the secondary layer of financial protection 15 months after permanent cessation of power operations, which was August 1, 2022. Because this period has already elapsed, the exemption is effective upon issuance.

The text of the exemption is attached.

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1 (IP1) permanently ceased generation on October 31, 1974, and all fuel was removed from the IP1 reactor vessel by January 1976. In 1996, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) issued an order approving the safe-storage condition of IP1. In 2003, the NRC issued Amendment No. 52 to IP1's provisional operating license, which changed the expiration date of the provisional license to be consistent with that of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2) facility license at that time. Pursuant to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 50.82(a)(2), the IP1 license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel. There is no IP1 spent fuel in wet storage at the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) site; IP1 spent fuel is stored onsite in dry cask storage at the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).

By letter dated February 8, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML17044A004), Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (the IPEC licensees at that time, collectively, Entergy) certified to the NRC that they planned to permanently cease power operations at IP2 and Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3) by April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021, respectively. By letters dated May 12, 2020, and May 11, 2021 (ML20133J902 and ML21131A157), Entergy certified to the NRC that power operations permanently ceased at IP2 and IP3 on April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021, respectively. In the same letters, Entergy certified to the NRC that the fuel was permanently removed from the IP2 and IP3 reactor vessels and placed in the IP2 and IP3 spent fuel pools (SFPs) as of May 12, 2020, and May 11, 2021, respectively.

Based on the docketing of these certifications for permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessels, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR part 50 renewed facility licenses for IP2 and IP3 (Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64, respectively) no longer authorize operation of the reactors or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessels. The facility is still authorized to possess and store irradiated ( i.e., spent) nuclear fuel. At the time of the exemption request described below, spent fuel was stored onsite at the IP2 and IP3 facilities in the SFPs and in a dry cask ISFSI.

By letter dated March 18, 2022 (ML22077A132), Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI), one of the licensees of IPEC and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Holtec International (Holtec), requested an exemption on behalf of Holtec Indian Point 2, LLC (a licensee of IP1 and IP2, referred to as Holtec IP2) and Holtec Indian Point 3, LLC (a licensee of IP3, and referred to as Holtec IP3), from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) concerning onsite liability insurance. HDI, Holtec IP2, and Holtec IP3 are hereafter collectively referred to as the licensee. The exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) would permit the licensee to reduce the required level of onsite property damage insurance from $1.06 billion to $50 million for IPEC.

The regulation at 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) requires licensees to have and maintain onsite property damage insurance to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor(s) and reactor site in the event of an accident. The onsite insurance coverage must be either $1.06 billion or whatever amount of insurance is generally available from private sources (whichever is less).

The licensee states that the risk of an incident at a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor is much less than the risk from an operating power reactor. In addition, since reactor operation is no longer authorized at IPEC, there are no events that would require the stabilization of reactor conditions after an accident. Similarly, the risk of an accident that would result in significant onsite contamination at IPEC is also much lower than the risk of such an event at operating reactors. Therefore, the licensee requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) to reduce its onsite property damage insurance from $1.06 billion to $50 million, commensurate with the reduced risk of an incident at the permanently shutdown and defueled IPEC site.

Under 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) any of the special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present.

The financial protection limits of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) were established after the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 accident out of concern that licensees may be unable to financially cover onsite cleanup costs in the event of a major nuclear accident. The specified $1.06 billion coverage amount requirement was developed based on an analysis of an accident at a nuclear reactor operating at power, resulting in a large fission product release and requiring significant resource expenditures to stabilize the reactor and ultimately decontaminate and cleanup the site.

These cost estimates were developed based on the spectrum of postulated accidents for an operating nuclear reactor. Those costs were derived from the consequences of a release of radioactive material from the reactor. Although the risk of an accident at an operating reactor is very low, the consequences onsite and offsite can be significant. In an operating plant, the high temperature and pressure of the reactor coolant system (RCS), as well as the inventory of relatively short-lived radionuclides, contribute to both the risk and consequences of an accident. With the permanent cessation of reactor operations at IPEC and the permanent removal of the fuel from the reactor vessels, such accidents are no longer possible. As a result, the reactor vessels, RCS, and supporting systems no longer operate and have no function related to the storage of the irradiated fuel. Therefore, postulated accidents involving failure or malfunction of the reactors, RCS, or supporting systems are no longer applicable.

During reactor decommissioning, the largest radiological risks are associated with the storage of spent fuel onsite. In the exemption request dated March 18, 2022, the licensee discussed both design-basis and beyond design-basis events involving irradiated fuel stored in the SFPs. The licensee determined that there are no possible design-basis events at IPEC that could result in an offsite radiological release exceeding the limits established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) early phase Protective Action Guides (PAGs) of 1 roentgen equivalent man (rem) at the exclusion area boundary, as a way to demonstrate that any possible radiological releases would be minimal and would not require precautionary protective actions ( e.g., sheltering in place or evacuation). The NRC staff evaluated the radiological consequences associated with various decommissioning activities and the design basis accidents at IPEC, in consideration of the permanently shutdown and defueled condition. The possible design-basis accident scenarios at IPEC have greatly reduced radiological consequences. Based on its review, the NRC staff concluded that no reasonably conceivable design-basis accident exists that could cause an offsite release greater than the EPA PAGs.

The only incident that has the potential to lead to a significant radiological release at a decommissioning reactor is a zirconium fire in the SFP. The zirconium fire scenario is a postulated, but highly unlikely, beyond design-basis accident scenario that involves loss of water inventory from the SFP resulting in a significant heat up of the spent fuel, and culminating in substantial zirconium cladding oxidation and fuel damage. The probability of a zirconium fire scenario is related to the decay heat of the irradiated fuel stored in the SFP. Therefore, the risks from a zirconium fire scenario continue to decrease as a function of the time since IPEC has been permanently shut down.

The Commission has previously authorized a lesser amount of onsite financial protection, based on this analysis of the zirconium fire risk. In SECY-96-256, “Changes to Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors, 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11,” dated December 17, 1996 (ML15062A483), the NRC staff recommended changes to the power reactor financial protection regulations that would allow licensees to lower onsite insurance levels to $50 million upon demonstration that the fuel stored in the SFP can be air-cooled. In its Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY-96-256, dated January 28, 1997 (ML15062A454), the Commission supported the NRC staff's recommendation that, among other things, would allow permanently shutdown power reactor licensees to reduce commercial onsite property damage insurance coverage to $50 million when the licensee was able to demonstrate the technical criterion that the spent fuel could be air-cooled if the SFP was drained of water.

The NRC staff has used this technical criterion to grant similar exemptions to other decommissioning reactors ( e.g., Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, published in the Federal Register (FR) on January 19, 1999 (64 FR 2920); Zion Nuclear Power Station, published in the FR on December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72700); Kewaunee Power Station, published in the FR on March 24, 2015 (80 FR 15638); Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generation Plant, published in the FR on May 6, 2015 (80 FR 26100); Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, published in the FR on December 28, 2018 (83 FR 67365); Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, published in the FR on January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2153); Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, published in the FR on March 26, 2021 (86 FR 16241); and the Duane Arnold Energy Center, published in the FR on May 18, 2021 (86 FR 26946)). These prior exemptions were based on these licensees demonstrating that the SFP could be air-cooled, consistent with the technical criterion discussed above.

In its March 18, 2022, request, the licensee compared the IPEC fuel storage parameters with those used in NRC generic evaluations of fuel cooling included in NUREG/CR-6451, “A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] and PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants,” dated August 1997 (ML082260098). The analysis described in NUREG/CR-6451 determined that natural air circulation would adequately cool fuel in the representative PWR.

In SECY-00-0145, “Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning,” dated June 28, 2000, and SECY-01-0100, “Policy Issues Related to Safeguards, Insurance, and Emergency Preparedness Regulations at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Storing Fuel in Spent Fuel Pools,” dated June 4, 2001 (ML003721626 and ML011450420, respectively), the NRC staff discussed additional information concerning SFP zirconium fire risks at decommissioning reactors and associated implications for onsite property damage insurance. Providing an analysis of when the spent fuel stored in the SFP is capable of air-cooling is one measure that can be used to demonstrate that the probability of a zirconium fire is exceedingly low.

In their letter dated March 18, 2022, HDI stated, and the NRC staff confirmed, that the bounding analyses for the IP2 and IP3 SFPs for beyond design basis events demonstrate that 15 months after shutdown of IP3 a minimum of 10 hours is available before the fuel cladding temperature of the hottest fuel assembly in either SFP reaches 900°C with a complete loss of SFP water inventory. This analysis, “Holtec Spent Fuel Pool Heat Up Calculation Methodology Topical Report, Revision 2,” dated December 22, 2021 (ML21357A005 [non-public]), was submitted by HDI in support of a request for exemptions from certain emergency planning requirements, dated December 22, 2021 (ML21356B693). HDI provided further information in Enclosure 1, “Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Spent Fuel Pool Heat Up Calculations,” to HDI's supplemental letter dated February 1, 2022 (ML22032A117).

As stated in NUREG-1738, “Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants,” dated February 2001 (ML010430066), 900°C is an acceptable temperature to use for assessing the onset of fission product release, where the SFP is drained and air cooling is not possible; at least 10 hours would be available from the time spent fuel cooling is lost until the hottest fuel assembly reaches a temperature of 900°C. The 10-hour criterion, conservatively, does not consider the time to uncover the fuel and assumes instantaneous loss of cooling to the fuel. The 10-hour time period is also not intended to represent the time that it would take to repair all key safety systems or to repair a large SFP breach. The 10-hour criterion is a conservative period of time in which pre-planned mitigation measures to provide makeup water or spray to the SFP can be reliably implemented before the onset of a zirconium cladding ignition. In addition, in the unlikely event that a release is projected to occur, 10 hours would provide sufficient time for offsite agencies, if deemed warranted, to take appropriate action to protect the health and safety of the public.

In the NRC staff's evaluation contained in SECY-22-0102, the NRC staff assessed the HDI accident analyses associated with the radiological risks from a zirconium fire at a permanently shutdown and defueled IPEC after 15 months of fuel decay. For the highly unlikely beyond design-basis accident scenario where the SFP coolant inventory is lost in such a manner that all methods of heat removal from the spent fuel are no longer available, the NRC staff found that there will be a minimum of 10 hours from the initiation of the accident until the cladding reaches a temperature where offsite radiological release might occur. The NRC staff finds that 10 hours is sufficient time to support deployment of mitigation equipment, consistent with plant conditions, to prevent the zirconium cladding from reaching a point of rapid oxidation. As a result, the likelihood that such a scenario would progress to a zirconium fire is deemed not credible.

Based on the evaluation in SECY-96-256, as well as analysis done by HDI and verified by the NRC staff, the NRC staff determined $50 million to be an adequate level of onsite property damage insurance for a decommissioning reactor once the spent fuel in the SFP is no longer susceptible to a zirconium fire. However, the NRC staff has postulated that there is still a potential for other radiological incidents at a decommissioning reactor that could result in significant onsite contamination besides a zirconium fire. In SECY-96-256, the NRC staff cited the rupture of a large, contaminated liquid storage tank (~450,000 gallons) causing soil contamination and potential groundwater contamination as the costliest postulated event to decontaminate and remediate (other than an SFP zirconium fire). The postulated large liquid radiological waste storage tank rupture event was determined to have a bounding onsite cleanup cost of approximately $50 million. Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the licensee's proposal to reduce onsite insurance to a level of $50 million would be consistent with the bounding cleanup and decontamination cost, as discussed in SECY-96-256, to account for the postulated rupture of a large liquid radiological waste tank at the IPEC site, should such an event occur.

The NRC staff has determined that the licensee's proposed reduction in onsite property damage insurance coverage to a level of $50 million is consistent with SECY-96-256 and subsequent insurance considerations resulting from additional zirconium fire risks as discussed in SECY-00-0145 and SECY-01-0100, as well as NUREG/CR-6451 and NUREG-1738. In addition, the NRC staff notes that similar exemptions have been granted to other permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors, upon demonstration that the criterion of the zirconium fire risks from the irradiated fuel stored in the SFP is of negligible concern. The NRC staff concluded that 15 months after the permanent shutdown date of IP3 of April 30, 2021, sufficient irradiated fuel decay time will have elapsed at IPEC to decrease the probability of an onsite radiological release from a postulated zirconium fire accident to negligible levels. In addition, the licensee's proposal to reduce onsite insurance to a level of $50 million is consistent with the maximum estimated cleanup costs for the recovery from the rupture of a large liquid radwaste storage tank.

The NRC staff also notes that in accordance with letters submitted by HDI on February 15, 2023, and October 16, 2023 (ML23046A102 and ML23289A158), all the spent fuel from the IP2 and IP3 SFPs has been transferred to dry storage within the ISFSI. As such, an initiating event that would threaten SFP integrity is no longer applicable.

The requested exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) would allow the licensee to reduce the minimum coverage limit for onsite property damage insurance. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when the exemptions are authorized by law.

As explained above, the NRC staff has determined that the licensee's proposed reduction in onsite property damage insurance coverage to a level of $50 million is consistent with SECY-96-256. Moreover, the NRC staff concluded that 15 months after the permanent cessation of power operations, sufficient irradiated fuel decay time will have elapsed at IPEC to decrease the probability of an onsite and offsite radiological release from a postulated zirconium fire accident to negligible levels. In addition, the licensee's proposal to reduce onsite insurance to a level of $50 million is consistent with the maximum estimated cleanup costs for the recovery from the rupture of a large liquid radiological waste storage tank.

The NRC staff has determined that granting the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, based on its review of the licensee's exemption request as discussed above, and consistent with SECY-96-256, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption is authorized by law.

The onsite property damage insurance requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) were established to provide financial assurance that following a significant nuclear incident, onsite conditions could be stabilized and the site decontaminated. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) and the existing level of onsite insurance coverage for IPEC are predicated on the assumption that the reactor is operating. However, IPEC permanently ceased power operations on October 31, 1974, April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021 (For IP1, IP2, and IP3, respectively), and permanently defueled as of January 1976, May 12, 2020, and May 11, 2021 (For IP1, IP2, and IP3, respectively). The permanent cessation of operations and defueled status of the facility results in a significant reduction in the number and severity of potential accidents and, correspondingly, a significant reduction in the potential for and severity of onsite property damage. The proposed reduction in the amount of onsite insurance coverage does not impact the probability or consequences of potential accidents. The proposed level of insurance coverage is commensurate with the reduced consequences of potential nuclear accidents at IPEC. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that granting the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

The proposed exemption would not eliminate any requirements associated with physical protection of the site and would not adversely affect the licensee's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material. Physical security measures at IPEC are not affected by the requested exemption. Therefore, the proposed exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.

Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the regulation.

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is to provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to stabilize reactor conditions and cover onsite cleanup costs associated with site decontamination following an accident that results in the release of a significant amount of radiological material. Since IPEC permanently ceased power operations on October 31, 1974, April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021 (For IP1, IP2, and IP3, respectively), and permanently defueled as of January 1976, May 12, 2020, and May 11, 2021 (For IP1, IP2, and IP3, respectively), it is no longer possible for the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents or other credible events at IPEC to exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. The licensee has evaluated the consequences of highly unlikely, beyond-design-basis conditions involving a loss of coolant from the SFP. The analyses show that 15 months after the permanent cessation of power operations, the likelihood of such an event leading to a large radiological release is negligible. The NRC staff's evaluation of the licensee's analyses confirms this conclusion.

The NRC staff also finds that the licensee's proposed $50 million level of onsite insurance is consistent with the bounding cleanup and decontamination cost as discussed in SECY-96-256, to account for the hypothetical rupture of a large liquid radiological waste tank at the IPEC site, should such an event occur. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the application of the current requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) to maintain $1.06 billion in onsite insurance coverage is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule for the permanently shutdown and defueled IPEC reactors.

Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), special circumstances are present whenever compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.

The NRC staff concludes that if the licensee was required to continue to maintain an onsite insurance level of $1.06 billion, the associated insurance premiums would be in excess of those necessary and commensurate with the radiological contamination risks posed by the site. In addition, such insurance levels would be significantly in excess of other decommissioning reactor facilities that have been granted similar exemptions by the NRC.

The NRC staff finds that compliance with the existing rule would result in an undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted and are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.

Therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) exist.

The NRC's approval of an exemption from insurance or indemnity requirements belongs to a category of actions that the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion after first finding that the category of actions does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the exemption is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25).

Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation of Chapter I to 10 CFR, “Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” is a categorical exclusion provided that: (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought involve surety, insurance, or indemnity requirements.

As the Director of the Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, I have determined that approval of the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration, as defined in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” because reducing the licensee's onsite property damage insurance for IPEC does not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The exempted financial protection regulation is unrelated to the operation of IPEC or site activities. Accordingly, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. The exempted regulation is not associated with construction so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulation does not concern the source term ( i.e., potential amount of radiation in an accident) or any activities conducted at the site. Therefore, there is no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences of, a radiological accident. In addition, there would be no significant impacts to biota, water resources, historic properties, cultural resources, or socioeconomic conditions in the region resulting from issuance of the requested exemption. The requirement for onsite property damage insurance involves surety, insurance, and indemnity matters only.

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 51.22(c)(25), “Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review,” no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present as set forth in 10 CFR 50.12.

Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) for IPEC. IPEC permanently ceased power operations on October 31, 1974, April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021, for IP1, IP2, and IP3, respectively. The exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) permits IPEC to reduce the minimum required onsite property damage insurance from $1.06 billion to $50 million 15 months after permanent cessation of power operations, which was August 1, 2022. Because this period has already elapsed, the exemption is effective upon issuance.

The text of the exemption is attached.

Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) Units 1, 2, and 3, are decommissioning power reactors located on approximately 239 acres of land on the east bank of the Hudson River at the Village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County, New York. The licensee, Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI), is the holder of IPEC Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-5, DPR-26, and DFP-64. The licenses provide, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect.

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1 (IP1) permanently ceased generation on October 31, 1974, and all fuel was removed from the IP1 reactor vessel by January 1976. In 1996, the NRC issued an order approving the safe-storage condition of IP1. In 2003, the NRC issued Amendment No. 52 to IP1's provisional operating license that changed the license's expiration date to be consistent with that of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2) license at that time. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the IP1 license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel. HDI states that there is no IP1 spent fuel in wet storage at the IPEC site; IP1 spent fuel is stored onsite in dry cask storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).

By letter dated February 8, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17044A004), Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (the IPEC licensees at that time, collectively, “Entergy”) certified to the NRC that it planned to permanently cease power operations at IP2 and Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3) by April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021, respectively. By letters dated May 12, 2020, and May 11, 2021 (ML20113J902 and ML21131A157, respectively), Entergy certified to the NRC that power operations permanently ceased at IP2 and IP3 on April 30, 2020, and April 30, 2021, respectively. In the same letters, Entergy certified to the NRC that the fuel was permanently removed from the IP2 and IP3 reactor vessels and placed in the IP2 and IP3 spent fuel pools (SFPs) as of May 12, 2020, and May 11, 2021, respectively.

Based on the docketing of these certifications for permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel, as specified in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR part 50 renewed facility operating license for IPEC (Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64) no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel. The facility is still authorized to possess, and store irradiated ( i.e., spent) nuclear fuel. Spent fuel is currently stored onsite at the IP2 and IP3 facilities in the SFPs and in a dry cask ISFSI.

Many of the accident scenarios postulated in the updated safety analysis reports (USARs) for operating power reactors involve failures or malfunctions of systems that could affect the fuel in the reactor core and, in the most severe postulated accidents, would involve the release of large quantities of fission products. With the permanent cessation of power operations at IPEC and the permanent removal of the fuel from the reactor vessels, many accidents are no longer possible. The reactors, reactor coolant system (RCS), and supporting systems are no longer in operation and have no function related to the storage of the irradiated fuel. Therefore, the emergency planning (EP) provisions for postulated accidents involving failure or malfunction of the reactors, RCS, or supporting systems are no longer applicable.

The EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47, “Emergency plans,” and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,” continue to apply to nuclear power reactors that have permanently ceased operation and have permanently removed all fuel from the reactor vessel. There are no explicit regulatory provisions distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that is permanently shut down and defueled from those for a reactor that is authorized to operate. To reduce or eliminate EP requirements that are no longer necessary due to the decommissioning status of the facility, HDI must obtain exemptions from those EP regulations. Only then can HDI modify the IPEC Emergency Plan to reflect the reduced risk associated with the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of IPEC.

By letter dated December 22, 2021 (ML21356B693), revised February 1, 2022 (ML22033A348), HDI requested exemptions from certain EP requirements of 10 CFR part 50 for IPEC. Specifically, HDI requested exemptions from certain planning standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite radiological emergency plans for nuclear power reactors; from certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) that require establishment of plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP zones for nuclear power reactors; and from certain requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which establish the elements that comprise the content of emergency plans. In a letter dated February 1, 2022 (ML22032A017), HDI provided responses to the NRC staff's requests for additional information (RAI) concerning the proposed exemptions.

The information provided by HDI included justifications for each exemption requested. The exemptions requested by HDI would eliminate the requirements to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, reviewed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the requirements of 44 CFR, “Emergency Management and Assistance,” part 350, “Review and Approval of State and Local Radiological Emergency Plans and Preparedness,” and reduce the scope of onsite EP activities at IPEC. HDI stated that application of all the standards and requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E are not needed for adequate emergency response capability, based on the substantially lower onsite and offsite radiological consequences of accidents still possible at the permanently shutdown and defueled facility, as compared to an operating facility. If offsite protective actions were needed for a highly unlikely beyond-design-basis accident that could challenge the safe storage of spent fuel at IPEC, provisions exist for offsite agencies to take protective actions using a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) under the National Preparedness System to protect the health and safety of the public. A CEMP in this context, also referred to as an emergency operations plan (EOP), is addressed in FEMA's Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101, “Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans.” Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 is the foundation for State, territorial, Tribal, and local EP in the United States. It promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of risk-informed planning and decision-making and helps planners at all levels of government in their efforts to develop and maintain viable, all-hazards, all-threats emergency plans. An EOP is flexible enough for use in all emergencies. It describes how people and property will be protected; details who is responsible for carrying out specific actions; identifies the personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies and other resources available; and outlines how all actions will be coordinated. A CEMP is often referred to as a synonym for “all-hazards planning.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) any of the special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present. These special circumstances include, among other things, that the application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.

As noted previously, the current EP regulations contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 apply to both operating and shutdown power reactors. The NRC has consistently acknowledged that the risk of an offsite radiological release at a power reactor that has permanently ceased operations and permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel is significantly lower, and the types of possible accidents are significantly fewer, than at an operating power reactor. However, current EP regulations do not recognize that once a power reactor permanently ceases operation, the risk of a large radiological release from credible emergency accident scenarios is significantly reduced. The reduced risk is largely the result of the low frequency of credible events that could challenge the SFP structure, and the reduced decay heat and reduced short-lived radionuclide inventory due to decay. The NRC's NUREG/CR- 6451, “A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR and PWR Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants,” dated August 31, 1997 (ML082260098) and NUREG-1738, “Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants,” dated February 28, 2001 (ML010430066), confirmed that for permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors bounded by the assumptions and conditions in the reports, the risk of offsite radiological release is significantly less than that for an operating power reactor.

In the past, EP exemptions similar to those requested by HDI, have been granted to licensees of permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors. However, the exemptions did not relieve the licensees of all EP requirements. Rather, the exemptions allowed the licensees to modify their emergency plans commensurate with the credible site-specific risks that were consistent with a permanently shutdown and defueled status. Specifically, the NRC's approval of these prior exemptions from certain EP requirements was based on the licensee's demonstration that: (1) the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents would not exceed the limits of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs) at the exclusion area boundary, and (2) in the unlikely event of a beyond- design-basis accident resulting in a loss of all modes of heat transfer from the fuel stored in the SFP, there is sufficient time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions, and if needed, for offsite authorities to implement offsite protective actions using a CEMP approach to protect the health and safety of the public. Based on prior exemption requests, the NRC has generally approved such exemptions when the site-specific analysis demonstrates that there is sufficient time following a loss of SFP coolant inventory until the onset of fuel damage to implement onsite mitigation of the loss of SFP coolant inventory and if necessary, to implement offsite protective actions. In prior exemptions, sufficient time was demonstrated if the time exceeded 10 hours from the loss of coolant until the fuel temperature would be expected to reach 900 degrees Celsius (°C), assuming no air cooling.

With respect to design-basis-accidents at IPEC, the licensee provided analysis demonstrating that 15 months following permanent cessation of power operations, the radiological consequences of the only remaining design-basis accident with potential for offsite radiological release (a fuel handling accident in the Reactor Building, where the SFP is located) will not exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. With respect to beyond-design-basis accidents at IPEC, HDI analyzed a beyond-design-basis accident involving a complete loss of SFP water inventory, where adequate fuel handling building air exchange with the environment and air cooling of the stored fuel was available. HDI's analysis demonstrated that, as of 10 hours, air cooling of the spent fuel assemblies was sufficient to keep the fuel within safe temperature range, indefinitely, without fuel cladding damage or offsite radiological release.

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's justification for the requested exemptions against the criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a) and determined, as described below, that the criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a) will be met, and that the exemptions should be granted. An assessment of the HDI EP exemptions is described in SECY-22-0102 dated November 18, 2022 (ML22231A160). The Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to grant the exemptions in the staff requirements memorandum to SECY-22-0102, dated October 24, 2023 (ML23297A027). Descriptions of the specific exemptions requested by HDI and the NRC staff's basis for granting each exemption are provided in SECY-22-0102. The staff's detailed review and technical basis for the approval of the specific EP exemptions requested by HDI are provided in the NRC staff's safety evaluation dated November 1, 2023 (ML23067A082)

The licensee has proposed exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which would allow HDI to revise the IPEC Emergency Plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the facility. As stated above, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50. The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemptions will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemptions are authorized by law.

As stated previously, HDI provided analyses that show the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents will not exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. Therefore, formal offsite radiological emergency plans required under 10 CFR part 50 will no longer be needed for protection of the public beyond the exclusion area boundary, based on the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents still possible at IPEC.

Although highly unlikely, there is one postulated beyond-design-basis accident that might result in significant offsite radiological releases. However, NUREG-1738 confirms that the risk of beyond-design-basis accidents is greatly reduced at permanently shutdown and defueled reactors. The NRC staff's analyses in NUREG-1738 concludes that the event sequences important to risk at permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors are limited to large earthquakes and cask drop events. For EP assessments, this is an important difference relative to the operating power reactors, where typically a large number of different sequences make significant contributions to risk. Per NUREG-1738, relaxation of offsite EP requirements, under 10 CFR part 50, a few months after shutdown resulted in only a small change in risk. The report further concludes that the change in risk due to relaxation of offsite EP requirements is small because the overall risk is low, and because even under current EP requirements for operating power reactors, EP was judged to have marginal impact on evacuation effectiveness in the severe earthquake event that dominates SFP risk. All other sequences including cask drops (for which offsite radiological emergency plans are expected to be more effective) are too low in likelihood to have a significant impact on risk.

Therefore, granting exemptions to eliminate the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 to maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and to reduce the scope of onsite EP activities will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.

The requested exemptions by HDI only involve EP requirements under 10 CFR part 50 and will allow HDI to revise the IPEC Emergency Plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the facility. Physical security measures at IPEC are not affected by the requested EP exemptions. The discontinuation of formal offsite radiological emergency plans and the reduction in scope of the onsite EP activities at IPEC will not adversely affect HDI's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material. Therefore, the proposed exemptions are consistent with the common defense and security.

Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, is to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP zones for nuclear power plants, and to ensure that licensees maintain effective offsite and onsite radiological emergency plans. The standards and requirements in these regulations were developed by considering the risks associated with operation of a nuclear power reactor at its licensed full-power level. These risks include the potential for a reactor accident with offsite radiological dose consequences.

As discussed previously in Section Ill of this document, because IPEC Units 1, 2, and 3 are permanently shutdown and defueled, there will no longer be a risk of a significant offsite radiological release from a design-basis accident exceeding early phase PAGs at the exclusion area boundary, and the risk of a significant offsite radiological release from a beyond-design-basis accident is greatly reduced when compared to the risk at an operating power reactor. In a letter dated December 22, 2021 (ML21356B693), revised February 1, 2022 (ML22033A348), the licensee provided analyses to demonstrate that the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents at IPEC will not exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. The NRC staff has confirmed the reduced risks at IPEC by comparing the generic risk assumptions in the analyses in NUREG-1738 to site-specific conditions at IPEC; and has determined that the risk values in NUREG-1738 bound the risks presented by IPEC.

In addition, the significant decay of short-lived radionuclides that has occurred since shutdown of IPEC provides assurance in other ways. As indicated by the results of research conducted for NUREG-1738 and more recently, for NUREG-2161, “Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor” (ML14255A365), while other consequences can be extensive, accidents from SFPs with significant decay time have little potential to cause offsite early fatalities, even if the formal offsite radiological EP requirements were relaxed. HDI's analysis of a beyond-design-basis accident involving a complete loss of SFP water inventory, where adequate fuel handling building air exchange with the environment and air cooling of the stored fuel is available, shows that as of 10 hours, air cooling of the spent fuel assemblies was sufficient to keep the fuel within safe temperature range, indefinitely, without fuel cladding damage or offsite radiological release.

The only analyzed beyond-design-basis accident scenario that progresses to a condition where a significant offsite release might occur, involves the highly unlikely event where the SFP drains in such a way that all modes of cooling or heat transfer are assumed to be unavailable, which is postulated to result in an adiabatic heat up of the spent fuel. HDI's analysis of this beyond-design-basis accident shows that 15 months after shutdown, a minimum of 10 hours would be available between the time the fuel is initially uncovered (at which time adiabatic heat up is conservatively assumed to begin), until the fuel cladding reaches a temperature of 1652 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (900°C), which is the temperature associated with rapid cladding oxidation and the potential for a significant radiological release. This analysis conservatively does not include the period of time from the initiating event causing a loss of SFP water inventory until all cooling means are lost.

The NRC staff has verified HDI's analyses and its calculations. The analyses provide reasonable assurance that in granting the requested exemptions to HDI, there is no design- basis accident that will result in an offsite radiological release exceeding the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. In the highly unlikely event of a beyond-design-basis accident affecting the SFP that results in a complete loss of heat removal via all modes of heat transfer, because all Units at IPEC have been shutdown for well over 15 months, there will be a minimum of 10 hours available before an offsite release might occur and, therefore, at least 10 hours to initiate appropriate mitigating actions to restore a means of heat removal to the spent fuel. If a radiological release were projected to occur under this unlikely scenario, a minimum of 10 hours is considered sufficient time for offsite authorities to implement protective actions using a CEMP approach to protect the health and safety of the public.

Exemptions from the offsite EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50 have previously been approved by the NRC when the site-specific analyses show that at least 10 hours are available following a loss of SFP coolant inventory accident with no air cooling (or other methods of removing decay heat) until cladding of the hottest fuel assembly reaches the zirconium rapid oxidation temperature. The NRC staff concluded in its previously granted exemptions, as it does with the HDI-requested EP exemptions, that if a minimum of 10 hours are available to initiate mitigative actions consistent with plant conditions, or if needed, for offsite authorities to implement protective actions using a CEMP approach, then formal offsite radiological emergency plans, required under 10 CFR part 50, are not necessary at permanently shut down and defueled power reactors.

Additionally, in HDI's letters to the NRC dated December 22, 2021, and February 2, 2022, HDI described the SFP makeup strategies that could be used in the event of a catastrophic loss of SFP inventory. The multiple strategies for providing makeup water to the SFP include: using existing plant systems for inventory makeup; an internal strategy between IP2 and IP3 that relies on installed Primary Water Storage Tank, fire water inside the SFP buildings, and fire water using a temporary diesel pump from outside of the SFP buildings; or an external strategy that uses portable pumps to initiate makeup flow into the SFPs through a standpipe and standard fire hoses routed to the SFPs or to a spray nozzle. These strategies will continue to be required as License Condition 2(N), “Mitigation Strategy License Condition” and 2(AC), “Mitigation Strategy License Condition” for Units 2 and 3 respectively. Considering the very low probability of beyond-design-basis accidents affecting the SFP, these diverse strategies provide multiple methods to obtain additional makeup or spray water to the SFP before the onset of any postulated offsite radiological release. Because of the length of time, it would take for the fuel to heat up, there are 10 hours available to respond to any draindown event that might cause such an occurrence by restoring cooling or makeup or providing spray to the IP2 or IP3 SFPs.

For all the reasons stated above, the NRC staff finds that HDI's requested exemptions meet the underlying purpose of all of the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b), as well as the requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, and satisfies the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) in view of the greatly reduced risk of offsite radiological consequences associated with the permanently shutdown and defueled state of the IPEC facility. The staff further concludes that the exemptions granted by this action will maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness at IPEC and provide reasonable assurance that adequate offsite protective measures, if needed, can and will be taken by State and local government agencies using a CEMP approach, in the highly unlikely event of a radiological emergency at the IPEC facility. Since the underlying purposes of the rules, as exempted, would continue to be achieved, even with the elimination of the requirements under 10 CFR part 50 to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans and the reduction in the scope of the onsite EP activities at IPEC, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.31(a), the Commission has determined that the granting of these exemptions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, as discussed in the NRC staff's Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact published on October 31, 2023 (88 FR 74536).

Accordingly, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), that HDI's request for exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, and as summarized in Enclosure 2 to SECY-22-0102, are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants HDI exemptions from certain EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, as discussed and evaluated in detail in the staff's safety evaluation dated November 1, 2023 (ML23067A082). The exemptions are effective upon issuance.

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).: MC2024-131 and CP2024-137; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 152 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: December 21, 2023; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: January 2, 2024.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2024-133 and CP2024-139; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage & Parcel Select Contract 2 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing of Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: December 21, 2023; 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: January 2, 2024.

3. Docket No(s).: MC2024-134 and CP2024-140; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 153 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: December 21, 2023; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: January 2, 2024.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Ground Advantage ® & Parcel Select Contract 1 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-136, CP2024-142.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 26, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 159 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-144, CP2024-150.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage ® Contract 153 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-134, CP2024-140.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 153 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-141, CP2024-147.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 152 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-131, CP2024-137.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage ® & Parcel Select Contract 2 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-133, CP2024-139.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 26, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 158 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-143, CP2024-149.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage ®, and Parcel Select Contract 2 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-140, CP2024-146.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 19, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 150 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-128, CP2024-134.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage ® Contract 39 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-135, CP2024-141.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Ground Advantage® Contract 10 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-127, CP2024-133.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 154 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-137, CP2024-143.