The primary purpose for the supplemental watershed plan is to rehabilitate debris basins and holding ponds in the watershed to prevent flooding and reduce flood damage; improve agricultural water delivery, supply, and conservation; and provide public recreation opportunities. Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534).

This supplemental watershed plan is sponsored by Mt. Pleasant City and cosponsored by Pleasant Creek Irrigation Company and Twin Creek Irrigation Company. The proposed action is needed to address flood prevention in Mt. Pleasant City and portions of unincorporated Sanpete County and reduce flood damage now that existing facilities and infrastructure are beyond their useful design life. The existing facilities do not provide adequate flood protection for Mt. Pleasant City and surrounding areas and do not meet NRCS and Utah Dam Safety standards. The current pipe network for Mt. Pleasant City has aged and is in constant need of costly maintenance and repair. The system was installed in the 1980s, experiences significant water losses, and no longer functions effectively as a shared system for agricultural and residential irrigation users. Drought, city growth, water shortages, and operations and maintenance challenges have caused strain to the system. Pressure surges and pipe failure often occur during system filling operations and inadequate valving requires large segments or the entire system to be shut down for essential repairs.

Estimated federal funds required for the construction of the proposed action may exceed $25 million and the proposed action will, therefore, require congressional approval per the 2018 Agriculture Appropriations Act amended funding threshold. In accordance with the regulation in 7 CFR 650.7(a)(2), an EIS is required for projects requiring congressional approval.

The EIS objective is to formulate and evaluate alternatives for flood control and prevention, agricultural water management, and recreational opportunities in the approximately 84,180 acre Pleasant Creek watershed area. The EIS is expected to evaluate three alternatives: two action alternatives, and one no action alternative. The alternatives that may be considered for detailed analysis include:

• Alternative 1—No Action Alternative: Taking no action would consist of activities conducted if no federal action or funding were provided. If the No Action Alternative is selected, the existing infrastructure would not be improved, and no capital investment would be required. Sediment would continue to accumulate and water storage volumes would continue to decrease. The existing water storage structures would continue to operate in their current condition, providing inadequate flood protection and overflow during large runoff events. The existing agricultural water infrastructure would continue to incur large water losses resulting in conflicts between agricultural and residential users. The existing infrastructure does not meet the purpose and need to prevent flooding; to reduce flooding risks; to improve agricultural water delivery, supply and conservation; or to provide recreational opportunities.

• Alternative 2—Proposed Action—Existing Structure Improvement Alternative: The proposed action would rehabilitate and enlarge the Upper Debris Basin for a total water storage capacity of 840 acre-feet to provide additional flood protection capacity and 50-80 days of irrigation water storage; decommission the Lower Debris Basin; rehabilitate the Agricultural Reservoir and Surge Pond to address current dam safety deficiencies and add dedicated irrigation water storage for residential secondary water users; construct a new 20 acre-foot Twin Creek Irrigation Storage Reservoir to provide additional dedicated residential secondary water storage; replace the existing secondary irrigation water pipeline system within Mt. Pleasant City to separate residential secondary water and agricultural water; install meters on the agricultural and residential secondary water system for more accurate usage calculations and billing; and construct a day use recreational facility and trail for additional recreational opportunities.

• Alternative 3—Proposed Action—Twin Creek Reservoir Alternative: The proposed action would include the measures outlined in Alternative 2 and would also construct a new 1,000 acre-foot Twin Creek Flood Control and Storage Multi-Purpose Reservoir to manage floodwater; provide additional water storage; and assist in ongoing water conservation efforts. This proposed action would also replace the existing, deteriorated Agricultural Transmission Pipeline to provide reliable agricultural water supply and pipe the existing Northwest Irrigation Ditches to reduce water losses, decrease maintenance costs, and improve public safety.

As mentioned above, the estimated Federal contribution to construction cost will exceed $25 million.

The EIS will be prepared as required by section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and NRCS regulations that implement NEPA in 7 CFR part 650.

Resource concerns for scoping were identified and categorized as relevant or not relevant to the proposed action. Mt. Pleasant City, Pleasant Creek Irrigation Company, Twin Creek Irrigation Company, and NRCS evaluated the current condition of watershed structures, flood risk, agricultural water management, water conservation efforts, and recreational opportunities in the Pleasant Creek watershed along with relevant resource concerns for each proposed solution. Environmental resources in the project area consist of the natural and man-made resources. Resource concerns to be identified and addressed in the Supplemental Watershed Plan-EIS include: wetland and channel alteration, disturbances to wildlife and riparian areas during construction, land use changes, and impacts to visual resources.

The following permits and authorizations are anticipated to be required:

• Dam Safety. Coordination with the State Engineer and the Utah Division of Water Rights would be required to ensure all development and engineering requirements for the design and construction of the Upper Debris Basin, Agricultural Reservoir and Surge Pond, and Twin Creek Reservoir are implemented.

• Stream Alteration Permit. The proposed action would require coordination and permits with the Utah Division of Water Rights for the proposed improvements.

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain Development Permit. Implementation of the proposed action would require coordination with the local floodplain administrator and may require a Floodplain Development Permit to ensure all development and engineering requirements for construction within the Special Flood Hazard Areas are implemented. Additionally, a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA would be required prior to construction.

• Clean Water Act (CWA) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The proposed action may require water quality certification under section 401 of the CWA, permitting under section 402 of the NPDES, and section 404 of the CWA for potential impacts to wetlands and Waters of the United States.

• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106. Consultation with Tribal Nations and interested parties would be conducted as required by the NHPA.

• Local Encroachment. Consultation and potential encroachment permits would be required with Mt. Pleasant City and Sanpete County for all construction work within the local roadway rights-of-way.

A Draft EIS (DEIS) will be prepared and circulated for review and comment by agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and the public for 45 days as required by the regulations in 40 CFR 1503.1, 1502.20, 1506.11, and 1502.17, and 7 CFR 650.13. The DEIS is anticipated to be published in the Federal Register , approximately 24 months after publication of this NOI. A Final EIS is anticipated to be published within 8 months of completion of the public comment period for the DEIS.

NRCS will decide whether to implement one of the action alternatives as evaluated in the EIS. A Record of Decision will be completed after the required 30-day waiting period and will be publicly available. The responsible Federal official and decision maker for NRCS is the Utah State Conservationist.

A public scoping meeting was held on April 11, 2019. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who commented, are part of the public record. Scoping meeting presentation materials were available for review and comment for 30 days from Thursday, March 28, 2019, through Friday, April 26, 2019. The date, time, and location for a second meeting will be announced on the project website.

Federal, State, Tribal, local agencies and representatives, and the public were invited to take part in the watershed plan scoping period. Mt. Pleasant City, Pleasant Creek Irrigation Company, Twin Creek Irrigation Company, and NRCS organized the public scoping meeting to provide an opportunity to review and evaluate the project alternatives, express concern, or support, and gain further information regarding the project. To determine the most viable alternatives to carry forward to the EIS, Mt. Pleasant City, Pleasant Creek Irrigation Company, Twin Creek Irrigation Company, and NRCS used input obtained during public scoping discussions to focus on relevant resource concerns and issues and eliminated those that were not relevant from further detailed study.

NRCS will coordinate the scoping process to correspond with section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306108), as allowed in the regulations in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3) and 800.8.

NRCS invites agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the Pleasant Creek Supplemental Watershed Plan to provide written comments concerning the scope of the analysis and identification of potential alternatives, information, and analyses relevant to the Proposed Action.

Information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed project will assist NRCS in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and NHPA.

NRCS will consult with Native American Tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with the regulations in 36 CFR 800.2 and 800.3, Executive Order 13175, and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources and historic properties, will be given due consideration.

This document is published as specified by the NEPA regulations regarding publication of an NOI to issue an EIS (40 CFR 1501.9(d)). Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended and the Flood Control Act of 1944.

The title and number of the Federal Assistance Program as found in the Assistance Listing  1 to which this document applies is 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. This project is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and telephone) or dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay Service (both voice and text telephone users can initiate this call from any phone). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at: https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) Fax: (202 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

The purpose of this watershed plan is to prevent or reduce potential flooding in Wellsville, Mendon, and other unincorporated areas of Cache County, Utah; to provide more reliable management of agricultural water in the area; and to increase opportunities for public recreation in the watershed. Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534).

The Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan will reduce flood risks and improve public safety in the Wellsville Canyon watershed. It will greatly reduce flooding concerns associated with intense rain-on-snow and frozen ground events within the Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan project area. More dependable floodwater management will benefit homes, businesses, agricultural fields, roads, and public utilities in the Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan project area.

The Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan will implement improved culinary and agricultural water conservation techniques in the Wellsville Canyon watershed. A more efficient irrigation delivery system within Mendon City and Wellsville City will help mitigate the heavy seepage losses experienced by the current earthen canal irrigation distribution systems. The Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan improvements will also reduce demand for the existing culinary water systems within the watershed and capital expenditures to meet peak summer irrigation demands.

The Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan will address limited public recreational facilities and opportunities within the Wellsville Canyon watershed available for the growing population of Cache County. Recreational improvements will provide residents with a higher quality of life and will increase the public's well-being by providing new opportunities for leisure and enjoyment.

The objective of the EIS is to formulate and evaluate alternatives for the flood control, agricultural water management, and public recreation needs in the approximately 70,845-acre Wellsville Canyon Watershed-focused planning area. The EIS is expected to evaluate three alternatives: two action alternatives, and one no action alternative. The alternatives that may be considered for detailed analysis include:

• Alternative 1—No Action Alternative: Taking no action would consist of activities carried out if no federal action or funding were provided. This alternative would not address flooding into the canals. The canals would continue to overtop during rain-on-snow events, and flooding in the Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan area would continue. The canals would be maintained in their existing condition as earthen channels, and irrigation conveyance within the communities of Wellsville and Mendon would be unchanged. The additional recreational access to Wellsville Reservoir would not be built, and erosion and sedimentation from the alluvial plains above the canals would continue unaltered under this alternative. The existing infrastructure would continue to operate in its current condition and would not improve flood control, conserve irrigation water, improve recreational access, or reduce watershed erosion as described above. Residents would continue to use culinary water for irrigation (that is, watering lawns and gardens), putting stress on existing water supply and infrastructure.

• Alternative 2—Proposed Action—Pipe the Canals and Improve the Lower Canal for Flood Flows: The proposed action is to enclose the Wellsville-Mendon Canal (Lower Canal) and convey water through piping in Wellsville and Mendon cities and part of unincorporated Cache County, Utah. The existing Wellsville-Mendon Canal would be improved with the addition of open channel overflow systems at 2900 South (Unincorporated Cache County) and 200 South (Mendon City). This would be accomplished through a combination of conduits and channels to convey floodwaters from the west side of Cache Valley between Wellsville and Petersboro to the natural floodplain of the Little Bear River east of the communities. This proposed action would continue to divert the water for the Wellsville-Mendon Conservation District from below Hyrum Reservoir at the existing diversion points. This proposed action would enclose and pipe a portion of the Wellsville Eastfield Canal beginning at the existing diversion at the base of Hyrum Dam and passing through Hyrum and ending in unincorporated Cache County, Utah. This proposed action would pressurize Wellsville City Irrigation Company's irrigation system within Wellsville City and within Mendon City's irrigation system managed by the Mendon North, Mendon Central, Mendon South, Mendon Second North, and Greater Mendon Irrigation companies. This proposed action would also install regulating ponds to stabilize peak demands on the pressurized irrigation systems. A new access ramp limited to non-motorized personal watercraft would be constructed at Wellsville Reservoir for recreational activities.

• Alternative 3—Line the Canal and Improve the Lower Canal for Flood Flows: All Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan project measures would be the same as Alternative 2 with the following exceptions. Alternative 3 would line and increase the capacity of the Wellsville-Mendon Canal (Lower Canal) to carry both irrigation and flood water from the west alluvial plains between Wellsville and Petersboro in Cache County instead of enclosing and piping. This would include the reconstruction of the existing Murray Spring overflow structure and the addition of overflow structures at 2900 South in unincorporated Cache County and 200 South in Mendon City.

The EIS will be prepared as required by section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and NRCS regulations that implement NEPA in 7 CFR part 650.

An NRCS evaluation of this federally assisted action indicates that the proposed alternatives may have significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. Potential resource impacts include alteration or disturbance of wetlands and riparian zones, disruptions to wildlife, compaction or displacement of soils, and temporary disturbances to air quality, migratory birds, transportation routes, aesthetic resources, and water quality.

The proposed alternatives may have long-term environmental benefits, such as reduction of long-term carbon emissions due to pumping, improvement of public health and safety, increased recreational opportunities, reduction of erosion and nutrient loading into the Little Bear River, improved surface water quality, and increased surface water quantity as a result of water conservation measures. The proposed alternatives would minimize flooding by reducing flood risks and flood damages from runoff, erosion, and sediment deposition to areas downstream of the sub-basin, as well as improving agricultural water management by reducing seepage losses. It would also create new recreational opportunities for public use by providing reservoir access for non-motorized personal watercraft.

The following permits and other authorizations are anticipated to be required:

• Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Development Permit. Implementation of the proposed action would require coordination with the local floodplain administrator and may require a Floodplain Development Permit to ensure all development and engineering requirements for construction within the Special Flood Hazard Areas are implemented. The proposed action will require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) since the floodplain maps include the canal and flows from the benches in Zone A.

• Clean Water Act (CWA) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits. The proposed action would require water quality certification under section 401 of the CWA, permitting under section 402 of the NPDES, and Section 404 of the CWA for potential Waters of the United States impacts.

• Encroachment Permit. The proposed action would require coordination and permitting with Utah Department of Transportation for temporary construction work within State and federal roadway rights-of-way.

• Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) Construction Permit. A construction permit would be required through the UPDES.

• Railroad Permits. The proposed action may require railroad permits to allow for the right of entry and crossings of the railroad.

• Stream Alteration Permit. The proposed action would require coordination and permits with the Utah Division of Water Rights for potential crossings of the Little Bear River and other natural water ways.

• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106. Consultation with Tribal Nations and interested parties would be conducted as required by the NHPA.

• Local Encroachment. Consultation and potential encroachment permits would be required with Wellsville City, Mendon City, and Cache County for all construction work within the local roadway rights-of-way.

A Draft EIS (DEIS) will be prepared and circulated for review and comment by agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and the public for at least 45 days as required by 40 CFR 1503.1, 1502.20, 1506.11, and 1502.17, and 7 CFR 650.13. The DEIS is anticipated to be published in the Federal Register , approximately 21 months after publication of this NOI. A Final EIS is anticipated to be published within 3 months of completion of the public comment period for the DEIS.

NRCS will decide whether to implement one of the action alternatives as evaluated in the EIS. A Record of Decision will be completed after the required 30-day waiting period and will be publicly available. The responsible Federal official and decision maker for NRCS is the Utah State Conservationist.

A virtual scoping meeting was held on May 10, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. MST. Scoping meeting presentation materials are available on NRCS' website, along with Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan background information at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wellsville-mendon-watershed-sponsor-cache-water-district. The meeting included a Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan presentation followed by a group question and answer period. Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan team members were also available to address individual questions. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who commented, were part of the public record.

NRCS invited Federal, State, Tribal, local agencies and representatives and the public to take part in the scoping period for the Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan. Based on funding limitations and project scope, NRCS determined an EIS was necessary, and is seeking further public comment to help determine the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be evaluated and included in the EIS. NRCS will include the comments received from the previous scoping efforts into the EIS analysis.

NRCS will coordinate the scoping process to correspond with Section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306108), as allowed in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3) and 800.8.

NRCS invites agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan to provide written comments concerning the scope of the analysis and identification of potential alternatives, information, analyses relevant to the Proposed Action.

The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan will assist NRCS in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and NHPA.

NRCS will consult with Native American Tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2 and 800.3, Executive Order 13175, and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources and historic properties, will be given due consideration.

This document is published pursuant to the NEPA regulations regarding publication of an NOI to issue an EIS (40 CFR 1501.9(d)). Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944.

The title and number of the Federal Assistance Program as found in the Assistance Listing  1 to which this document applies is 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. This Wellsville Canyon Watershed Plan is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and text telephone) or dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay Service (both voice and text telephone users can initiate this call from any phone). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

On February 10, 2022, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Ukraine. 1 The POR is July 10, 2019 through June 30, 2020.

The administrative review covers Interpipe, 2 a producer and exporter of OCTG from Ukraine to the United States. In the Final Results, Commerce assigned to Interpipe a weighted-average dumping margin of 27.80 percent for the POR. 3

Following the publication of the Final Results, Interpipe filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging certain aspects of Commerce's Final Results including Commerce's decision not to grant a constructed export price offset to Interpipe and Commerce's decision to include Section 232 duties in the U.S. price when calculating the margin.

On April 30, 2024, the United States and Interpipe entered into an agreement to settle this dispute. Pursuant to the terms of settlement and the stipulation for entry of judgment, the amended final weighted-average dumping margin for Interpipe is 0.01 percent. The CIT issued its order of judgment by stipulation on May 2, 2024. 4

Consistent with the settlement agreement and May 2, 2024, order of judgment by stipulation, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate all unliquidated entries of OCTG from Ukraine produced and exported by Interpipe, and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States during the POR at the importer-specific per-unit assessment rates determined by setting Interpipe's weighted-average dumping margin at 0.01 percent ( de minimis ). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these revised final results of review. 5 For Interpipe, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Because Interpipe's weighted average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Interpipe for which it did not know that the 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. 6

Because Interpipe has a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results published in a subsequent administrative review, we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP. This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate for Interpipe.

We are issuing this determination and publishing these amended final results and notice in accordance with section 516a(e) of the Act.

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

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 March 31, 2025.

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, 8 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). 9

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. 10 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. 11 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).

This notice announces our review of the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ) listed as endangered under the ESA. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. This will be the first review of this species since it was listed in 2015 under the ESA (79 FR 73977, December 12, 2014). The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing species currently under active review. On the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether any species should be removed from the list ( i.e., delisted) or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)(B)). As described by the regulations in 50 CFR 424.11(e), a species will be delisted if the Secretary determines, based on consideration of the factors and standards set forth in 50 CFR 424.11(c), that the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that: (1) the species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; (3) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; or (4) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the definition of a species. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process.

Background information on the species is available on the NMFS website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/smalltooth-sawfish.

To ensure that the review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new information from the public, governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of the DPS. Categories of requested information include: (1) species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and important features for conservation; (3) status and trends of threats to the DPS and its habitats; (4) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the DPS, including monitoring data demonstrating effectiveness of such measures; and (5) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes and improved analytical methods for evaluating extinction risk.

If you wish to provide information for the review, you may submit your information and materials electronically (see ADDRESSES section). We request that all information be accompanied by supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

During this meeting the EWG will (1) review progress on Fishery Ecosystem Plan Initiative 4 and (2) discuss the contents of reports on agenda items for the June 2024 Pacific Council meeting.

In March 2024, the Pacific Council provided guidance on the further development of risk assessment methodologies, as part of Initiative 4, to bring climate and ecosystem information into harvest specification processes. Proposed methodologies will be reviewed by the Scientific and Statistical Committee Ecosystem-Based Management Subcommittee on August 5, 2024, and considered by the Pacific Council at its September 2024 meeting.

At its June meeting, the Pacific Council will discuss and provide guidance on potential changes to Council operations. The EWG may provide recommendations on recommended changes and other agenda topics, as appropriate. Other matters related to the work of the EWG may also be discussed.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

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

The Committee will discuss (a) crab rationalization program review; and (b) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3050 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3050.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3050.

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

Part F of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), specifies the criteria, data elements, calculations, and tables the Department of Education (Department) uses in the Federal Need Analysis Methodology to determine the SAI.

Enacted into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Division FF, Title VII (116 Pub. L. 260), the FAFSA Simplification Act makes many significant changes to the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), regarding Federal Need Analysis Methodology, including how the Secretary must update the tables used in the formula. Due to the magnitude of these (and other) changes and to ensure that both the Department and the higher education community were prepared to fully implement the FAFSA Simplification Act, in June 2021, Federal Student Aid (FSA) announced a phased approach to implementation. As part of this approach, in the FAFSA Simplification Act Technical Corrections Act, Division R (Pub. L. 117-103) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (CAA 2022), Congress extended the full implementation of the FAFSA Simplification Act until the 2024-25 award year.

Section 478 of the HEA, as amended by the FAFSA Simplification Act, requires the Secretary to annually update the following five tables for inflation—the Income Protection Allowance (IPA), the Adjusted Net Worth (NW) of a Business or Farm, the Asset Protection Allowance, the Assessment Schedules and Rates, and the Employment Expense Allowance. The updates are based, in general, upon increases in items such as, but not limited to, the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The Secretary is charged with updating the IPA, adjusted NW of a business or farm, the asset protection allowance, the assessment schedules and rates, and the employment expense allowance to account for inflation that took place between April 2020 and April in the year prior to the beginning of each award year. The increases in the tables must be based on a percentage equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for April of the applicable year.

This notice includes the new 2024-25 AY values for the five tables listed above, which reflect the FAFSA Simplification Act amendments. The updated tables are in sections 1 (Income Protection Allowance), 2 (Adjusted Net Worth of a Business or Farm), 3 (Asset Protection Allowance), 4 (Assessment Schedules and Rates), and 5 (Employment Expense Allowance) of this notice.

The HEA requires the following annual updates:

1. Income Protection Allowance. This allowance is the amount of living expenses associated with the maintenance of an individual or family that may be offset against the family's income. The allowance varies by family size and marital status. The IPA for dependent students is $11,130. The IPAs for parents of dependent students and independent students are listed in the tables below.

2. Adjusted Net Worth of a Business or Farm. A portion of the full NW (assets less debts) of a business or farm is excluded from the calculation of a SAI because (1) the income produced from these assets is already assessed in another part of the formula; and (2) the formula protects a portion of the value of the assets.

The portion of these assets included in the contribution calculation is computed according to the following schedule. This schedule is used for parents of dependent students, independent students without dependents other than a spouse, and independent students with dependents other than a spouse.

3. Asset Protection Allowance. This allowance protects a portion of NW (assets less debts) from being considered available for postsecondary educational expenses. There is one asset protection allowance table for parents of dependent students, independent students without dependents other than a spouse, and independent students with dependents other than a spouse.

4. Assessment Schedules and Rates. Two schedules that are subject to updates—one for parents of dependent students and one for independent students with dependents other than a spouse—are used to determine the SAI from family financial resources toward educational expenses. For dependent students, the SAI is derived from an assessment of the parents' adjusted available income (AAI). For independent students with dependents other than a spouse, the SAI is derived from an assessment of the family's AAI. The AAI represents a measure of a family's financial strength, which considers both income and assets.

The contribution of parents of dependent students, and independent students with dependents other than a spouse, is computed according to the following schedule:

5. Employment Expense Allowance. This allowance for employment-related expenses recognizes additional expenses incurred by working individuals. For parents of dependent students, the employment expense allowance is the lesser of $4,730 or 35% of the total earned income of the student's parent and parent's spouse, if applicable. The employment expense allowance for independent students is zero if the student is not married (single, separated or divorced/widowed) or the lesser of $4,730 or 35% of the combined earned income for the student and student spouse if the student is married.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. 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 Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this 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.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087 et seq.

Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the committee is to provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Office of Science and the Department of Energy on scientific priorities within the field of advanced scientific computing research.

Purpose of the Meeting: This meeting is the semi-annual meeting of the Committee.

Tentative Agenda:

The meeting agenda includes an update on the budget, accomplishments, and planned activities of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program and the exascale computing project; technical presentations from funded researchers and industry collaborations; updates from subcommittees, and there will be an opportunity for comments from the public. The meeting will conclude at 5 p.m. (eastern time) on May 29, 2024. Agenda updates and presentations will be posted on the ASCAC website prior to the meeting: https://science.osti.gov/ascr/ascac.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public in-person and virtually. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions may do so during the meeting. Approximately 30 minutes will be reserved for public comments. The time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but will not exceed 10 minutes. If you have any questions or need a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act for this event, please send your request to Christine Chalk at Christine.chalk@science.doe.gov two weeks, but no later than 48 hours, prior to the event. Closed captions will be enabled. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Those wishing to speak should submit their request at least five days before the meeting. Those not able to attend the meeting or who have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Christine Chalk, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, email to Christine.Chalk@science.doe.gov.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available within 90 days on the Advanced Scientific Computing website at https://science.osti.gov/ascr/ascac.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 2, 2024, by David Borak, Deputy Committee Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Article 8.1(C)(i) of the U.S.-Euratom 123 Agreement permits retransfers of the following to third countries: low enriched uranium, non-nuclear material, equipment, and source material transferred pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom 123 Agreement or of low enriched uranium produced through the use of nuclear material or equipment transferred pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom 123 Agreement, for nuclear fuel cycle activities other than the production of high enriched uranium. Paragraph B.2 of the Agreed Minute to the U.S.-Euratom 123 Agreement requires the United States and Euratom to exchange lists of third countries to which retransfers pursuant to Article 8.1(C)(i) of the Agreement may be made (“advance consent lists”). To be eligible for inclusion on the advance consent lists, third countries must have made effective non-proliferation commitments and, for countries on the U.S. advance consent list, must be a party to a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States. Such agreements are entered into under the authority of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (“123 Agreement”). Paragraph B.4 of the Agreed Minute provides that either the United States or Euratom may delete third countries from its lists following consultations with the other Party.

The Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (with annex and agreed minute), signed at Washington June 29, 1981, expired December 29, 2021. The Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done at Pretoria August 25, 1995, entered into force December 4, 1997, expired December 4, 2022. In the absence of 123 agreements with Egypt and South Africa, these countries are being deleted from the advance consent list of countries eligible to receive retransfers from Euratom of low enriched uranium, non-nuclear material, equipment, and source material transferred, and low enriched uranium produced through the use of nuclear material or equipment transferred for nuclear fuel cycle activities other than the production of high enriched uranium.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 29, 2024, by Corey Hinderstein, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the U.S.-ROK 123 Agreement permits retransfers of the following to areas beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the receiving party if the United States and the ROK agree: nuclear material, moderator material, equipment, and components transferred pursuant to the U.S.-ROK 123 Agreement, and any special fissionable material produced through the use of any such nuclear material, moderator material, or equipment. Subsection 1.a. of Section 3 of the Agreed Minute to the U.S.-ROK 123 Agreement permits the United States and the ROK to retransfer unirradiated low enriched uranium, unirradiated source material, equipment, and components subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the U.S.-ROK 123 Agreement to third countries or destinations. The United States and ROK exchanged lists of third countries or destinations for which retransfers of unirradiated low enriched uranium, unirradiated source material, equipment, and components subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the U.S.-ROK 123 Agreement could be made by the other Party (“advance consent lists”). Subsection 1.a. of Section 3 permits either the United States or the ROK to delete third countries or destinations from either list temporarily or permanently following consultations with and written notice to the other Party.

The Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, signed at Washington June 29, 1981, expired December 29, 2021. The Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done at Pretoria August 25, 1995, entered into force December 4, 1997, expired December 4, 2022. In the absence of 123 agreements with Egypt and South Africa, these countries are being deleted from the advance consent list of countries or destinations eligible to receive retransfers from the ROK of unirradiated low enriched uranium, unirradiated source material, equipment, and components subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the U.S.-ROK 123 Agreement.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 16, 2024, by Corey Hinderstein, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Article 6 of the U.S.-UK 123 Agreement permits retransfers of the following beyond the territory, jurisdiction, or control of the recipient party if the U.S. and the UK agree in writing: material, equipment, sensitive nuclear facilities, or major critical components transferred pursuant to the U.S.-UK 123 Agreement, and special fissionable material produced through the use of nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment, sensitive nuclear facilities, or major critical components so transferred. Subsection A of Section 4 of the Agreed Minute of the U.S.-UK 123 Agreement permits the United States and the UK to retransfer material, other than irradiated nuclear material, and equipment subject to Article 6 of the Agreement to third countries or destinations identified in advance (“advance consent lists”). To be eligible for inclusion on the advance consent lists, third countries or destinations must have made effective non-proliferation commitments and, for countries on the U.S. advance consent list, must be a party to a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States. Such agreements are entered into under the authority of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (“123 agreement”). Subsection C of Section 4 permits either the United States or the UK to delete third countries or destinations from either list temporarily or permanently following consultations with the other Party.

The Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, signed at Washington June 29, 1981, expired December 29, 2021. The Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done at Pretoria August 25, 1995, entered into force December 4, 1997, expired December 4, 2022. In the absence of 123 agreements with Egypt and South Africa, these countries are being deleted from the advance consent list of countries or destinations eligible to receive retransfers from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of byproduct material, non-nuclear material, unirradiated low enriched uranium, unirradiated source material, and equipment subject to Article 6 of the U.S.-UK 123 Agreement.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 26, 2024, by Corey Hinderstein, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The EPA received a petition from the Port Arthur Community Action Network and Environmental Integrity Project dated August 8, 2023, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O1493, issued by TCEQ to Oxbow Calcining in Jefferson County, Texas. On April 12, 2024, the EPA Administrator issued an order denying the petition. The order itself explains the basis for the EPA's decision.

Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than July 8, 2024.

Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

Title: EPA's Safer Choice Program Product and Partner Recognition Activities (Consolidation).

EPA ICR No.: 2692.02.

OMB Control No.: 2070-0221.

ICR status: This ICR is currently approved through May 31, 2025. Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR 9.

Abstract: This ICR renewal covers the information collection activities associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for individuals, businesses, organizations, and government entities participating in or collaborating with EPA's Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) programs (referred to collectively as “the Safer Choice program” in this document unless otherwise indicated). This ICR also includes additional sections for the Safer Choice cleaning service certification and third-party profiler (TPP) solicitations. These components are designed to:

• Improve data efficiency by electronic data collection via a cloud-based Salesforce system called the Safer Choice Community;

• Monitor the public's awareness of the Safer Choice program and the Safer Choice label and DfE logo;

• Clarify the Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards application process and form;

• Describe information collected through the new Safer Choice cleaning service certification program; and,

• Clarify the TPP application process and form.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average of 17 to 58 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected are those that involve a wide range of sectors that participation in the Safer Choice Program including chemical manufactures, paint and coating manufacturing, mechant wholesalers, janitorial services, and environmental consulting firms. The ICR includes a list of potentially affected entities with North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes provided to assist in determining potential applicability.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

EPA Form Numbers: 9600-017, 9600-018, 9600-019, 9600-020, 9600-021, 9600-022, 9600-023, 9600-058, 9600-059, 9600-60, 9600-061.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated number of potential respondents: 4,539.

Total estimated average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 4,511 hours.

Total estimated annual respondent costs: $854,358, which includes an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

There is an increase of 1,279 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This change reflects increase in annual consumer online surveys, which increased from 2,000 to 4,000 annually, the inclusion of a new program, the “Safer Choice Cleaning Service Certification,” and the inclusion of the TPP solicitation process. These changes qualify as a program change.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Throughout this document whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2023-0522. Publicly available docket materials, including the final OCS air permit, the EPA's response to comments and all additional related information, are available electronically in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov.

On December 1, 2023, the EPA Region 2 proposed a draft OCS air permit (draft permit) to Empire Offshore Wind, LLC, to construct and operate an offshore wind farm on Renewable Energy Lease Area OCS-A 0512 and requested public comment on the draft permit. During the public comment period, which ended on January 5, 2024, we received only one comment letter, from Empire Offshore Wind, LLC. The letter's comments addressed only very specific permit conditions and did not raise any substantial questions. The EPA carefully reviewed the comments from Empire Offshore Wind, LLC and made only minor revisions and/or updates to a limited number of the draft permit conditions, and on February 15, 2024, issued the final OCS air permit in accordance with 40 CFR part 55. The EPA provided to the commenter and all attendees at the January 3, 2024 public hearing, among others, notice of this final permit issuance and information regarding the opportunity to appeal the final OCS air permit administratively by filing a petition with the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) within thirty (30) days of the EPA's notice of the final permit decision, consistent with 40 CFR 124.19.

40 CFR 124.19( l )(3)(ii) requires that the EPA provide notice in the Federal Register of any final agency action regarding OCS Air Permits issued pursuant to 40 CFR part 55.

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA provides for judicial review of the final agency action within sixty (60) days from the date on which notice of the action appears in the Federal Register . A petition to the EAB for administrative review is a prerequisite to seeking judicial review. 40 CFR 124.19( l ). Since no such petitions for administrative review were submitted for the Empire Offshore Wind final OCS air permit, no judicial review for this final OCS air permit may be sought. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, this determination to issue a final OCS air permit shall not be subject to later judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.

Since changes were made from draft to the final permit, but no petition for review was filed with the EAB, the final OCS air permit became effective on March 16, 2024, consistent with 40 CFR 124.15(b). This final OCS air permit will expire as provided within its permit conditions.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0355.

Title: Rate-of-Return Reports.

Form Numbers: FCC Form 492.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 35 respondents; 35 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 160, 161, 209(b) and 220 as amended by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 350 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: The filing of FCC Form 492 is required by 47 CFR 65.600 of the Commission's rules. The annual filing of FCC Form 492 is required from the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) collectively for carriers that participate in both its tariffs and revenue-sharing pools and each local exchange carrier that is subject to section 61.38 of the Commission's Rules and that has filed individual access tariffs during the enforcement period, excluding carriers that elected incentive regulation for business data services (BDS) pursuant to the Rate-of-Return BDS Order, WC Docket No. 16-143 et al., Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10403 (2018).

These data provide the necessary detail to enable the Commission to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. The Commission has granted AT&T, Verizon, legacy Qwest, and other similarly-situated carriers forbearance from FCC Form 492-A. See Petition of AT&T Inc. for Forbearance under 47 U.S.C. 160 from Enforcement of Certain of the Commission's Cost Assignment Rules, WC Docket Nos. 07-21, 05-342, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7302 (2008) (AT&T Cost Assignment Forbearance Order).

OMB Control Number: 3060-0807.

Title: Section 51.803 and Supplemental Procedures for Petitions Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities and State, Local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 60 respondents; 60 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 40 hours per requirement.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 252(e)(5) as amended by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 1,600 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: Any interested party seeking preemption of a state commission's jurisdiction based on the state commission's failure to act shall notify the Commission as follows: (1) File with the Secretary of the Commission a detailed petition, supported by an affidavit, that states with specificity the basis for any claim that it has failed to act; and (2) serve the state commission and other parties to the proceeding on the same day that the party serves the petition on the Commission. Within 15 days of filing the petition, the state commission and parties to the proceeding may file a response to the petition. In an OMB-approved Public Notice, DA 97-2540, released December 4, 1997, the Commission set forth procedures for filing petitions for preemption pursuant to section 252(e)(5). Section 252(e)(5) provides that “if a state commission fails to act to carry out its responsibility under this section in any proceeding or other matter under this section, then the Commission shall issue an order preempting the state commission's jurisdiction of the proceeding or matter within 90 days after being notified (or taking notice) of such failure, and shall assume the responsibility of the state commission under this section with respect to the proceeding or matter and act for the state commission.” All of the requirements are used to ensure that petitioners have complied with their obligations under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1186.

Title: Rural Call Completion, WC Docket No. 13-39.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 56 respondents; 56 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 201, 202, 217, 218, 220(a), 251(a), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 217, 218, 220(a), 251(a), 403.

Total Annual Burden: 56 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Needs and Uses: The Commission has found that rural call completion is a continuing problem imposing needless economic and personal costs on local communities, and that continued Commission focus on the issue is warranted. The rural call completion contact information will be used to facilitate industry collaboration to address call completion issues.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1259.

Title: Intermediate Provider Registry, WC Docket No. 13-39.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 100 respondents; 100 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure; one-time reporting requirement; on occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 202(a), 217, and 262 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 202(a), 217, and 262.

Total Annual Burden: 100 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: The Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017 (RCC Act), Public Law 115-129, requires the Commission to establish a registry for intermediate providers and requires intermediate providers register with the Commission before offering to transmit covered voice communications. The information that would continue to be collected through this information collection will be used to implement Congress's direction to the Commission to establish an intermediate provider registry.

Nominations are being sought for individuals who have the expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the committee's objectives. Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of public health, global health, frontline experience and lived experiences relevant to ACD areas, communication science, health systems and prevention research, and public health core capabilities such as data, lab, and workforce. Federal employees will not be considered for membership. Members may be invited to serve for four-year terms. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of ACD objectives. To ensure a diverse committee composition, nominees with front line and field experience at the local, state, tribal and territorial levels are encouraged to apply. This includes nominees with experience working for, and with, community-based organizations and other non-profit organizations. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of the ACD's objectives ( https://www.cdc.gov/faca/committees/acd.html ). Members will be required to attend ACD meetings at least two times per year (virtually or in-person), and contribute time in between meetings for research, consultation, discussion, and writing assignments.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the Committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning of and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for ACD membership each year and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. SGE nominees must be U.S. citizens and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:

• A one-half to one-page cover letter that includes your understanding of, and commitment to, the time and work necessary; one to two sentences on your background and experience; and one to two sentences on the skills/perspective you would bring to the ACD.

• At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency ( e.g., CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.).

• Current curriculum vitae which highlights the experience and work history being sought relevant to the criteria set forth above, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address).

Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.

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

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: Extension of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Generic Clearance for the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality IT Product and Support Teams; Use: The CMS Center for Clinical Standards and Quality (CCSQ) is responsible for administering appropriate information systems so that the public can submit healthcare-related information. While beneficiaries ultimately benefit, the primary users of CCSQ IT Product and Support Teams (CIPST) systems are healthcare facility employees and contractors. They are responsible for the collection and submission of appropriate beneficiary data to CMS to receive merit-based compensation.

The systems that support CCSQ programs includes but is not limited to: End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Reporting System (EQRS), Enterprise Shared Services (ESS), HCQIS ServiceNow (SNOW), Hospital Quality Reporting (HQR), Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (iQIES), Quality Management and Reporting System (QMARS), and Quality Payment Program (QPP).

The generic clearance will allow CMS to gather information to improve information systems that serve CMS audiences. CMS will gather this information using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative consumer research strategies (including formative research studies and methodological tests). CMS implements human-centered methods and activities for the improvement of policies, services, and products. This collection of information is necessary to enable CMS to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with our commitment to improving service delivery.

As information systems and technologies are developed or improved upon, they can be tested and evaluated for end-user feedback regarding utility, usability, and desirability. The overall goal is to apply a human-centered engagement model to maximize the extent to which CIPST can gather ongoing feedback from consumers. Feedback helps engineers and designers arrive at better solutions, therefore minimizing the burden on consumers and meeting their needs and goals.

The activities under this clearance involve voluntary engagement with target CCSQ users to receive design and research feedback. The respondents will be voluntary end-users from self-selected customers, as well as convenience samples. It is our intent that selected respondents will either cover a broad range of customers or include specific characteristics related to certain products or services. All collections of information will allow us to continually refine our processes, systems, and services for the benefit of internal and external stakeholders. Form Number: CMS-10706 (OMB control number: 0938-1397); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Individuals and Private Sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 54,750; Total Annual Responses: 54,750; Total Annual Hours: 17,850. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Brandy Barnette at 410-786-6455.)

Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform. The Committee will discuss biologics license application 761248, for donanemab solution for intravenous infusion, submitted by Eli Lilly and Co., for the treatment of early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease.

FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link. The meeting will include slide presentations with audio and video components to allow the presentation of materials for online participants in a manner that most closely resembles an in-person advisory committee meeting.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Committee. All electronic and written submissions to the Docket (see ADDRESSES ) on or before May 24, 2024, will be provided to the Committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time and will take place entirely through an online meeting platform. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before May 16, 2024. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by May 17, 2024.

For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at fdaoma@fda.hhs.gov or 301-796-4540.

FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jessica Seo (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC T) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ). This meeting notice also serves as notice that, pursuant to 21 CFR 10.19, the requirements in 21 CFR 14.22(b), (f), and (g) relating to the location of advisory committee meetings are hereby waived to allow for this meeting to take place both in-person and using an online meeting platform. This waiver is in the interest of allowing greater transparency and opportunities for public participation, in addition to convenience for advisory committee members, speakers, and guest speakers. The conditions for issuance of a waiver under 21 CFR 10.19 are met.

Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform. The Committee will discuss new drug application 215455, for midomafetamine (MDMA) capsules, submitted by Lykos Therapeutics, for the proposed indication of treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. The Committee will be asked to discuss the overall benefit-risk profile of MDMA, including the potential public health impact.

FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link. The meeting will include slide presentations with audio and video components to allow the presentation of materials for online participants in a manner that most closely resembles an in-person advisory committee meeting.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Committee. All electronic and written submissions to the Docket (see ADDRESSES ) on or before May 23, 2024, will be provided to the Committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. Eastern Time and will take place entirely through an online meeting platform. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before May 17, 2024. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by May 20, 2024.

For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at fdaoma@fda.hhs.gov or 301-796-4540.

FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joyce Frimpong (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ). This meeting notice also serves as notice that, pursuant to 21 CFR 10.19, the requirements in 21 CFR 14.22(b), (f), and (g) relating to the location of advisory committee meetings are hereby waived to allow for this meeting to take place both in-person and using an online meeting platform. This waiver is in the interest of allowing greater transparency and opportunities for public participation, in addition to convenience for advisory committee members, speakers, and guest speakers. The conditions for issuance of a waiver under 21 CFR 10.19 are met.

CDC released updated hepatitis C and hepatitis B screening recommendations to screen all adults aged 18 years and older at least once in a lifetime and all pregnant women during each pregnancy in April 2020 and March 2023, respectively. Screening is an important first step in the viral hepatitis continuum of care and a necessary tool to reach viral hepatitis elimination by 2030.

Additionally, hepatitis C has a life-saving treatment resulting in a cure in >95% of patients. Yet, many patients are not linked to care and complete treatment. Less than 1 in 3 people with health insurance initiated DAA treatment within a year of hepatitis C diagnosis and people with Medicaid were less likely to initiate treatment than those with private insurance. Hepatitis B treatment can reduce hepatitis B viral load, lowering the risk of liver cancer and mortality.

Quality measures are tools to monitor and improve the quality of health care. Scaling up viral hepatitis screening, linkage to care, and access to treatment will ultimately reduce transmission, incidence of new infections, prevent liver cancer and mortality, and allow the U.S. to make strides in reaching viral hepatitis elimination by 2030.

There are currently no viral hepatitis quality measures in the Medicaid Adult Core Set. The Medicaid Adult Core Set is a core set of health care quality measures related to physical and behavioral health for adult Medicaid enrollees. The Adult Core Set encourages standardized reporting by States on a uniform set of measures to drive quality improvement. Since Medicaid provides coverage for a disproportionate number of people with hepatitis B and hepatitis C, OIDP is leading an initiative to develop consensus around clinically meaningful and feasible state level viral hepatitis quality measures to propose to the Medicaid Adult Core Set.

OIDP hosted a Viral Hepatitis Quality Measures Technical Consultation Meeting on March 7, 2024. State panelists from Medicaid and public health departments shared their experience in selection, testing, and implementation of current state viral hepatitis quality measures, as well as recommendations for measures to propose to the Medicaid Adult Core Set. State panelists reached consensus to prioritize the development, use, and adoption of a hepatitis C screening and treatment initiation measure based on the following rationale:

• Clinical and public health insights are high, leading to an understanding of the cascade of care for infected people who access treatment and cure;

• The measure drives screening and linkage to care by translating recently updated CDC recommendations into routine practice in the health care delivery system;

• Data for a screening and treatment initiation measure is available to state Medicaid programs through administrative claims and encounter data, and is consistent and comparable across states; and

• The method of using administrative data sources to represent hepatitis C treatment through pharmacy claims was explained as an acceptable proxy for receipt of treatment.

HHS hereby requests public comment on the clinical significance, usability, feasibility, and likely uptake of hepatitis C screening and hepatitis C treatment initiation quality measures, as well as recommendations with adequate justifications on other feasible viral hepatitis measures to consider.

HHS is seeking responses with adequate justification to the questions listed below.

1. Are you in support of adopting a hepatitis C screening and treatment initiation measure within state Medicaid programs?

a. If you represent a state Medicaid program, what is the likely uptake of this measure?

2. What other measures should HHS consider for testing and proposal to the Medicaid Adult Core Set ( i.e., hepatitis B screening, hepatitis B linkage to care, hepatitis C sustained virological response (SVR))? Please provide support for how that measure is clinically meaningful, feasible, and actionable for state Medicaid programs. What data source or data element can be utilized to calculate the measure?

3. Would it be feasible and clinically meaningful to implement a hepatitis B screening, hepatitis C screening and hepatitis C treatment initiation quality measure within state Medicaid programs? If you represent a state Medicaid program, what is the likely uptake of this measure?

Background: ICCVAM, a congressionally mandated committee, coordinates the development and validation of alternative testing strategies that protect human health and the environment while replacing, reducing, or refining animal use.

ICCVAM's goals include promotion of national and international partnerships between governmental and nongovernmental groups, including academia, industry, advocacy groups, and other key stakeholders. To foster these partnerships ICCVAM initiated annual public forums in 2014 to share information and facilitate direct communication of ideas and suggestions from stakeholders (79 FR 25136).

This year's meeting will be held on May 20 and 21, 2024. NICEATM and ICCVAM members will give presentations on current activities related to the development and validation of alternative test methods and approaches.

There will be opportunities for participants to ask clarifying or follow-up questions of the ICCVAM members about their presentations. Instructions for submitting these questions will be provided to webcast viewers prior to the event. The agenda will also include time for public oral statements relevant to the ICCVAM mission and current activities from participants who have registered to do so in advance.

Preliminary Agenda and Other Meeting Information: A preliminary agenda will be posted by May 3 at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvamforum-2024. Interested individuals are encouraged to visit this web page to stay abreast of the most current meeting information.

Meeting and Registration: This meeting is open to the public. The public may attend the meeting at NIH, where attendance is limited only by the space available, or view remotely by webcast. Those planning to attend the meeting in person are encouraged to register at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvamforum-2024 by May 15, 2024, to facilitate planning for appropriate meeting space. Registration for the webcast is required and is open through 4:30 p.m. EDT on May 21, 2024, at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvamforum-2024. Registrants will receive instructions on how to access and participate in the webcast in the email confirming their registration.

NIH visitor and security information is available at http://www.nih.gov/about/visitor/index.htm. Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation to participate in this event should contact Nicole Kleinstreuer at phone: 919-407-1609 or email: nicole.kleinstreuer@nih.gov. TTY users should contact the Federal TTY Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Requests should be made at least five business days in advance of the event.

Request for Oral Public Statements: In addition to time for clarifying or follow-up questions following scheduled presentations, time will be allotted during the meeting for oral public statements with associated slides on topics relevant to ICCVAM's mission. Separate registration for those wishing to provide public statements is required and is open through May 15, 2024, at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvamforum-2024. Any meeting attendee or webcast viewer may ask clarifying questions during the appropriate times in the agenda. The additional registration is only required for those who wish to give separate public statements. The number and length of presentations may be limited based on available time. Submitters will be identified by their name and affiliation and/or sponsoring organization, if applicable. Participants registered to present oral public statements must email their statement to ICCVAMquestions@niehs.nih.gov by May 15, 2024, to allow time for review by NICEATM and ICCVAM and posting to the meeting page prior to the forum. Persons submitting public statements and/or associated slides should include their name, affiliation (if any), mailing address, telephone, email, and sponsoring organization (if any) with the document. Guidelines for public statements are at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/guidelines_public_comments_508.pdf. Persons presenting oral public statements will be contacted to arrange the logistics of their presentations. Presenters should plan for their presentation to run seven minutes or less; each public statement presentation will be followed by up to three minutes to allow for clarifying or follow-up questions. Time allotted for presentations and follow-up questions may be reduced depending on the time available.

Written statements on topics relevant to ICCVAM's mission may be submitted to support an oral public statement or as standalone documents. These should be emailed to ICCVAMquestions@niehs.nih.gov by May 15, 2024. Public statements received prior to the May 15 deadline will be distributed to NICEATM and ICCVAM members before the meeting. Written public statements received after the deadline may be reviewed by NICEATM and ICCVAM at a future date. Materials submitted to accompany oral public statements or standalone written statements should include the submitters name, affiliation (if any), mailing address, telephone, email, and sponsoring organization (if any) with the document. Guidelines for public statements are at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/guidelines_public_comments_508.pdf.

Responses to this notice are voluntary. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in statements submitted in response to this notice or presented during the meeting. This request for input is for planning purposes only and is not a solicitation for applications or an obligation on the part of the U.S. Government to provide support for any ideas identified in response to the request. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for its use of that information.

Background Information on ICCVAM and NICEATM: ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 17 Federal regulatory and research agencies that require, use, generate, or disseminate toxicological and safety testing information. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative safety testing methods and integrated testing strategies with regulatory applicability. ICCVAM also promotes the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of testing methods that more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and replace, reduce, or refine animal use.

The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285 l -3) establishes ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and provides the authority for ICCVAM involvement in activities relevant to the development of alternative test methods. Additional information about ICCVAM can be found at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvam.

NICEATM administers ICCVAM, provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM-related activities, and conducts and publishes analyses and evaluations of data from new, revised, and alternative testing approaches. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved testing approaches applicable to the needs of U.S. Federal agencies. NICEATM and ICCVAM welcome the public nomination of new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies for validation studies and technical evaluations. Additional information about NICEATM can be found at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/niceatm.

FEMA's floodplain management regulations are found at 44 CFR part 9. Part 9 sets forth the policy, procedure, and responsibilities to implement and enforce Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. 1 Part 9 sets forth an eight-step process which FEMA must follow when taking actions in floodplains  2 which have the potential to affect floodplains or their occupants, or which are subject to potential harm by location in floodplains. 3 FEMA completes the eight-step process for each action it is taking in a floodplain as part of the comprehensive environmental and historic preservation (EHP) compliance reviews that are required for all projects funded under its disaster and non-disaster grant programs. 4

For such actions, FEMA is required to take the following steps: (1) determine whether the proposed action is located in the 100-year floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical actions), and whether it has the potential to affect or be affected by the floodplain;  5 (2) notify the public at the earliest possible time of the intent to carry out an action in a floodplain, and involve the affected and interested public in the decision-making process; (3) identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating the proposed action in a floodplain (including alternative sites, actions and the “no action” option); (4) identify the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the occupancy or modification of floodplains and the potential direct and indirect support of floodplain development that could result from the proposed action; (5) minimize the potential adverse impacts and support to or within floodplains to be identified under Step 4, restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains; (6) reevaluate the proposed action to determine first, if it is still practicable in light of its exposure to flood hazards, the extent to which it will aggravate the hazards to others, and its potential to disrupt floodplain values and second, if alternatives preliminarily rejected at Step 3 are practicable in light of the information gained in Steps 4 and 5; (7) prepare and provide the public with a finding and public explanation of any final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative; and (8) review the implementation and post-implementation phases of the proposed action to ensure that the minimization requirements are fully implemented. 6

FEMA completes the eight-step process for each action it is taking in a floodplain as part of the comprehensive environmental and historic preservation (EHP) compliance reviews that are required for all projects funded under its disaster and non-disaster grant programs. 7 The implementing guidance for E.O. 11988 (Guidelines) allows for an altered or shortened decision-making floodplain evaluation “class review” process for certain routine or recurring actions, known as repetitive actions. 8 Class reviews or programmatic approaches allow for efficient and effective ways to meet EHP requirements, including floodplain reviews.

In considering whether to undertake such a review, the Guidelines instruct Federal agencies to examine past actions that have been reviewed on an individual basis with public notice and opportunity to comment. 9 If the individual reviews have indicated uniformly that the actions would not have an adverse impact individually or cumulatively on floodplain values placing property and persons at risk, and little or no public comments to the contrary were received, a class review to streamline agency coordination and processing efforts may be appropriate. 10 Agencies may conduct class reviews of routine or recurring actions when: (1) consideration of whether to locate in a floodplain is substantially similar; (2) there is no practicable alternative(s), consistent with any Executive Orders and applicable agency codes, to siting in a floodplain for each action within the class; and (3) all practical measures to minimize harm to the floodplain are included in the review criteria that, if followed, will minimize any adverse impacts that may be associated with the individual actions covered in the class review. 11

FEMA reviewed six project categories from 13 grant programs and determined they were appropriate for the shortened class review procedures. 12 For the specific project categories, FEMA completed steps 3-6 of the eight-step process by cumulatively considering the potential that the project types might directly or indirectly have adverse impacts to floodplains, might promote floodplain development directly or indirectly, and whether there could be any practicable alternative locations or actions. FEMA determined that the projects would not have direct or indirect adverse impacts to floodplains, would not promote floodplain development directly or indirectly, and that there were no practicable alternatives outside the floodplain. On October 4, 2023, FEMA published an initial notice of its determination; the comment period closed November 3, 2023, with no comments received. 13

Step 7 of the eight-step process requires FEMA to prepare and provide the public with a finding and public explanation of any final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative for the identified actions. 14 The final notice is required to include the following: (1) a statement of why the proposed action must be located in an area affecting or affected by a floodplain or a wetland; (2) a description of all significant facts considered in making this determination; (3) a list of the alternatives considered; (4) a statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable State and local floodplain protection standards; (5) a statement indicating how the action affects or is affected by the floodplain and/or wetland, and how mitigation is to be achieved; (6) identification of the responsible official or organization for implementation and monitoring of the proposed action, and from whom further information can be obtained; and (7) a map of the area or a statement that such map is available for public inspection, including the location at which such map may be inspected and a telephone number to call for information. 15

FEMA reviewed six project categories that must be located in the floodplain because the project categories involve modifications of structures or features that currently exist in the floodplain. 16 Within these project categories, FEMA conducted a review of 570 project types funded through the Grant Programs Directorate  17 (GPD) from 2008 to 2023 that previously received floodplain reviews on an individual basis. The results of those individual reviews indicate that these identified types of activities will not have an adverse impact on floodplain values and that the activities should remain in the floodplain because they support existing facilities or structures. FEMA did not receive public comments suggesting that there would be impacts or that the activities should not be located in the floodplain. FEMA did not consider alternative sites outside of the floodplain because the projects are small-scale security improvements or modifications made to existing facilities or structures. There are no practicable alternatives because the existing facility or structure would need to be relocated outside the floodplain and no alternative actions would serve the same purpose and have less potential to affect or be affected by the floodplain.

FEMA will condition grant funding for the listed activities in accordance with local floodplain ordinances and applicable codes and standards. The activities will not alter floodplain characteristics nor materially extend the life of existing structures or facilities. The activities will not modify the floodplain or increase the risk of flood loss. Construction associated with the listed activities may create short term, direct adverse impacts through the discharge of runoff water containing pollutants and sediment into a floodplain. The installation of temporary structures may create temporary, direct impacts to the floodplain by affecting flow characteristics and by capturing debris. However, mitigation of the short-term, direct adverse impacts associated with construction activities will be achieved through the application of typical construction practices including runoff controls.

For covered activities in participating National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) communities, FEMA will require a floodplain development permit or documentation from the local floodplain administrator that the work is consistent with NFIP requirements. 18 FEMA will include a condition for all projects located in the floodplain that the Recipient and sub recipient must coordinate with the local floodplain administrator/permitting official to obtain any required permitting. Further information about these activities can be obtained from GPD, at GPDEHPinfo@fema.dhs.gov. When FEMA provides funding for these activities, a map of the location may be available at GPDEHPinfo@fema.dhs.gov.

This serves as FEMA's final public notice that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative for the six categories of activities in the thirteen specified grant programs identified in its October 4, 2023 initial notice. 19 Pursuant to 44 CFR 9.12(f), FEMA will wait 15 days from the date of this determination to carry out any actions subject to this notice.

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

Title of Information Collection: —HUD FOIAXpress (FMS2) Tracking System FOIA Portal.

OMB Approval Number: 2501-Pending.

Type of Request: New Collection.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Respondents have the ability to submit their electronic requests through the Public Access Link. HUD accepts electronic submissions from respondents through the Public Access Link, which would reduce the burden on the public.

The Department has used this information to provide appropriate responses specific to the inquiries. In addition, we have been able to create specific template responses for like inquiries to ensure a rapid response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SESAC conducts its operations in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The SESAC provides recommendations and advice to the Director of the USGS (Director), and functions solely as an advisory body. The SESAC advises the Director on matters relating to USGS's participation in the NEHRP, including the USGS's roles, goals, and objectives within the NEHRP, its capabilities and research needs, guidance on achieving major objectives, and establishing and measuring performance goals.

The SESAC includes up to 10 members not employed by the Federal Government, who are qualified in the seismic sciences and other appropriate fields involved in national earthquake research activities. Selection of individuals for the SESAC shall be based solely on established records of distinguished service, and the Director shall ensure that a reasonable cross-section of views and expertise is represented. Members are appointed as a special Government employees (SGEs) and will be required, prior to appointment, to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report in order to avoid involvement in real or apparent conflicts of interest. You may find a copy of the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report at the following website: https://www.doi.gov/ethics/special-government-employees/financial-disclosure. Additionally, after appointment, members appointed as SGEs will be required to meet applicable financial disclosure and ethics training requirements. Please contact 202-208-7960 or DOI_Ethics@sol.doi.gov with any questions about the ethics requirements for members appointed as SGEs.

In selecting individuals to serve on the SESAC, the Director shall seek and give due consideration to recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, professional societies, and other appropriate organizations. SESAC members are appointed for staggered terms to ensure continuity. Nominations received through this call may be used to fill future vacancies on the SESAC. Nominations will be reviewed by the USGS, and additional information may be requested from nominees. Final selection and appointment of SESAC members will be made by the Director.

The SESAC meets approximately 1-2 times per year. SESAC members will serve without compensation, but travel and per diem costs will be provided by the USGS. The USGS will also provide necessary support services to the SESAC. SESAC meetings are open to the public.

Nominations may come from individuals, employers, associations, professional organizations, or other geospatial organizations. Nominations should include a resume or curriculum vitae providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications sufficient for the USGS to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the SESAC and permit the nominated person to be contacted. Nominations may optionally include supporting letters from employers, associations, professional organizations, and/or other organizations.

Additional information about the SESAC and the nomination process is posted on the SESAC web page.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. ch. 10.

Executive Order (E.O.) 13112 authorized the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to provide interdepartmental coordination, planning, and leadership for the Federal Government on the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species. This authorization was reiterated in E.O. 13751. NISC is currently comprised of the senior-most leadership of twelve Federal Departments/Agencies and four Executive Offices of the President. The Co-chairs of NISC are the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) advises NISC. NISC is requesting nominations for individuals to serve on the ISAC.

NISC provides high-level interdepartmental coordination of Federal invasive species actions and works with other Federal and non-Federal groups to address invasive species issues at the national level. NISC duties, consistent with E.O. 13751, are to provide national leadership necessary to coordinate, sustain and expand efforts to safeguard the interest of the United States through the prevention, eradication and control of invasive species through the restoration of ecosystems and other assets impacted by invasive species. These duties and work priorities are further identified and outlined in NISC's annual Work Plans.

ISAC is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. ch. 10). At the request of NISC, ISAC provides advice to NISC members on topics related to NISC's duties as described above, and emerging issues prioritized by the Administration. As a multi-stakeholder advisory committee, ISAC is intended to play a key role in recommending plans and actions to be taken in different sectors, geographies, and/or scales to accomplish the activities set forth in NISC Work Plans. It is hoped that, collectively, ISAC will represent the views of the broad range of individuals and communities knowledgeable of and affected by invasive species. NISC is requesting nominations for individuals to serve on the ISAC.

Prospective members of ISAC should meet the following criteria:

1. knowledge related to the prevention, eradication, and/or control of invasive species;

2. familiarity with relevant Federal government programs and policy making procedures, as well as their interface with non-federal entities;

3. experience in advising individuals in leadership positions;

4. demonstrated ability to network with and/or represent interests of their peer-community of interest; and

5. teamwork, project management, and communication skills.

ISAC members need not be scientists. Membership from a wide range of disciplines and professional sectors is encouraged. At this time, we are particularly interested in applications from representatives of: non-Federal government agencies ( e.g., State, territorial, Tribal, local); academia, research institutions, and scientific societies; the private sector and industry/trade associations; landowners, farmers, ranchers, foresters and other resource users; public health specialists; regional organizations and citizen scientists, recreationists, and other public interest groups. Additionally, ISAC will include one representative from each of the following organizations, serving in a non-voting, “adviser” capacity: the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA); the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD); the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA); the National Plant Board (NPB); The Native American Fish and Wildlife Society (NAFWS); and the North American Invasive Species Management Association (NAISMA).

After consultation with the other members of NISC, the Secretary of the Interior will appoint members to ISAC. Members will be selected based on their individual qualifications as detailed in their nomination package, as well as the overall need to achieve a balanced representation of viewpoints, subject matter expertise, regional knowledge, and representation of communities of interest. ISAC member terms are limited to two (2) years from their date of appointment to ISAC. Following completion of their first term, an ISAC member may request consideration for reappointment (see How to Nominate section below); however, reappointment is NOT guaranteed.

ISAC will hold approximately one or two in-person or virtual meetings per year. Between meetings, ISAC members are expected to participate in committee work via web-based meetings, teleconferences, and email exchanges. Members of the ISAC and its subcommittees serve without pay. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services of the ISAC, members may be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the government service, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703. Employees of the Federal Government ARE NOT eligible for nomination or appointment to ISAC.

Individuals who are federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated special Government employees (SGEs), rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.

As appropriate, certain ISAC members may be appointed as SGEs. Please be aware that applicants selected to serve as SGEs will be required, prior to appointment, to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report, to avoid involvement in real or apparent conflicts of interest. Applicants can access a copy of the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report at: https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/OGE%20Forms/2026049D943E0C34852585B6005A23CE/$FILE/OGE%20Form%20450%20Dec%202023%20Accessible.pdf?open.

Additionally, after appointment, members appointed as SGEs will be required to meet applicable financial disclosure and ethics training requirements. Please contact (202) 208-7960 or DOI_Ethics@sol.doi.gov with any questions about the ethics requirements for members appointed as SGEs.

Nomination packets should include a resume that provides an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, which specifically relate to the criteria stated in this notice (see Membership Criteria section, para. 1). Included content should enable the Department of the Interior to evaluate the nominee's potential to meet the membership requirements of the Committee. To enable the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member, all nomination packets must include, at a minimum, the nominee's name and a valid email address. Nominees are strongly encouraged to include supporting letters from employers, associations, professional organizations, and/or other organizations that indicate support for the nominee by a meaningful constituency. Nomination packets should be no more than twelve pages.

In addition to submitting the nomination packet as described, current ISAC members seeking reappointment must also provide details of their accomplishments and contributions which support their selection for a second term. Again, reappointment is NOT guaranteed.

All nominations must designate which stakeholder group or community the nominee will represent (see Membership Criteria above, for stakeholder groups and required qualifications). All required documents and any letters of support must be submitted in a SINGLE nomination package. Incomplete packets, packets missing the nominee's contact information, or those with documents submitted separately WILL NOT be considered.

Nominations must be received no later than June 7, 2024. Electronic nomination packages are preferred and should be sent to invasive_species@ios.doi.gov. As necessary, hard copy nominations can be sent to Stanley W. Burgiel, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council (OS/NISC), Regular Mail: 1849 C Street NW (Mailstop 3530), Washington, DC, 20240.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. ch. 10.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 15, 2024, Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, LLC, 7631 East Indian School Road, Suite 201, Scottsdale, Arizona 85251-3607, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for distribution to their customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

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

This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2024, allowing for a 60-day comment period. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Fee Waiver Request.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is EOIR-26A, Executive Office for Immigration Review, United States Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: An individual submitting an appeal or motion to the Board of Immigration Appeals. An individual submitting an application or motion to the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Attorneys and qualified representatives representing an alien in immigration proceedings before EOIR. The obligation to respond is required to obtain/retain a benefit (fee waiver).

Abstract: The information on the fee waiver request form is used by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge to determine whether the requisite fee for an application, motion or appeal will be waived due to an individual's financial situation.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated number of respondents for the Form EOIR-26A is 2,124. The estimated time per response is 1 hour.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual burden hours for this collection is 2,124 hours.

7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: There are no capital or start-up costs associated with this information collection. The estimated public cost is zero.

If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, which are provided to BLS by State Workforce Agencies, are used by BLS as a sampling frame for its establishment surveys; for publishing of accurate current estimates of employment for the US, states, counties, and metropolitan areas; and publishing quarterly census totals of local establishment counts, employment, and wages. The Bureau of Economic Analysis uses the data to produce accurate personal income data in a timely matter for the US, States, and local areas. Finally, the data is critical to the Employment Training Administration to administer unemployment insurance programs. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2024 (89 FR 8441).

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

Agency: DOL-BLS.

Title of Collection: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).

OMB Control Number: 1220-0012.

Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 53.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 212.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 748,800 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is being submitted for the Department to collect data on state practices pursuant to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program under section 239(c) of title II, chapter 2 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq. ). There is currently no comprehensive collection of information regarding the organization and practices of State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) regarding how the TAA Program is administered.

The submissions will be used by Employment and Training Administration (ETA) staff to collect information regarding SWA administration and operations of the TAA Program only to evaluate best practices. Failure to collect this information would prevent the Department from identifying the most effective mechanisms for increasing program efficiency. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2024 (89 FR 10100).

Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

Agency: DOL-ETA.

Title of Collection: Trade Adjustment Assistance Administrative Collection of States (TAAACS).

OMB Control Number: 1205-0540.

Affected Public: State, local, and Tribal governments.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 52.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 52.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 312 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, the collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it.

Seven paragraphs in the Underground Construction Standard (“the Standard”), 29 CFR 1926.800, require employers to post warning signs or notices during underground construction; these paragraphs are (b)(3), (i)(3), (j)(1)(vi)(A), (m)(2)(ii), (o)(2), (q)(11), and (t)(1)(iv)(B). The warning signs and notices required by these paragraphs enable employers to effectively alert workers to the presence of hazards or potential hazards at the job site, thereby preventing worker exposure to hazards or potential hazards associated with underground construction that could cause death or serious harm.

Paragraph (t)(3)(xxi) of the Standard requires employers to inspect and load test hoists when they install them, and at least annually thereafter. They must also inspect, and load test a hoist after making any repairs or alterations to it that affect the structural integrity, and after tripping a safety device on the hoist. Employers must also prepare a certification record of each inspection and load test that includes specified information and maintain the most recent certification record until they complete the construction project.

Establishing and maintaining a written record of the most recent inspection and load test alerts equipment mechanics to problems identified during the inspection. Prior to returning the equipment to service, employers can review the records to ensure that the mechanics performed the necessary repairs and maintenance. Accordingly, by using only equipment that is in safe working order, employers will prevent severe injury and death to the equipment operators and other workers who work near the equipment. In addition, these records provide the most efficient means for OSHA compliance officers to determine that an employer performed the required inspections and load tests, thereby assuring that the equipment is safe to operate.

Paragraph (j)(3) of the Standard mandates that employers develop records for air quality tests performed under paragraph (j), including air quality tests required by paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(A) through (j)(1)(iii)(A), (j)(1)(iii)(B), (j)(1)(iii)(C), (j)(1)(iii)(D), (j)(1)(iv), (j)(1)(v)(A), (j)(1)(v)(B), and (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(v). Paragraph (j) also requires that air quality records include specified information, and that employers maintain the records until the underground construction project is complete. They must also make the records available to OSHA compliance officers on request.

Maintaining records of air quality tests allows employers to document atmospheric hazards, ascertain the effectiveness of controls (especially ventilation) and implement additional controls if necessary. Accordingly, these requirements prevent serious injury and death to workers who work on underground construction projects. In addition, these records provide an efficient means for workers to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of an employer's exposure reduction program, and for OSHA compliance officers to determine those employers performed the required tests and implemented appropriate controls.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.

OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in Underground Construction Standard. The agency is requesting an adjustment increase in burden hours from 77,616 hours to 77,618 hours, a difference of 2 hours. This slight increase is due the result of a rounding inconsistency.

OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Underground Construction Standard.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0067.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.

Number of Respondents: 461.

Number of Responses: 1,172,939.

Frequency of Responses: On occasion.

Average Time per Response: Varies.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 77,618.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $165,600.

You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax), if your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2011-0029). You may supplement electronic submission by uploading document files electronically.

Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information ( e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this website. All submission, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access the docket is available at the website's “User Tips” link.

Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq. ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393).

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) whether the proposed information collections are necessary for NARA to properly perform its functions; (b) NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections and its accuracy; (c) ways NARA could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it collects; (d) ways NARA could minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, including through information technology; and (e) whether these collections affects small businesses. We will summarize any comments you submit and include the summary in our request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, NARA solicits comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Use of NARA Official Seals and/or Logos.

OMB number: 3095-0052.

Agency form number: N/A.

Type of review: Regular.

Affected public: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government.

Estimated number of respondents: 37.

Estimated time per response: 15 minutes.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 9 hours.

Abstract: The authority for this information collection is contained in 36 CFR 1200.8. NARA's three official seals are the National Archives and Records Administration seal; the National Archives seal; and the Nationals Archives Trust Fund Board seal. The official seals are used to authenticate various copies of official records in our custody and for other official NARA business. Occasionally, when criteria are met, we will permit the public and other Federal agencies to use our official seals. A written request must be submitted to use the official seals, which we approve or deny using specific criteria.

The NRC is reviewing an exemption request from Constellation, dated April 5, 2024. Constellation is requesting an exemption, pursuant to section 72.7 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), in paragraphs 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 that require Constellation to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1. If approved, the exemption would allow Constellation to maintain three loaded and to load five new MPC-89-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at the LGS ISFSI in a storage condition where the terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, are not met.

The LGS is located in Limerick Township of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) southeast of the Borough of Pottstown. Unit 1 began operating in 1986 and Unit 2 began operating in 1990. Constellation has been storing spent fuel in an ISFSI at the LGS under a general license as authorized by 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites.” Constellation currently uses the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System under CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in a specific MPC ( i.e., MPC-89) at the LGS ISFSI.

The CoC is the NRC approved design for each dry cask storage system. The proposed action would exempt the applicant from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 only as these requirements pertain to the use of the MPC-89-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System for the three already loaded systems and the near-term planned loading of five new canisters. The exemption would allow Constellation to maintain loaded and to load five new MPC-89-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at the LGS ISFSI, despite the MPC-89-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System not being in compliance with the terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1.

The HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System CoC provides the requirements, conditions, and operating limits necessary for use of the system to store spent fuel. Holtec International (Holtec), the designer and manufacturer of the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, developed a variant of the design with CBS for the MPC-89, known as MPC-89-CBS. Holtec originally implemented the CBS variant design under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.48, “Changes, tests, and experiments,” which allows licensees to make changes to cask designs without a CoC amendment under certain conditions (listed in 10 CFR 72.48(c)). After evaluating the specific changes to the cask designs, the NRC determined that Holtec erred when it implemented the CBS variant design under 10 CFR 72.48, as this was not the type of change allowed without a CoC amendment. For this reason, the NRC issued three Severity Level IV violations to Holtec. Prior to the issuance of the violations, Constellation had already loaded three MPC-89-CBS in a HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, which are safely in storage on the LGS ISFSI pad. Additionally, Constellation plans to load five new MPC-89-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System beginning in August 2024. This exemption considers the storage of the already loaded systems and the near-term planned loading of the five canisters with the CBS variant basket design.

Constellation requested this exemption because Constellation is currently out of compliance with NRC requirements, resulting from the previous loading of spent fuel into a storage system with the CBS variant basket design. This exemption would allow three already loaded MPC-89-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System to remain in storage at the LGS ISFSI. The applicant also requested the exemption in order to allow the LGS to load five new MPC-89-CBS in HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at the LGS ISFSI for the future loading campaign beginning in August 2024.

Approval of the exemption request would allow Constellation to effectively manage the spent fuel pool margin and capacity to enable refueling and offloading fuel from the reactor. It would also allow Constellation to effectively manage the availability of the specialized workforce and equipment needed to support competing fuel loading and operational activities at the LGS and other Constellation sites.

This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of granting an exemption from the terms, conditions, and specifications in CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1. The exemption would allow three loaded MPC-89-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System to remain loaded at the LGS ISFSI. The exemption also would allow a near-term loading of five new MPC-89-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System and allow the MPC-89-CBS to be maintained in storage at the LGS ISFSI.

The potential environmental impacts of storing spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved storage systems have been documented in previous assessments. On July 18, 1990, the NRC amended 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The EA for the 1990 final rule analyzed the potential environmental impacts of using NRC-approved storage casks. The EA for the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, published in 2015, tiers off of the EA issued for the July 18, 1990, final rule. “Tiering” off earlier EAs is a standard process encouraged by the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) that entails the use of impact analyses of previous EAs to bound the impacts of a proposed action where appropriate. The Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Considering the specific design requirements for the accident conditions, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would not be significant.

The exemptions requested by Constellation at the LGS site as they relate to CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, for the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System are limited to the use of the CBS variant basket design only for the already loaded three canisters and near-term planned loading of five canisters utilizing the CBS variant basket design. The staff has determined that this change in the basket will not result in either radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the issuance of CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1. If the exemption is granted, there will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluents released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

The staff considered the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative (denial of the exemption request) would require Constellation to unload spent fuel from the MPC-89-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System to bring it in compliance with the CoC terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1. Unloading the cask would subject station personnel to additional radiation exposure, generate additional contaminated waste, increase the risk of a possible fuel handling accident, and increase the risk of a possible heavy load handling accident. Furthermore, the removed spent fuel would need to be placed in the spent fuel pool, where it would remain until it could be loaded into an approved storage cask. Delay in the loading of this spent fuel into other casks could affect Constellation's ability to effectively manage the spent fuel pool capacity and reactor fuel offloading. Not allowing the planned future loading campaign could also affect Constellation's ability to manage pool capacity, reactor fuel offloading, and refueling. It could also pose challenges to spent fuel heat removal and impact the availability of the specialized workforce and equipment needed to support competing fuel loading and operational activities at the LGS and other Constellation sites. The NRC has determined that the no-action alternative would result in undue potential human health and safety impacts that could be avoided by proceeding with the proposed exemption, especially given that the staff has concluded in NRC's Safety Determination Memorandum, issued with respect to the enforcement action against Holtec regarding these violations, that fuel can be stored safely in the MPC-89-CBS canisters.

The NRC provided the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) a copy of this draft EA for review by an email dated April 29, 2024. On May 1, 2024, PDEP provided its concurrence by email.

The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, which implement NEPA. Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC finds that the proposed action of granting the exemption from the regulations in 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11) and 72.214, which require the licensee to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC, in this case limited to past and specific future loadings of baskets with the CBS variant design, would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a FONSI is appropriate, and an environmental impact statement is not warranted.

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

The text of the exemption is attached.

Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (Constellation) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30, which authorize operation of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (QCNPS) in Cordova, Illinois, pursuant to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” The licenses provide, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now or hereafter in effect.

Consistent with 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites,” a general license is issued for the storage of spent fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at power reactor sites to persons authorized to possess or operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 50. Constellation is authorized to operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 50 and holds a 10 CFR part 72 general license for storage of spent fuel at the QCNPS ISFSI. Under the terms of the general license, Constellation stores spent fuel at its QCNPS ISFSI using the HI-STORM 100 Cask System in accordance with Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision No. 1.

By a letter dated March 15, 2024 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System [ADAMS] Accession No. ML24075A001), Constellation requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 that require QCNPS to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision No. 1 (ML16041A233). If approved, Constellation's exemption request would accordingly allow QCNPS to load four Multi-Purpose Canisters (MPC) with an unapproved variant basket design with continuous basket shims (CBS) ( i.e., MPC-68M-CBS) in the HI-STORM 100 Cask System, beginning June 2024, and thus, to load the systems in a storage condition where the terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision No. 1 are not met.

Constellation currently uses the HI-STORM 100 Cask System under CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision No. 1, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in MPC-68M at the QCNPS ISFSI. Holtec International (Holtec), the designer and manufacturer of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System, developed a variant of the design with CBS for the MPC-68M, known as MPC-68M-CBS. Holtec performed a non-mechanistic tip-over analysis with favorable results and implemented the CBS variant design under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.48, “Changes, tests, and experiments,” which allows licensees to make changes to cask designs without a CoC amendment under certain conditions (listed in 10 CFR 72.48(c)). After evaluating the specific changes to the cask designs, the NRC determined that Holtec erred when it implemented the CBS variant design under 10 CFR 72.48, as this is not the type of change allowed without a CoC amendment. For this reason, the NRC issued three Severity Level IV violations to Holtec (ML24016A190).

Constellation's near-term loading campaign for the QCNPS ISFSI includes loading four MPC-68M-CBS in the HI-STORM 100 Cask System beginning in June 2024. While Holtec was required to submit a CoC amendment to the NRC to seek approval of the CBS variant design, such a process will not be completed in time to inform decisions for this near-term loading campaign. Therefore, Constellation submitted this exemption request to allow for the future loading of four new MPC-68M-CBS beginning in June 2024, at the QCNPS ISFSI. This exemption is limited to the use of four MPC-68M-CBS in the HI-STORM 100 Cask System for the specific near-term planned loading beginning June 2024.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of 10 CFR part 72 as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest.

This exemption would allow Constellation to load four MPC-68M-CBS in the HI-STORM 100 Cask System beginning June 2024 at its QCNPS ISFSI in a storage condition where the terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision No. 1, are not met. Constellation is requesting an exemption from the provisions in 10 CFR part 72 that require the licensee to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC for the approved cask model it uses. Section 72.7 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 72. This authority to grant exemptions is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is not otherwise inconsistent with NRC's regulations or other applicable laws. Additionally, no other law prohibits the activities that would be authorized by the exemption. Therefore, the NRC concludes that there is no statutory prohibition on the issuance of the requested exemption, and the NRC is authorized to grant the exemption by law.

This exemption would allow Constellation to load four MPC-68M-CBS in the HI-STORM 100 Cask System beginning June 2024 at the QCNPS ISFSI in a storage condition where the terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision No. 1, are not met. In support of its exemption request, Constellation asserts that issuance of the exemption would not endanger life or property because the administrative controls the applicant has in place prevent a tip-over or handling event and that the containment boundary would be maintained in such an event. Constellation relies, in part, on the approach in the NRC's Safety Determination Memorandum (ML24018A085). The NRC issued this Safety Determination Memorandum to address whether, with respect to the enforcement action against Holtec regarding this violation, there was any need to take an immediate action for the cask systems that were already loaded with non-compliant basket designs. The Safety Determination Memorandum documents a risk-informed approach concluding that, during the design basis event of a non-mechanistic tip-over, the fuel in the basket in the MPC-68M-CBS remains in a subcritical condition.

Constellation also provided site-specific technical information, including information explaining why the use of the approach in the NRC's Safety Determination Memorandum is appropriate for determining the safe use of the CBS variant baskets at the QCNPS ISFSI. Specifically, Constellation described that the analysis of the tip-over design basis event that is relied upon in the NRC's Safety Determination Memorandum, which demonstrates that the MPC confinement barrier is maintained, is documented in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System CoC No. 1014, Amendment 8, Revision No. 1, that is used at the QCNPS site. Constellation also described its administrative controls for handling of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System at the QCNPS ISFSI to prevent a tip-over or handling event. Those controls include operational procedures that demonstrate that the system is handled with a single failure proof device, designed in accordance with ANSI N14.6, “Radioactive Materials—Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10 000 Pounds (4500 kg) or More,” for heavy load lifting component, inside of the Reactor Buildings and during transport to the ISFSI. In addition, the transporter employs redundant drop features.

Additionally, Constellation provided specific information from QCNPS's 72.212 Evaluation Report, Revision 17, indicating that during the design basis event of a non-mechanistic tip-over, QCNPS's ISFSI would meet the requirements in 10 CFR 72.104, “Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or MRS,” and 72.106, “Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS.” Specifically, Constellation described that, in the highly unlikely event of a tip-over, any potential fuel damage from a non-mechanistic tip-over event would be localized, the confinement barrier would be maintained, and the shielding material would remain intact. Coupled with the distance of the QCNPS ISFSI to the site area boundary, Constellation concluded that compliance with 72.104 and 72.106 is not impacted by approving this exemption request.

The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by Constellation and concludes that issuance of the exemption would not endanger life or property because the administrative controls that Constellation has in place at the QCNPS ISFSI sufficiently minimize the possibility of a tip-over or handling event, and that the containment boundary would be maintained in such an event. The staff confirmed that these administrative controls comply with the technical specifications and UFSAR for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System CoC No. 1014, Amendment 8, Revision No. 1, that is used at the QCNPS site. In addition, the staff confirmed that the information provided by Constellation regarding the QCNPS's 72.212 Evaluation Report, Revision 17, demonstrates that the consequences of normal and accident conditions would be within the regulatory limits of the 10 CFR 72.104 and 10 CFR 72.106. The staff also determined that the requested exemption is not related to any aspect of the physical security or defense of the QCNPS ISFSI; therefore, granting the exemption would not result in any potential impacts to common defense and security.

For these reasons, the NRC staff has determined that under the requested exemption, the storage system will continue to meet the safety requirements of 10 CFR part 72 and the offsite dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and, therefore, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.

The proposed exemption would allow Constellation to load four MPC-68M-CBS in the HI-STORM 100 Cask System beginning in June 2024 at the QCNPS ISFSI, even though the CBS variant basket design is not part of the approved CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision No. 1. According to Constellation, the exemption is in the public interest because the inability to load fuel into dry storage in the future loading campaign would impact Constellation's ability to offload fuel from the QCNPS reactor units, consequently impacting continued safe reactor operation.

Constellation stated that delaying the future loading campaign would impact its ability to effectively manage the margin to full core discharge capacity in the QCNPS Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pools. The low spent fuel pool capacity would make it difficult to refuel and present potential risks to fuel handling operations during pre- and post-outage. In addition, a crowded spent fuel pool would challenge the decay heat removal demand of the pool and, therefore, increase the consequence of a loss of fuel pool cooling event. The additional fuel moves that would be required to manage the fuel pool loading with extra bundles in the pool would also increase the likelihood of a fuel handling accident. Furthermore, QCNPS planned the cask loading campaign years in advance based on availability of the specialized workforce and equipment that is shared throughout the Constellation fleet. These specialty resources support competing priorities including refueling outages, loading campaigns, fuel pool cleanouts, fuel inspections, fuel handing equipment upgrade and maintenance, fuel sipping, new fuel receipt, and crane maintenance and upgrades. Any delays would have a cascading impact on other scheduled specialized activities.

For the reasons described by Constellation in the exemption request, the NRC agrees that it is in the public interest to grant the exemption. If the exemption is not granted, to comply with the CoC, Constellation would have to delay future loading and keep the spent nuclear fuel in the spent fuel pool. As described by Constellation, this scenario would affect Constellation's ability to effectively manage the spent pool capacity and reactor fuel offloading at QCNPS. In addition, a crowded spent fuel pool would challenge the decay heat removal demand of the pool increasing the consequence of a loss of fuel pool cooling event; and, because additional fuel moves would be required, it would also increase the likelihood of a fuel handling accident. Moreover, the rescheduling of the specialized resources for the future loading campaign would impact the operations of QCNPS and other Constellation sites.

Therefore, the staff concludes that approving the exemption is in the public interest.

The NRC staff also considered whether there would be any significant environmental impacts associated with the exemption. For this proposed action, the NRC staff performed an environmental assessment pursuant to 10 CFR 51.30. The environmental assessment concluded that the proposed action would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action would not result in any changes in the types or amounts of any radiological or non-radiological effluents that may be released offsite, and there would be no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure because of the proposed action. The environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact was published on April 30, 2024 (89 FR 34282).

Based on these considerations, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the NRC grants Constellation an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 with respect to the future loading in the HI-STORM 100 Cask System of four MPC-68M-CBS beginning in June 2024.