This meeting will take place in Spanish with English interpretation. This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email ebohor@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria Moreno at vmoreno@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-312-353-8311.

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

U.S. Census Bureau employees, former employees, and applicants may contact the agency's Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) if they believe they have been subjected to discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, pregnant/pregnant workers (limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions), national origin, age (40 or older), genetic information (including family medical history), disability (mental or physical) or retaliation/reprisal. A Census Bureau EEO staff member responsible for obtaining information regarding the allegation(s) of discrimination will record on the Initial Informal Complaint Contact Sheet (Intake Form) the aggrieved party's (“the aggrieved”) personal information, i.e., name, address, telephone numbers, etc., as well as the basis(es) and allegation(s) raised by the aggrieved. Thereafter, an EEO Counselor will be assigned to review the information on the Intake Form and contact the aggrieved to schedule an initial interview. This interview may include but is not limited to: verifying the information on the Intake Form, clearly defining the basis(es) and allegation(s), reviewing the rights and responsibilities of the aggrieved and the agency during the EEO complaint process including the right to representation and anonymity, informing the aggrieved of the applicable time frames, and advising the aggrieved of the availability of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and EEO counseling, and the overall stages of the complaint process.

Title 29 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1614, directs agencies to maintain a continuing program to promote equal opportunity and to identify and eliminate discriminatory policies, practices, or procedures. The Census Bureau is thus required to process complaints of employment discrimination from agency employees, former employees, and applicants for employment with the agency who allege discrimination based on their membership in a protected class, such as, race, religion, color, sex, pregnant/pregnant workers (limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions), national origin, age (40 or older), genetic information (including family medical history), disability (mental or physical) or retaliation/reprisal for engaging in prior protected activity. Federal agencies must offer pre-complaint “informal” counseling and/or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to these “aggrieved individuals” (the aggrieved), alleging discrimination by officials of the agency. If the complaint is not resolved during the informal process, the Census Bureau must issue the Notice of Right to File within 15 calendar days document to the aggrieved. This information is being collected for the purpose of processing informal complaints of employment discrimination against the agency on the bases of race, religion, color, sex, pregnant/pregnant workers (limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions), national origin, age (40 or older), genetic information (including family medical history), disability (mental or physical) or retaliation/reprisal. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1614.105, the aggrieved must participate in pre-complaint counseling to try to informally resolve their complaint prior to filing a formal complaint of discrimination. The information captured on the form will be reviewed by the EEO Counselor assigned to process the informal complaint of alleged discrimination within the parameters established in 29 CFR part 1614. The Initial Informal Complaint Contact Sheet (Form BC-3006(ef)) will be hosted by the Census Bureau as a Common Form.

Email.

OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.

Form Number(s): BC-3006(ef).

Type of Review: Regular submission, New Information Collection Request.

Affected Public: Federal government employees, former employees, and applicants.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1 to 15.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 minutes to 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 (This is not the cost of respondents' time, but the indirect costs respondents may incur for such things as purchases of specialized software or hardware needed to report, or expenditures for accounting or records maintenance services required specifically by the collection.)

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary (The aggrieved individual does not have to fill the form out; they can call the office or send an email to the EEO complaints mailbox). However, responses to the form are needed to collect and review the Complainant's data to input the information in the Entellitrak (Complaint Tracking System) and for processing.

Legal Authority: Title 29 CFR part 1614.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

The purpose of this collection is to gather information to mitigate variances in foreign access management program implementation and registration information requirements needed to reach risk-based determinations of physical and logical access by foreign national visitors and guests to Commerce facilities and resources. Due to the increasing diversity of foreign national participation in Departmental programs, considerable efforts have been made to baseline requirements as a means to define uniform program standards as well as to expand current guidance beyond foreign visitor control to manage emerging risks associated with physical and logical access to the Department's facilities and resources. This form has been revised to ensure that it adequately collects all information mandated by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and aligns with updated guidance from the Office of Personnel Management.

This information is collected in both paper form and electronically.

OMB Control Number: 0690-0033.

Form Number(s): 207-12-1.

Type of Review: Regular submission. Revision.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 16,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: DOO 20-6 and DAO 207-12.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Agency to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

On November 20, 2024, Commerce published the notice of initiation of this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on capsules from Brazil. 1 On January 15, 2025, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until March 24, 2025. 2 This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by this investigation are capsules from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the scope comments and rebuttal responses submitted for this preliminary determination, and Commerce's accompanying preliminary analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 7

Commerce notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 8 For further information, see the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of capsules from Brazil based on a request made by the petitioner. 9 Consequently, this final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final LTFFV determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than August 5, 2025, unless postponed.

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. If the rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under facts available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate. 10

Commerce preliminarily calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for ACG do Brasil S.A. (ACG Brazil), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average rate calculated for ACG Brazil is the rate assigned to all other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.

In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation, found in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

All interested parties will have the opportunity to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs on the preliminary decision regarding the scope of the LTFV and CVD investigations. The deadlines to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs are April 14, 2025, and April 21, 2025, respectively. For all scope case and rebuttal briefs, parties must file identical documents simultaneously on the records of all the ongoing LTFV and CVD capsules investigations. No new factual information or business proprietary information may be included in either scope case or rebuttal briefs.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be notified to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 11 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 12

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 13 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 14

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of capsules from Brazil are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

On November 20, 2024, Commerce published the notice of initiation of this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on capsules from India. 1 On January 15, 2025, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until March 24, 2025. 2 This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II in this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by this investigation are hard empty capsules from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the scope comments and rebuttal responses submitted for this preliminary determination, and Commerce's accompanying preliminary analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 7 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the concurrent less than fair value (LTFV) investigation of capsules from India, based on a request made by the petitioner. 8 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final LTFV determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than August 5, 2025, unless postponed.

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

Commerce preliminarily calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited (ACPL) and its affiliates ACG Pam Pharma Technologies Private Limited (ACG PAM) and ACG Universal Capsules Private Limited (AUCPL) (collectively ACG), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation, which is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. The countervailable subsidy rate calculated for ACG is the rate assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:  9

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

All interested parties will have the opportunity to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs on the preliminary decision regarding the scope of the LTFV and CVD investigations. The deadlines to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs are April 14, 2025, and April 21, 2025, respectively. For all scope case and rebuttal briefs, parties must file identical documents simultaneously on the records of all the ongoing LTFV and CVD capsules investigations. No new factual information or business proprietary information may be included in either scope case or rebuttal briefs.

Case briefs or other written comments, excluding scope comments, may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 10 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 11

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 12 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 13

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination, whether imports of capsules from India are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

On November 20, 2024, Commerce published the notice of initiation of this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on capsules from Vietnam. 1 On January 15, 2025, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until March 24, 2025. 2 This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II of this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by this investigation are capsules from Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the scope comments and rebuttal responses submitted for this preliminary determination, and Commerce's accompanying preliminary analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 7 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available. 8 For further information, see the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available” section in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of capsules from Vietnam based on a request made by the petitioner. 9 Consequently, this final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final determination for the LTFV investigation, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than August, 5, 2025, unless postponed.

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that, in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely under section 776 of the Act. If the rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under facts available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate. 10

Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Suheung Vietnam Co., Ltd. (Suheung Vietnam), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average rate calculated for Suheung Vietnam is the rate assigned to all other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.

In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation, found in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

All interested parties will have the opportunity to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs on the preliminary decision regarding the scope of the LTFV and CVD investigations. The deadlines to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs are April 14, 2025, and April 21, 2025, respectively. For all scope case and rebuttal briefs, parties must file identical documents simultaneously on the records of all the ongoing LTFV and CVD capsules investigations. No new factual information or business proprietary information may be included in either scope case or rebuttal briefs.

Case briefs or other written comments, excluding scope comments, may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 11 Interested parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 12

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 13 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 14

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and, whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination, whether imports of capsules from Vietnam are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

The Foreign-Trade Zones applications are the vehicle by which individual firms or organizations apply for foreign-trade zone (FTZ) status, for subzone status, production authority, modifications of existing zones, or for waivers. The FTZ Act and Regulations (19 U.S.C. 81b and 81f; 15 CFR 400.21-25, 43(f)) set forth the requirements for applications and other requests to the FTZ Board. The Act and Regulations require that applications for new or modified zones contain information on facilities, financing, operational plans, proposed production operations, need for FTZ authority, and economic impact, where applicable. Any request involving production authority requires specific information on the foreign status components and finished products involved. Applications for production activity can involve issues related to domestic industry and trade policy impact. Such applications must include specific information on the customs-tariff-related savings that result from zone procedures and the economic consequences of permitting such savings. The FTZ Board needs complete and accurate information on the proposed operation and its economic effects because the Act and Regulations authorize the FTZ Board to restrict or prohibit operations that are detrimental to public interest. The Regulations (15 CFR 400.43(f)) also require specific information for applications requesting waivers by parties impacted by 400.43(d). This information is necessary to assess the likelihood of the proposed activity resulting in a violation of the uniform treatment provisions of the FTZ Act and Regulations.

U.S. firms or organizations submit applications by email to the office of Foreign-Trade Zones.

OMB Control Number: 0625-0139.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission, extension of a current information collection.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal government, or not-for-profit institutions applying for FTZ status, subzone status, modification of existing zones, production authority, or waivers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 289.

Estimated Time per Response: 3.5 to 131.0 hours (dependent on the type of application).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,400.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $133,400.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: The Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), administered through the FTZ Regulations (15 CFR part 400) and CBP Regulations (19 CFR part 146).

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

On March 14, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register its preliminary determination in the CVD investigation of molded fiber products from Vietnam. 1 We provided an incorrect version of the scope of the investigation in Appendix I. The complete corrected scope of the investigation is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

In the Federal Register of March 14, 2025, in FR Doc 2025-04094 on page 12128, in the third column, and on page 12129 in the first column, replace Appendix I with the corrected Appendix I attached to this notice.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 702 and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On November 20, 2024, Commerce published the notice of initiation of this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on capsules from China. 1 On January 15, 2025, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until March 24, 2025. 2 This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by this investigation are capsules from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, ( i.e., scope). 5

Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the scope comments and rebuttal responses submitted for this preliminary determination, and Commerce's accompanying preliminary analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice .

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 7 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 8 For further information, see the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final countervailing duty (CVD) determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion less-than-fair-value investigation of capsules from China based on a request made by the petitioner. 9 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final LTFV determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than August 5, 2025, unless postponed.

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. If the rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under facts available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate. 10

Commerce preliminarily calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Jiangsu Lefan Capsule Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Lefan) and Shanxi JC Biological Co. Ltd. (Shanxi JC) that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Commerce calculated the all-others rate using a weighted average of the individual estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. 11

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.

In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

All interested parties will have the opportunity to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs on the preliminary decision regarding the scope of the LTFV and CVD investigations. The deadlines to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs are April 14, 2025 and April 21, 2025, respectively. For all scope case and rebuttal briefs, parties must file identical documents simultaneously on the records of the ongoing LTFV and CVD capsules investigations. No new factual information or business proprietary information may be included in either scope case or rebuttal briefs.

Case briefs or other written comments, excluding scope comments, may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 12 Interested parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities.

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 13 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 14

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of capsules from China are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

On March 14, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register its preliminary determination in the CVD investigation of molded fiber products from China. 1 We provided an incorrect version of the scope of the investigation in Appendix I. The complete corrected scope of the investigation is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

In the Federal Register of March 14, 2025, in FR Doc 2025-04093, on page 12125, in the third column, and on page 12126, in the first and second column, replace Appendix I with the corrected Appendix I attached to this notice.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 702 and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

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

The applicant requests a 3-year permit to import, export, and collect parts from eight species of non-listed pinnipeds for wildlife health surveillance in Antarctica and Subantarctica. Parts would be collected from live animals under separate authorizations or from naturally deceased pinnipeds under this permit. Parts from up to 510 individuals from each species may be imported, exported, and collected annually, see the application for the total number of animals by species.

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

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

This is a request for revision and extension of an approved information collection.

The proposed collection is sponsored by the National Weather Service (NWS) Office of Science and Technology Integration (OSTI). The collection is permitted under 15 U.S.C. ch. 111, Weather Research and Forecasting Information, that directs NOAA to focus on improving its understanding of how the public receives, interprets, and responds to warnings and forecasts of high impact weather events that endanger life and property. The purpose of the collection is to improve how the NWS communicates risks posed by hazardous weather or water events to the public that are most likely to result in action to mitigate the risk. Information from this collection will help the agency meet its mission to “provide weather, water and climate data, forecasts, warnings, and impact-based decision support services for the protection of life and property and enhancement of the national economy.”

This collection aims to create an online survey system for collecting data on the publics' perception and response to four different hazards: tornados, thunderstorm winds over 70 miles per hour (mph), flash floods, and winter weather. The online surveys will provide event-based reports on hazardous weather events for National Weather Service Forecast Offices, and be the building blocks for a multi-year, cross-sectional database on human perception and response. The survey system will enable individual National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) to disseminate Quick Response Surveys (QRS) soon after a hazardous event occurs to collect perishable data on the publics' perceptions and response. WFOs will distribute the QRSs using web links on NWS social media and core partners' social media or email lists. Surveys will ask the public questions on timing, location, weather information sources, motivations and influences for taking protective action to gain insights into how NWS warning communications interact with these factors to result in protective action behaviors.

The collection is being revised to remove the Weather and Society Survey. The agency no longer collects information using the Weather and Society Survey.

The primary method of data collection will be a web-based survey.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0805.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular (Extension and revision of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 90,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. Ch. 111, Weather Research and Forecasting Information.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

This is a request for a new information collection as part of the Hawaii and American Samoa Longline fisheries required protected species workshop certification.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) offers protected species workshops for owners and operators of Hawaii and American Samoa permitted longline vessels. These workshops cover the safe handling, release, and identification of protected species in the Pacific Islands region.

Vessel operators and owners of a vessel registered for use under any longline permit issued under 50 CFR 665.801 must attend and be certified for completion of a workshop conducted by NMFS on interaction mitigation techniques for sea turtles, seabirds and other protected species, per 50 CFR 665.814. The certification is required to maintain or renew vessel registration and must be held on board. The information collected as part of the program is needed to determine the compliance of both vessel owners and operators annually during fishing operations and permit renewals.

The collected information is submitted in person or using a web-based form to the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC). The Hawaii and American Samoa pelagic longline fishers will submit information upon registration for a workshop. Virtual or self-guided training participants will use an electronic form submitted online. The electronic form collects the same information as in-person submissions.

Respondents will report their requested identifying information using paper or electronic forms. Methods of submittal include submission in-person, digitally using a web-based form, phone, or email.

OMB Control Number: 0648-XXXX.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular review [New information collection].

Affected Public: Individuals or households, and small businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 375.

Estimated Time per Response: From 2 to 5 minutes per individual registration; average 4 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $409.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: 50 CFR 665.814.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection, 0648-0151.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) prohibits the “take” of marine mammals unless otherwise authorized or exempted by law. Among the provisions that allow for lawful take of marine mammals, sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing), within a specified geographical region if, after notice and opportunity for public comment, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). NMFS also must set forth the permissible methods of taking; other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat (mitigation); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Issuance of an incidental take authorization (Authorization) under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A) (through issuance of a Letter of Authorization following issuance of incidental take regulations) or 101(a)(5)(D) (through issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization) requires three sets of information collection: (1) a complete application for an Authorization, as set forth in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104, which provides the information necessary for us to make the necessary statutory determinations, including estimates of take and an assessment of impacts on the affected species and stocks; (2) information relating to required monitoring; and (3) information related to required reporting. These collections of information enable NMFS to: (1) prospectively evaluate the proposed activity's impact on marine mammals; (2) arrive at the appropriate determinations required by the MMPA and other applicable laws prior to issuing the Authorization; and (3) monitor impacts of activities for which we have issued Authorizations to determine if our predictions regarding impacts on marine mammals remain valid.

NMFS does not propose any changes to the information collection beyond expecting a possible increased number of respondents and responses due to increases in the number of requests for Authorizations.

Respondents have a choice of submitting either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email, U.S. mail, overnight delivery service, and/or facsimile transmissions.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0151.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (renewal of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal government; Federal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 582.

Estimated Time per Response: 281 hours for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) application; 30 hours for an IHA interim report (if applicable); 140 hours for an IHA draft annual report; 28 hours for an IHA final annual report (if applicable); 1,200 hours for the initial preparation of an application for new incidental take regulations and Letter of Authorization (LOA); 225 hours for an LOA draft annual report; 70 hours for a LOA final annual report (if applicable); 640 hours for a LOA draft comprehensive report; 300 hours for an LOA final comprehensive report (if applicable); 70 hours for an Letter of Authorization (LOA) application under 50 CFR 217.186; 140 hours for a draft annual report required under 50 CFR 217.185(d)(1); and 28 hours for a final annual report (if applicable) under 50 CFR 217.185(d)(1). Response times will vary for the public based upon the complexity of the requested action.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 77,056.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $629,724 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. )

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

The applicant requests a 5-year permit to film 13 species of non-listed marine mammals in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica to collect footage and images for documentaries and other media. See the application for species, life stages, and numbers of animals by filming platform.

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

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

In the Federal Register of March 3, 2025, in FR Doc. 2025-03328, make the following corrections:

1. On page 11044, in the second column, correct the subject heading to read: “Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting.”

2. On page 11044, in the second and third columns, in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the two references to the fishery management councils are corrected to read: “Gulf, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management councils.”

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

This is a request for renewal of an approved information collection. The Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended by Public Law 91-469 and Public Law 99-514, provides for the administration of a Capital Construction Fund (CCF) Program by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The law requires that applicants enter into formal Agreements with the Secretary of Commerce. The Agreement allows the fishermen to defer taxable income from operation of their fishing vessels if the money is placed into an account to fund the construction, reconstruction, or replacement of a fishing vessel. The program requirements are detailed at 50 CFR part 259. The Agreement is a contract between the Secretary of Commerce and the Agreement holder specifying the obligations of each party. Schedule A specifies the vessel which earned the income which is eligible for deposit in to a CCF account. Schedule B specifies the construction, acquisition, or reconstruction objectives planned under the Agreement. The Certificate of Construction/Reconstruction certifies the total cost at completion of Schedule B objectives.

Under a CCF Agreement, the participant cannot deposit more than the amount specified at 46 U.S.C. 53505. NMFS must approve any withdrawals made before they take place. It is essential that a reasonably detailed record be kept of each participant's deposit/withdrawal activity. If withdrawn monies are not used for allowed purposes, the withdrawn amount (a nonqualified withdrawal) is considered income to the participant in the year withdrawn and taxed at the highest marginal tax rate for the entity involved.

Respondents will be commercial fishing industry individuals, partnerships, corporations and limited liability companies which entered into CCF agreements with the Secretary of Commerce. The information collected from applicants for the CCF Agreement (NOAA Form 88-14) is used to determine their eligibility to participate in the CCF Program. The information collected from agreement holders for the Certificate Family of Forms is used to identify their program eligible vessels, their program projects, to certify the cost of a project at completion and to determine the remaining tax basis of the qualified vessel. The information collected on the Deposit/Withdrawal Report (NOAA Form 34-82) is required to ensure that agreement holders are complying with fund deposit/ withdrawal requirements established in program regulations and properly accounting for fund activity on their Federal income tax returns. The information collected on the Deposit/Withdrawal Report must also be reported semi-annually to the Secretary of Treasury in accordance with Public Law 115-97.

Electronically, and email.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0041.

Form Number(s): 88-14, 34-82.

Type of Review: Regular submission [extension of a current information collection].

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,575.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,900.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $4,000.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

Legal Authority: The Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended by Public Law 91-469 and Public Law 99-514.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

This request is for a revision and extension of a current information collection.

The success of fisheries management programs depends significantly on the availability of fishery data. As part of this fishery data, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires groundfish fishermen in the trawl and non-trawl fisheries to complete a logbook (see 50 CFR 660.13). The logbook used is a standard format developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to collect information necessary to effectively manage the fishery on a coast-wide basis. The logbook collects haul or set-level effort data including time, location, gear type, target strategy, and estimated pounds of fish caught per set. Each logbook entry represents a single fishing trip.

NMFS contracts with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) to distribute and collect the logbook data. These data are used regularly by NMFS, the Council, the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program, NMFS Office of Law Enforcement, and the Coast Guard for fisheries management and enforcement.

Previously, the trawl logbook and non-trawl logbook information collections were separate (NMFS temp collection 0648-0804); this revision would merge the non-trawl logbook information collection into the trawl logbook information collection.

The non-trawl logbook is a fully electronic collection utilizing an application operated by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The trawl logbook has both paper and electronic options, both administered by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0782.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular Submission (revision and extension of a currently approved collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,000 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: The regulations at § 660.13(a) specify reporting requirements for trawl and non-trawl logbooks.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public. The following matters will be considered:

All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Arizona Special Primary and Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre- Primary Report on July 3, 2025; a 12-day Pre-General Report on September 11, 2025, and a 30-day Post-General Report on October 23, 2025. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).

Political committees not filing monthly are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Arizona Special Primary or Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Arizona Special Primary or Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

Additional disclosure information for the Arizona special elections may be found on the FEC website at https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/dates-and-deadlines/.

Principal campaign committees, party committees and leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $23,300 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b), 110.17(e)(2), (f).

Pursuant to section 6(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(g), and FTC Rule 2.51, 16 CFR 2.51, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned petition has been filed with the Secretary of the Commission and is being placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. After the period for public comments has expired and no later than 120 days after the date of the filing of the request, the Commission shall determine whether to reopen the proceeding and modify the Order as requested. In making its determination, the Commission will consider, among other information, all timely and responsive comments submitted in connection with this notification.

The public, redacted version of the petition is provided below. Confidential and/or competitively sensitive information has been removed at places where the notation “[redacted text]” appears. An electronic copy of the filed petition and any public exhibits attached to it can be obtained from the FTC website at this URL: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2110158-encapep-energy-matter .

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 30, 2025. Write “EnCap et al. Petition to Reopen; Docket No. C-4760” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the www.regulations.gov website.

Because of the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the www.regulations.gov website. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “EnCap et al. Petition to Reopen; Docket No. C-4760” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex P), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by overnight service.

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

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on www.regulations.gov —as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from that website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

Visit the FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov to read this document and the news release describing this matter. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before April 30, 2025. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy .

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, 5 U.S.C. 552.

Pursuant to section 5(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(b), and section 2.51 of the Federal Trade Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.51, Respondents EnCap Investments L.P. (“EnCap”), EnCap Energy Capital Fund XI, L.P., Verdun Oil Company II LLC (“Verdun”), XCL Resources Holdings, LLC (“XCL”), and EP Energy LLC (“EP Energy”)  1 (collectively, “Respondents”) respectfully request that the Commission reopen and modify the Decision and Order entered on September 13, 2022 in Docket No. C-4760 (“Order”) to remove the prior approval requirements in Section X.

The Order's purpose was to prevent the potential elimination of “substantial head-to-head competition between EnCap and [EP Energy]” due to Verdun's proposed acquisition of EP Energy (the “Acquisition”). 2 See Ex. 1, Complaint ¶ 24; Ex. 2, Decision and Order (“Order”) § XV. That purpose was fulfilled when Respondents divested EP Energy's Uinta Basin assets to Crescent Energy Company (“Crescent”) on March 30, 2022, resolving any concern that the Acquisition would substantially lessen competition. See Ex. 3, Crescent Energy Closes $690 Million Acquisition of EP Energy Uinta Assets, Hart Energy (Mar. 30, 2022), https://www.hartenergy.com/exclusives/crescent-energy-closes-690-million-acquisition-ep-energy-uinta-assets-199505.

EnCap and XCL have since exited the production of crude oil and natural gas in the Uinta Basin. In October 2024, XCL sold its Uinta Basin crude oil and natural gas assets to SM Energy Company (“SM Energy”) and Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. Ex. 4, Press Release, SM Energy Announces Closing of Uinta Acquisitions—Significantly Expanding Its Top-Tier Portfolio (Oct. 2, 2024); Ex. 5, Press Release, NOG Closes Uinta Basin Acquisition (Oct. 2, 2024). The Respondents no longer operate any oil- or gas-producing assets in the area covered by the Order (the “Relevant Area”). 3 Ex. 7, Declaration of Bryan Stahl in Support of Petition of Respondents EnCap, Verdun, and XCL to Reopen and Modify Decision and Order (“Stahl Decl.”) ¶ 8; see generally Ex. 2, Order § I.DD (“`Relevant Area' means the following counties in Utah: Duchesne, Uintah, Utah, Grand, Emery, Carbon, and Wasatch.”). Still, Respondents cannot acquire material interests in the Relevant Area without the Commission's prior approval.

The Order's prior approval provision harms competition and should be removed. It impedes investment by Respondents' knowledgeable, efficient, and conscientious operators who could make the most of the Relevant Area's natural resources and increase U.S. crude oil and natural gas production. This problem is not hypothetical: Because of the uncertainty and delay associated with prior approval, XCL recently lost a [redacted text], HSR-reportable acquisition. Ex. 6, Barham Decl. ¶¶ 13-15. It also incurred significant costs related to obtaining prior approval to purchase Altamont Energy, LLC (“Altamont”), a small operator with no active drilling rigs at the time of purchase. Id. ¶¶ 7-8, 10-11; Ex. 8, Petition for Prior Approval of XCL Resources Holdings, LLC's Proposed Acquisition of Altamont Energy, LLC, at 4 (“Altamont Prior Approval Petition”).

Prior approval provisions tend to do more harm than good. See Ex. 9, Dissenting Statement of Comm'r Noah Joshua Phillips Regarding the Commission's Withdrawal of the 1995 Policy Statement Concerning Prior Approval and Prior Notice Provisions in Merger Cases, at 3-4 (July 21, 2021) (“Dissenting Statement of Phillips”). In 1995, the Commission rejected its policy of routinely requiring prior approval provisions in orders addressing mergers, finding that the HSR Act strikes a better balance between detecting anticompetitive mergers and imposing costs on parties. See Ex. 10, Notice and Request for Comment Regarding Statement of Policy Concerning Prior Approval and Prior Notice Provisions in Merger Cases, 60 FR 39745, 39745-46 (Aug. 3, 1995) (“1995 Policy Statement”). Yet, in October 2021, the Commission instituted a blanket policy requiring prior approvals in orders addressing mergers, indicating that they would generally be imposed on both the merging parties and divestiture buyers for a minimum of ten years. Ex. 11, Statement of the Comm'n on Use of Prior Approval Provisions in Merger Orders (Oct. 25, 2021) (“2021 Policy Statement”). It adopted this policy based on the votes of two Democratic Commissioners and a “zombie” vote by a third who had already left the Commission. Ex. 12, Dissenting Statement of Comm'rs Christine S. Wilson and Noah Joshua Phillips Regarding the Statement of the Comm'n on Use of Prior Approval Provisions in Merger Orders (Oct. 29, 2021) (“Dissenting Statement of Wilson and Phillips”). The policy is a needless, punitive, and selectively applied tax on business that harms competition by hindering the transfer of assets to those who can use them most effectively. See id. at 1 n.2, 4. Respondents have experienced the negative effects of this bad policy.

The Order's prior approval provision is set to remain in place until September 2032—nearly eight more years—regardless of changes in the Relevant Area or in hydrocarbon production and consumption. See Ex. 2, Order § XVI. But in just the two and a half years since the Order's enactment, there have been significant changes within and outside of the Relevant Area. XCL no longer operates assets in the Relevant Area. Uinta Basin waxy crude oil production has increased by roughly 50% to around 170,000 barrels per day, 4 driven in large part by XCL's expansion activity prior to the sale of its assets. Historically smaller producers in the Relevant Area have grown, and new producers have entered. Ex. 8, Altamont Prior Approval Petition at 8-10. Increasing the domestic energy supply has become a national priority, and so has reducing regulatory impediments to crude oil and natural gas production: Agency heads have been asked to “review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, settlements, consent orders, and any other agency actions . . . to identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources,” including crude oil and natural gas. Ex. 13, Executive Order 14154 of January 20, 2025, Unleashing American Energy, 90 FR 8353, 8354 (Jan. 29, 2025).

In light of these changed circumstances and harm to the public interest, the Order should be modified to remove the prior approval requirements in Section X.

Pursuant to a July 26, 2021 purchase agreement, Verdun agreed to acquire EP Energy in a transaction subject to review under the HSR Act. Stahl Decl. ¶ 4. EP Energy had emerged from bankruptcy less than one year prior. Ex. 14, Shariq Khan & David French, Buyout firm EnCap Investments agrees $1.5 bln purchase of EP Energy-sources, Reuters (Aug. 11, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/buyout-firm-encap-investments-agrees-15-bln-purchase-ep-energy-sources-2021-08-11/ . Following the Acquisition, Verdun intended to operate EP Energy's Eagle Ford, Texas assets and transfer EP Energy's Uinta Basin assets to XCL.

The FTC reviewed the Acquisition and asserted that it would “eliminate substantial head-to-head competition . . . for the development, production, and sale of Uinta Basin waxy crude to targeted Salt Lake City area refiners.” Ex. 1, Complaint ¶ 24. Respondents disagreed and believed they had a strong record on which to defend the Acquisition, but after a seven-month investigation, EnCap faced a difficult choice: Accept the FTC's proposed order with prior approval requirements or lose the opportunity to acquire EP Energy's Texas assets within the timeframe allowed by the purchase agreement. Ex. 7, Stahl Decl. ¶ 7. Confronted with this ultimatum, Respondents accepted the Order.

When the Commission published notification of the Order in the Federal Register , Ex. 15, EnCap/EP Energy; Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment, 87 FR 19090 (Apr. 1, 2022) (“FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment”), it received nearly 30 comments expressing significant concern about the Order's effect. 5 For example:

• Big West Oil, a Salt Lake City refiner, commented that the prior approval restriction “seems to put XCL in an unfair competitive position with other producers” and “could have a negative impact to healthy, competitive growth and development of Uinta Basin resources which could harm the potential crude supply to Salt Lake Refiners and development opportunities for small producers and non-operating working interest owners in the Uinta Basin.” Ex. 18, Public Comments, Big West Oil Comment (May 2, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0022 .

• Silver Eagle Refining, another Salt Lake City refiner, commented, “SER is very concerned that overly burdensome oversight by the FTC of XCL could discourage the ongoing investment and development of the Uinta Basin thus threatening SER's ability to source the necessary yellow wax crude oil we need. The FTC's proposed actions to oversee XCL may have the opposite effect than intended, rather than protecting SLC refiner's interests it will lead to reduced investment in the Uinta Basin thus leading to lower crude production driving prices higher.” Ex. 18, Public Comments, Silver Eagle Refining, Inc. Comment (Apr. 25, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0004 .

• The Duchesne County Commission stated, “When prices drop or Federal regulators provide uncertainty or additional regulatory burdens, energy producers are too quick to relocate their investments to more stable markets. The issuance of the proposed Order will simply exacerbate this problem.” Ex. 18, Public Comments, Duchesne County, Utah Comment (Apr. 29, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0013 (“Duchesne County Comment”).

Nevertheless, the Commission approved the Order on September 13, 2022.

The Order required Respondents to divest EP Energy's Uinta Basin assets to Crescent within 10 days of consummating the Acquisition. Ex. 2, Order § II.A. Respondents complied with that requirement on March 30, 2022. The Order also required Respondents to provide transitional assistance to Crescent for a period of time post-divestiture. Id. § IV. As described in the compliance reports submitted pursuant to Section XII of the Order detailing Respondents' compliance, Respondents promptly fulfilled all of their transitional assistance obligations and have complied with all other requirements of the Order.

The Order still requires EnCap, Verdun, and XCL to obtain the Commission's approval before consummating certain transactions. 6 Id. § X. Specifically, the Order requires prior approval for direct or indirect acquisitions of (1) any interest in any Relevant Area producer “that has produced or sold, on average over the six months prior to the acquisition, more than 2,000 barrels per day of waxy crude in the Relevant Area” or (2) any “ownership or leasehold interest in lands located in the Relevant Area” that would “result[] in an increase (or net increase, in the case of an acreage swap) in Respondent's land interests in the Relevant Area of more than 1,280 acres.” Id. These thresholds are very low. Two thousand barrels per day is only about one percent of the Relevant Area's current daily production, and 1,280 acres is the size of just one “drilling spacing unit.” Ex. 6, Barham Decl. ¶ 4.

When it entered the Uinta Basin in 2019, XCL Resources jumpstarted the region's crude oil and natural gas production. It was the first operator in the area to deploy modern drilling and completion techniques at a reasonable cost. Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. To reduce costs, XCL invested in novel resource development strategies, including multi-well pad development, electric completion crews, co-development of multiple formations, and recycling produced water for operations, among other examples. Id. ¶¶ 3-6; see also, e.g., Ex. 18, Public Comments, Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc. Comment (May 3, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0025 (acknowledging XCL's “cost-effective and often cutting-edge drilling program”) (“Liberty Pioneer Energy Source Comment”). This inspired other operators to do the same, which expanded the productive potential of the entire region—not just XCL's acreage. See Ex. 6, Barham Decl. ¶ 6.

XCL was also instrumental in developing new customers for Uinta Basin crude. Ex. 19, Declaration of Kit Pfeiffer in Support of Petition of Respondents EnCap, Verdun, and XCL to Reopen and Modify Decision and Order (“Pfeiffer Decl.”) ¶¶ 6-7. This required sophisticated and complex supply chain systems that no other producer had ever sustainably developed at scale. Id. Expanding the Uinta Basin's customer base incentivized production. See, e.g., Ex. 18, Public Comments, Duchesne County Comment (“The lack of alternative buyers outside the Salt Lake market resulted in Uinta Basin production being capped by Salt Lake demand and depressed pricing. . . . Additional demand therefore supports additional expansion of production in the Uinta Basin.”). Previously, operators could not profitably produce more crude oil than Salt Lake City refineries could process. See id.; Ex. 19, Pfeiffer Decl. ¶ 7. But with more outlets for their production as a result of XCL's efforts, operators produced more.

Combining the technical and commercial talents of its people, XCL was able to increase the production of its assets from 8,000 barrels per day to 60,000 barrels per day in just a few years. Id. ¶ 5. This explosive growth led to the employment of hundreds of Utah residents and hundreds of millions in local, Tribal, and State revenues. See, e.g., Ex. 18, Public Comments, Star Point Enterprises, Inc. Comment (Apr. 29, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0009 (commenting that XCL “has been and remains a consistent and reputable addition to the Uintah Basin since 2019 employing an enormous workforce of Utah local employees and subcontractors”).

XCL achieved this growth using low-emission designs. It installed vapor recovery units, built gas pipeline infrastructure, and deployed the first electric hydraulic fracturing fleet in Utah. Ex. 6, Barham Decl. ¶ 5. It also built robust water recycling facilities to nearly eliminate draws on freshwater resources. Id. XCL's total investment in infrastructure alone approached [redacted text]. Id. Through these efforts, XCL was one of the lowest-emission operators in the Uinta Basin. Id. ¶ 6; see also, e.g., Ex. 18, Public Comments, Utah Royalty Owners Ass'n Comment (April 25, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0003 (commenting that “XCL has proven to be one of the most responsible oil & gas producing companies when [it] comes to drilling and completing wells, protecting the environment, using less water and reducing emissions”).

By investing approximately [redacted text] into Utah over the past five years, Ex. 6, Barham Decl. ¶ 5, XCL began a development wave that benefitted the entire region. Its efforts led to lower oil prices for its customers and lasting benefits for the Uinta Basin. Without the burden of prior approval, XCL would be better placed to apply its innovative, pro-growth, pro-competition, and pro-consumer methods to opportunities for years to come. Id. ¶ 16.

The Commission must reopen an order to consider whether it should be modified when a respondent makes a satisfactory showing that changed conditions of law or fact so require. 15 U.S.C. 45(b); 16 CFR 2.51. A showing is satisfactory when respondent identifies “significant changes in circumstances” that “eliminate the need for the order or make continued application of it inequitable or harmful to competition.” In re Entergy Corp., Dkt. No. C-3998, Order Reopening and Setting Aside Order, at 3 (F.T.C. July 1, 2005). The Commission may also reopen and modify an order on the independent ground that it is in the public interest. In re The Stop & Shop Cos., Dkt. No. C-3649, Order Reopening and Modifying Order, at 4 (F.T.C. June 20, 1997).

When the Order was executed, EnCap and XCL had crude oil and natural gas exploration and production operations in the Relevant Area. XCL sold its operations on October 1, 2024 and, as a result, none of EnCap, XCL, or Verdun operate any oil- or gas-producing assets in the Relevant Area. 7 Ex. 6, Barham Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. 7, Stahl Decl. ¶ 8.

The sale of XCL's assets constitutes a changed circumstance sufficient to support modifying the Order. The Commission has found on numerous occasions that exiting the area covered by an order eliminates the continuing need for the order's requirements. See, e.g., In re DTE Energy Co., Dkt. No. C-4691, Order Reopening and Modifying Order, at 3 (F.T.C. Nov. 23, 2021) (modifying order because respondent no longer had relevant business interests in the area covered by the order); In re AEA Investors 2006 Fund L.P., Dkt. No. C-4297, Order Reopening and Modifying Final Order, at 4 (F.T.C. Apr. 30, 2013) (same); In re Duke Energy Corp., Dkt. No. C-3932, Order Reopening and Modifying Order, at 4 (F.T.C. Sept. 26, 2007) (same); In re Koninklijke Ahold, N.V., Dkt. No. C-4027, Order Reopening and Modifying Order, at 4-5 (F.T.C. July 10, 2007) (same) and Order Reopening and Modifying Order, at 4-5 (F.T.C. July 21, 2006) (same); In re Entergy Corp., Dkt. No. C-3998, Order Reopening and Setting Aside Order, at 3 (F.T.C. July 1, 2005) (same).

The possibility that Respondents might reenter the Relevant Area does not justify continued application of the Order's prior approval provision. Reentry into the Relevant Area would be procompetitive and should be encouraged. Verdun has significant experience in expanding production outside of the Relevant Area. Ex. 20, Verdun Oil Company, https://verdunoilco.com/company/ (last visited Mar. 4, 2025) (showing production growth from roughly 2,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to more than 80,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, a fortyfold increase in approximately seven years). EnCap and XCL have considerable experience in expanding production within the Relevant Area. Prior to the SM Energy acquisition, XCL drilled nearly 200 horizontal wells and invested approximately [redacted text] in its properties in just five years. Ex. 6, Barham Decl. ¶ 3, 5. These efforts grew the production of its assets by more than 500%. See Ex. 19, Pfeiffer Decl. ¶ 5. Between 2021 and 2023, XCL drilled approximately 80 more new wells than any other producer in the Relevant Area. Ex. 6, Barham Decl. ¶ 6. Because of XCL's innovative techniques and experience, these wells were more efficient than those drilled by competitors. See id. Respondents' reentry into the Basin would benefit consumers. See, e.g., Ex. 18, Public Comments, Liberty Pioneer Energy Source Comment (commenting that the prior approval restriction “hamstring[s] one of the most nimble, forward-thinking, and results driven operators in the basin”); Ex. 18, Public Comments, Rig II, LLC Comment (Apr. 25, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0005 (describing XCL as “the most active driller in Utah” and a “good and reputable operator”); Ex. 18, Public Comments, Roger Doxey Comment (May 2, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0015 (“Without question, the most reliable and productive oil relationship we have had in all of our years in the Uinta Basin, has been the one we have with XCL Resources.”) (emphasis in original); Ex. 18, Public Comments, Craig Peterson Comment (Apr. 29, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0010 (“XCL Resources entered the Uinta Basin in late 2019 after purchasing Axia Energy's assets, and today they are the most active producer (currently running 3 large horizontal rigs).”); Ex. 18, Public Comments, Hyrum Winterton Comment (May 3, 2022) to FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0024-0024 (“AXIA only drilled three wells in three different sections that we had [ ] interests in. XCL has drilled at least 12 in one section and they are planning to drill many more. XCL is the ultimate long-term operator.”); Ex. 18, Public Comments, Duchesne County Comment, at 2 (“EnCap's production outperforms its peers with lower per-barrel costs than EP and other peer producers. EnCap is concerned about our air quality issues and is . . . reduc[ing] emissions.”).

Speculation that Respondents might engage in future anticompetitive transactions does not justify the Order either. There is no evidence that Respondents have a propensity for harmful deals. And there are no examples of Respondents attempting an anticompetitive transaction. In its submissions to the FTC, Respondents provided substantial evidence that even the EP Energy acquisition would not have led to a reduction in competition. See, e.g., Ex. 21, EnCap White Paper (Jan. 14, 2022) (“White Paper”). There is also no evidence that future Relevant Area transactions below the HSR thresholds are likely to harm competition. In fact, during the review of the EP Energy acquisition, the FTC viewed the largest producers as the only meaningful competitors in the Uinta Basin, see, e.g., Ex. 1, Complaint ¶ 24, suggesting that the acquisition of smaller producers or acreage would be unlikely to raise competitive concerns.

Congress designed the HSR Act to detect anticompetitive mergers, and as the Commission has previously recognized, it has “proven to be an effective means of investigating and challenging most anticompetitive transactions before they occur.” Ex. 10, 1995 Policy Statement at 39,745. The Commission should modify the Order and allow the democratically enacted merger review process to work as intended. See In re Koninklijke Ahold, N.V., Dkt. No. C-4027, Order Reopening and Modifying Order, at 4-5 (F.T.C. July 10, 2007) (setting aside a prior approval provision where the respondent exited the relevant markets and an acquisition “of any competitively significant supermarket operation in the relevant markets likely would be reportable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act”).

Since the Order's enactment, competition in the Relevant Area has intensified. Waxy crude oil production has increased and competitors have entered and grown. These changes to the competitive landscape undermine the core factual premise of the Order that further concentration of Uinta Basin producers would incentivize them to reduce supply below Salt Lake City refinery demand. See Ex. 1, Complaint ¶ 24. For this reason alone, the Order should be modified. See, e.g., In re Toys “R” Us Inc., Dkt. No. C-9278, Order Reopening and Modifying Order, at 4 (F.T.C. Apr. 11, 2014) (finding that Toys “R” Us' reduced importance in the marketplace required order modification).

When the Commission was investigating the Acquisition, there were roughly 35 active producers in the Uinta Basin, including XCL. Ex. 21, White Paper at 1. Collectively, they produced an average of less than 100,000 barrels per day of waxy crude oil. 8 The Salt Lake City refineries' maximum capacity to process it was about 80,000 barrels per day. Ex. 1, Complaint ¶ 21. In that context, the Commission was concerned that the Acquisition might enable producers to raise prices for waxy crude oil by strategically reducing its supply to Salt Lake refiners. Ex. 15, FTC Analysis to Aid Public Comment at 19,091 (“Uinta Basin producers have received higher realized prices when Uinta Basin waxy crude production falls short of demand from Salt Lake refiners.”).

The Salt Lake City refineries' maximum capacity to process waxy crude oil has not materially changed, 9 but Utah producers have expanded production by more than 50% to over 170,000 barrels per day. 10 The Relevant Area's waxy crude production is now roughly double Salt Lake City refinery demand, and the likelihood that future transactions by Respondents could reduce waxy crude supply below Salt Lake City refinery demand is vanishingly small, particularly for transactions that do not meet the HSR Act's minimum size thresholds.

Salt Lake City refiners' access to alternative crude oils has also increased. Around the time the FTC reviewed the Acquisition and entered the Order, Holly Energy Partners' Frontier Aspen Pipeline and MPLX's SLC Core Pipeline expanded. Ex. 19, Pfeiffer Decl. ¶ 9. Salt Lake City refiners now have direct pipeline access to the major supply hub of Guernsey, Wyoming, where crude oils from a variety of locations, including Canada, Wyoming, and North Dakota, are available. Id.; see also Ex. 25, Kristy Oleszek, Small WY Town Carries Big Weight in Crude Logistics, East Daley, https://www.eastdaley.com/media-and-news/small-wy-town-carries-big-weight-in-crude-logistics (last visited Feb. 24, 2025). As Respondents explained in their January 14, 2022 white paper to Commission staff, crude oils from outside of the Uinta Basin substitute for, compete with, and price constrain waxy crude oil. Ex. 21, White Paper § II. Therefore, the expanded availability of alternative crude oils in the Salt Lake City area further diminishes the probability that Uinta Basin producers could somehow harm their local customers.

Finally, waxy crude oil producers have continued to enter and expand since the Order became effective. For example, Scout Energy Partners and Wasatch Energy Management, which was formerly a marketing company with no production capabilities, have entered and drilled new wells. 11 Anschutz Corporation has increased its production nearly twentyfold since 2022. 12 And KODA Resources drilled nine wells in 2023 after drilling no wells from 2020 to 2022. Ex. 8, Altamont Prior Approval Petition at 10. More generally, operators have continued to explore geological formations since the Order's enactment, leading to new development in previously unexplored depths and regions. Ex. 26, Chris Matthews, Early Innings: Uinta's Oily Stacked Pay Exploration Only Just Starting, Hart Energy (Mar. 4, 2025), https://www.hartenergy.com/exclusives/early-innings-uintas-oily-stacked-pay-exploration-only-just-starting-212175.

Expanded production, new supply, and new entry in the Relevant Area over the past three years is evidence of healthy competition. Respondents should not be subjected to an inflexible Order that prevents them from fully participating in this ever-changing marketplace for eight more years.

The public interest independently requires the Order's modification. Modifying an Order serves the public interest when it would “relieve any impediment to effective competition.” In re The Stop & Shop Cos., Dkt. No. C-3649, Order Reopening and Modifying Order, at 4 (F.T.C. June 20, 1997). Here, the Order's prior approval provision impedes effective competition by acting as a “gratuitous tax on M&A activity” for only some competitors, stacking the deck against them even with respect to legal and procompetitive transactions. See Ex. 12, Dissenting Statement of Wilson and Phillips at 4. Respondents have concrete examples of this effect. Consistent with its 1995 bipartisan policy statement rejecting prior approval provisions except in rare cases, the Commission should reject the prior approval provision here. In re Occidental Petroleum Corp., Dkt. No. 9205, 120 F.T.C. 944, 945-46 (F.T.C. Nov. 16, 1995) (modifying order to remove prior approval provision because the 1995 policy statement established a “rebuttable presumption that the public interest requires reopening of the order and modification of the prior approval requirement”).

The prior approval process is vague and uncertain. A party must submit an application “fully describ[ing] the terms of the transaction” and “set[ting] forth why [it] merits Commission approval.” 16 CFR 2.41(f). This ambiguous guidance “flips the burden of proof on its head,” placing the onus on the petitioning party to prove that its ordinary business activity is legal under the antitrust laws. See Ex. 12, Dissenting Statement of Wilson and Phillips at 3. After submitting an application, a party must wait for the Commission to post the application for public comment, wait for the 30-day public comment period to end, and then wait for the Commission to make a decision. See 16 CFR 2.41(f). There is no limit on how long a party must wait. Id. If the Commission does not grant prior approval, the transaction is all but dead: The only recourse is to challenge the agency's decision as arbitrary and capricious, a difficult challenge to win. See generally Ex. 12, Dissenting Statement of Wilson and Phillips at 3 (“A lengthy investigation can be a death knell for many deals as financing runs out, suppliers and customers hesitate to do business with the merging parties whose futures remain uncertain, and the parties hemorrhage employees in the face of uncertainty.”).

Prior approval subverts the merger review process Congress designed. See id. at 7. Under the HSR Act, parties know within 30 days of submitting their HSR filings whether their transaction will be cleared or investigated further. 15 U.S.C. 18a(b)(1)(B). Any further investigation is also time-limited, 15 U.S.C. 18a(e)(2), and the investigating agency must ultimately sue in court to block the transaction, where the agency will bear the burden of proof and the parties can make their case before an impartial judge. See, e.g., FTC v. Tempur Sealy Int'l, Inc., No. 24-cv-02508, 2025 WL 384493, at *13 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2025) (“[T]o grant injunctive relief under the Clayton Act, the Court must conclude that the Government has introduced evidence sufficient to show that the challenged transaction is likely to lessen competition substantially.” (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. AT & T Inc., 310 F. Supp. 3d 161, 189 (D.D.C. 2018), aff'd, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019))).

The uncertainty associated with prior approval makes transactions less efficient and more expensive, sometimes prohibitively so. Sellers are hesitant to enter a sale process in which a government agency has total discretion over the closing date. See Ex. 9, Dissenting Statement of Phillips at 3. A buyer subject to prior approval is either excluded from a sale process altogether or forced to compensate the target company for the increased risk. Id.; see Ex. 6, Barham Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, 10-11, 14-15. For the same reason, no buyer wants to pay full price for a company with a prior approval requirement it might inherit. See id. A company subject to prior approval is hamstrung relative to its competitors, even if it is the best counterparty for an obviously procompetitive transaction. See id. Lengthy approval timelines could also lead to lower production if sellers reduce their activity levels between signing and closing.

The Order's prior approval provision has already disadvantaged EnCap and XCL relative to its rivals. When XCL acquired Altamont, [redacted text]. Barham Decl. ¶ 7. XCL then had to [redacted text] during the months-long prior approval process, which would not have been necessary except for the prior approval process. Id. ¶ 10.

More recently, the prior approval provision caused EnCap and XCL to lose a [redacted text], HSR-reportable transaction. Despite having exited the Relevant Area, being the highest bid in a marketed process, and spending hundreds of hours and millions of dollars negotiating the transaction, the seller ultimately chose a different buyer because of the uncertainty associated with prior approval. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. This opportunity included the [redacted text] in the Relevant Area, and had there been a level playing field, the acreage would have been developed by the most active and experienced operator in the Uinta Basin's history. Id. ¶ 15. The opportunity related to this business will not come again: once land is drilled, it cannot be restored to its original state.

In 1995, in light of years of experience with the HSR Act, the Commission ended its policy of routinely requiring prior approval in orders addressing mergers. Ex. 10, 1995 Policy Statement at 39,745-46. The Commission determined that the HSR Act would “adequately protect the public interest in effective merger enforcement, without being unduly burdensome,” and that future orders would only require prior approval for a transaction involving “essentially the same relevant assets that were involved in the challenged transaction.” Id. at 39,746.

More than a quarter century later, in July 2021, the Commission abruptly reversed course. It rescinded the 1995 policy with “the minimum notice required by law, virtually no public input, and no analysis or guidance.” Ex. 9, Dissenting Statement of Phillips at 1. Two months later, two Democrat Commissioners, with the aid of a “zombie” vote from another Democrat Commissioner who had already left the FTC, implemented a blanket prior approval policy without soliciting public comment. Ex. 12, Dissenting Statement of Wilson and Phillips at 1, 9 (“The majority's closed-door process starkly contrasts with the transparency previously employed by the FTC in this area—when a bipartisan Commission issued the 1995 Policy Statement, public comments were invited.”).

The October 2021 prior approval policy does not serve the public interest and should not remain in force. In fact, it achieves none of its stated objectives of preventing “facially anticompetitive” transactions, detecting anticompetitive transactions below the HSR thresholds, or preserving Commission resources. See Ex. 11, 2021 Policy Statement at 1.

Preventing “facially anticompetitive” transactions. Prior approval provisions are not necessary to prevent “facially anticompetitive” transactions. To the extent any transaction is “facially anticompetitive,” it is likely to be a large transaction subject to HSR reporting requirements. See Ex. 9, Dissenting Statement of Phillips at 4. The policy's real aim is deterrence: “Too many deals that should have died in the boardroom get proposed because merging parties are willing to take the risk that they can `get their deal done' with minimal divestitures. . . . Parties pursuing facially anticompetitive deals should now know that they are at risk of being subject to a prior approval provision.” See Ex. 11, 2021 Policy Statement at 1; Ex. 12, Dissenting Statement of Wilson and Phillips at 9. But parties do not pursue transactions that they think will face the risk of undue delay, and they should be permitted to attempt transactions that they believe will be beneficial to their customers and stakeholders. If a transaction results in a divestiture, that is not evidence of bad faith: It is evidence that a portion of the transaction was very likely procompetitive. See Ex. 12, Dissenting Statement of Wilson and Phillips at 6.

Detecting anticompetitive transactions below the HSR thresholds. This objective rests on the premise that “merging parties with a history of attempting anticompetitive transactions” are more likely to engage in harmful transactions below HSR thresholds, but the policy provides no support for this premise. See Ex. 11, 2021 Policy Statement at 2. Furthermore, the suggestion that prior approvals are only applied to parties with a “history” of attempting anticompetitive transactions is belied by the Commission's undiscriminating policy of requiring prior approval provisions in all orders addressing mergers. Id. at 1. To the extent transactions below HSR thresholds are anticompetitive, the solution is for Congress to lower the thresholds, not to use prior approval provisions to affect an end-run around the HSR Act for select companies. See Ex. 27, John Yun, Going Backwards: The FTC's New Prior Approval Policy, Competition Policy Int'l (Mar. 8, 2022).

Preserving Commission resources. The concerns that the Commission might have to “re-review[ ] the same transaction on numerous occasions” or “review[ ] a similar transaction by one of the merging parties in the same market” are also unpersuasive. Ex. 11, 2021 Policy Statement at 1. In their remarks on the recission of the 1995 policy, former Chair Khan and Commissioner Chopra cite few examples of the Commission purportedly reviewing the same transaction more than once, revealing that parties rarely attempt “the same transaction on numerous occasions,” and that if they do, “the proposed deals are frequently separated by a decade or two,” during which time competitive conditions might well have changed. Ex. 12, Dissenting Statement of Wilson and Phillips at 8. As for the assertion that all future transactions by “one of the merging parties” in the “same market” are likely to be anticompetitive, the policy statement contains no evidence that this is true. See Ex. 11, 2021 Policy Statement at 1. Without more evidence supporting the policy's claims, it is hard to believe that the justification of “preserving Commission resources” is anything other than a pretext for avoiding the “strictures of the [HSR Act], where the merging parties can force a Commission decision to sue.” Id. Using prior approvals for this purpose is an abdication of duty. See Ex. 12, Dissenting Statement of Wilson and Phillips at 4 (“God forbid we should do our job of analyzing deals notified pursuant to the HSR Act.”).

The flimsy justifications offered in the Commission's 2021 Policy Statement are not good reasons to mandate prior approval in any transaction, particularly where, as here, the factual circumstances have changed and Respondents have suffered tangible harm.

This petition and its attachments contain commercially and competitively sensitive business information related to Respondents' businesses and business practices. Public disclosure of this information would prejudice Respondents. It also contains third-party information subject to paywalls. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 2.51(c) and 4.9(c) of the Federal Trade Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.51(c) & 4.9(c), Respondents request confidential treatment of the confidential version of this petition, including its attachments. The confidential version of this petition should be afforded such confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), including paragraphs (b)(3), (4), and (9); 16 CFR 4.10(a), including paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(7); 15 U.S.C. 18a(h); 15 U.S.C. 46(f); and 15 U.S.C. 57b-2. If a determination is made that material marked as confidential does not merit confidential treatment, Respondents request prompt notice of and an adequate opportunity to appeal the determination.

For the foregoing reasons, the Respondents respectfully request that the Commission reopen and modify the Order to remove the prior approval requirements in Section X.

The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the United States Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition to the Secretary of HHS, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register .” Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on January 1, 2025, through January 31, 2025. This list provides the name of the petitioner, city, and state of vaccination (if unknown then the city and state of the person or attorney filing the claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or

b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

In accordance with section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the United States Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading For Further Information Contact ), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Health Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, 8W-25A, Rockville, Maryland 20857. The Court's caption ( Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of HHS ) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite comments on the following applications.

The applicant requests a permit to import blood samples taken from 20 wild-origin and 16 captive-born Philippine eagles ( Pithecophaga jefferyi ) to the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, California, for the purpose of scientific research, which will help with the propagation or survival of the species in the wild. This notification is for a single import.

The applicant requests a permit to export one male and one female live captive-born Komodo Island monitors ( Varanus komodoensis ) to Toronto Zoo, Canada, for the purpose of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. This notification is for a single export.

The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples collected from wild Hispaniolan solenodon ( Solenodon paradoxus ) in the Dominican Republic, for the purpose of scientific research. This notification is for a single import.

The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples collected from wild yellow-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus ) in Paraguay and Argentina, for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests authorization to import biological samples of wild and captive ground pangolin ( Manis temminckii ) from multiple countries for the purpose of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species through scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli ) and red lechwe ( Kobus lechwe ), to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

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

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

The applicant requests a permit authorizing the culling of excess swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli ) and red lechwe ( Kobus leche ) from the captive herd maintained at their facility, to enhance the species' propagation and survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

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

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

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

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), Public Law 110-233, was enacted on May 21, 2008. Title I of GINA amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), and the Social Security Act (SSA) to prohibit discrimination in health coverage based on genetic information. Sections 101 through 103 of Title I of GINA prevent employment-based group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets from discriminating based on genetic information and from collecting such information.

GINA and the interim final regulations (29 CFR 2590.702-1(c)(5)) provide an exception to the limitations on requesting or requiring genetic testing that allows a group health plan or group health insurance issuer to request, but not require, a participant or beneficiary to undergo a genetic test if all of the following conditions of the research exception are satisfied.

First, the request must be made pursuant to research that complies with 45 CFR part 46 (or equivalent Federal regulations) and any applicable State or local law or regulations for the protection of human subjects in research. To comply with the informed consent requirements of 45 CFR 46.116(a)(8), a participant must receive a disclosure that participation in the research is voluntary, refusal to participate cannot involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled, and the participant may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is entitled (the Participant Disclosure).

Second, the plan or issuer must make the request in writing and must clearly indicate to each participant or beneficiary (or in the case of a minor child, to the legal guardian of such beneficiary) to whom the request is made that compliance with the request is voluntary and noncompliance will have no effect on eligibility for benefits, premium, or contribution amounts.

Third, none of the genetic information collected or acquired as a result of the research may be used for underwriting purposes. Finally, the plan or issuer must complete a copy of the “Notice of Research Exception under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act” and provide it to the address specified in its instructions. The Notice and instructions are available on the Department's website. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2024 (89 FR 56416).

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-EBSA.

Title of Collection: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 Research Exception Notice.

OMB Control Number: 1210-0136.

Affected Public: Private sector, Businesses or other for-profits, Not-for-profit institutions.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 35.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 35.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 9 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $199.

As noted above, this meeting is only available telephonically. Any interested person must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888-566-6133; passcode 8343253 and then the # sign. At the beginning of the meeting, members of the public may make a verbal presentation to the Panel limited to the subject of safety in NASA, not to exceed 5 minutes in length. To do so, members of the public must contact Ms. Lisa M. Hackley at lisa.m.hackley@nasa.gov or at (202) 358-1947 at least 48 hours in advance. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel via electronic submission to Ms. Hackley at the email address previously noted. Written statements should be limited to the subject of safety in NASA.

The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

Title of Collection: Structured interviews and focus groups to support formative evaluation planning for the NSF Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Economic Development (GRANTED) program.

OMB Number: 3145-NEW.

Expiration Date of Approval: Not applicable.

Type of Request: New information collection.

Description: A series of structured interviews and focus groups with research administrators from Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) and professional societies are proposed as two data sources for the evidence-based design of a formative evaluation of the NSF Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Economic Development (GRANTED) Program. The overarching goal of this project is to design an evaluation that reflects an understanding of the context and environment in which IHEs operate and a framework that identifies strategies and practices that can build research support capacity.

Background: In FY 2023, NSF launched a research capacity-building initiative, Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Economic Development (GRANTED), to support IHEs across the research enterprise. The GRANTED program differs from other NSF capacity-building programs by investing in the development of institutional research support services and infrastructure. Examples of these services and infrastructure include helping to identify funding opportunities, developing compliant and competitive proposals, and managing financial and effort reporting requirements. By contrast, other NSF capacity-building programs invest in the development of faculty and students who perform research.

The GRANTED program emerged out of a recognition that having a great research idea and a capable team are necessary but insufficient factors to developing an institution's capacity to win new grants and develop a thriving research environment. The GRANTED program, which has an open call for proposals with no proscribed annual deadline for submission, focuses on eight sectors listed below:

As a first step, the study will conduct a literature review to analyze the types of research support and services provided at U.S. higher education institutions. Second, the study will provide a road map for a formative program evaluation, along with a feasibility memo of what data can be used for the evaluation. The guiding research questions for this work are:

1. What is the current state of the research support and service infrastructure in institutions of higher education as it relates to human capital, practices, policies, and partnerships?

a. What are promising practices to improve such research support and service infrastructure?

b. What outcomes are associated with different research support operating models, different levels of organizational maturity, and/or different levels of research infrastructure support?

2. What is a feasible formative evaluation, guided by a logic model, that best provides tools, insights, assessments, and strategies to monitor and improve the GRANTED program?

The proposed interviews and focus groups will be conducted to analyze: (1) how institutional mission and strategy align with research support capacity and institutional investment, (2) the type of infrastructure in place to support research development, pre-award and post-award administration, compliance, etc., (3) research support and service infrastructure impediments to performing more research, and (4) where research administrators go to learn more about best practices in research administration support and troubleshooting.

Methodology: The study proposes to conduct 25 interviews and 10-12 focus groups with 5-7 participants each with research administrators at institutions of higher education. Examples of the types of individuals who would be invited to participate include Vice Presidents for Research, Assistant Deans for Research, Senior Research Development Officers, Directors of Sponsored Programs, other Office of Sponsored Programs staff, and individuals in leadership positions at professional organizations associated with research development and support.

For both the interviews and the focus groups, the study expects to select a single sample of 100 higher education institutions. The sample will include institutions that have been awarded funding through the GRANTED program and institutions that have not received GRANTED funding. The stratified random sample will reflect a variety of institutions in terms of Carnegie Classification of research activity, i.e., amount of research performed, and broad geographic location, e.g., four Census regions. Once these institutions are sampled, the project team will contact institutional administrators at the selected institutions to identify appropriate individuals to participate.

Feedback collected under this clearance will provide useful information for a future evaluation of the GRANTED program. In addition to the interviews and focus groups, other data sources that the study is using to inform the evaluation design include a literature review and an exploration of existing federal and non-federal data collections that might be used to measure GRANTED program impacts.

Affected Public: The targeted participants are individuals who serve as Vice Presidents for Research, Assistant Deans for Research, Senior Research Development Officers, Directors of Sponsored Programs, other Office of Sponsored Programs staff, and individuals in leadership positions at research administration and development professional organizations.

Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: For each collection method, we anticipate the following lower and upper bounds for the numbers of responses and response burdens by collection method:

Respondents: Interviews Lower bound estimate of 20 individuals and upper bound estimate of 25 conducted once during the project. For the focus groups, lower bound estimate of 50 individuals and upper bound estimate of 75 individuals conducted once during the project.

Annual Responses: The data will be collected in a single 3- to 6-month period. The lower and upper bound response estimates are 70 and 100, respectively.

Frequency of Response: Please refer to the description of programmatic categories for frequency of data collection.

Average Minutes per Response: 30 minutes for interviews, 45 minutes for focus groups.

Burden Hours: Lower and upper bound estimates of approximately 47.5 hours and 68.75 hours, respectively.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0075 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2024-0075.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time (ET), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

• NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Acting Clearance Officer, Kristen Benney, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6355; email: Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at https://www.regulations.gov and entered into ADAMS. Comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Tribal Participation in the Advance Notification Program.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on October 17, 2024, 89 FR 83707.

1. The title of the information collection: Tribal Participation in the Advance Notification Program.

2. OMB approval number: 3150-0250.

3. Type of submission: Extension.

4. The form number, if applicable: Not applicable.

5. How often the collection is required or requested: Information would be requested: (1) every 5 years, (2) after an Indian Tribe achieves Federal recognition, (3) when a transportation route is NRC-approved that passes within or across an Indian Tribe's reservation boundaries, and (4) when there are changes. Information is requested from those Indian Tribes seeking to receive advance notifications. Some information is requested one time.

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Federally recognized Indian Tribes. Only those Federally recognized Indian Tribes with reservations and either receiving or seeking to receive the advance notifications would be asked to respond to the specific information request.

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 20 (7 reporting responses + 13 recordkeepers).

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 13.

9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 37.5 hours (21 reporting + 16.5 recordkeeping).

10. Abstract: In order to receive notification of certain shipments of irradiated reactor fuel and/or nuclear waste within or across the boundary of an Indian Tribe's reservation, Tribes shall affirmatively opt into the advance notification program. Because the notification may contain Safeguards Information (SGI), the Tribal official will submit certification that the Tribal official or their designee(s) has completed NRC-provided training on the handling of SGI and has the necessary protection measures in place for implementation. The Tribal official will provide contact information for the designee(s) and emergency response contact(s). The Tribal official will also provide confirmation of the reservation boundaries or the necessary corrections to a map provided by the NRC. The NRC makes this information available to others, including NRC licensees. NRC licensees will use the information to comply with the NRC's regulations that require them to provide advance notice of certain shipments of radioactive material to participating Tribes.

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

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.

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

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.

Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review. See 39 CFR 3041.110(n); 39 CFR 3041.205(a). Such requests are reviewed in summary proceedings pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.325(c)(2) and 39 CFR 3041.505(f)(1). Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405(c)-(d), the Commission does not appoint a Public Representative or request public comment in proceedings to review such requests.

1. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1260 and K2025-1259; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 665 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 25, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Jennaca Upperman; Comments Due: April 2, 2025.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1261 and K2025-1260; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 666 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 25, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Arif Hafiz; Comments Due: April 2, 2025.

3. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1262 and K2025-1261; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 667 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 25, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Christopher Mohr; Comments Due: April 2, 2025.

4. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1263 and K2025-1262; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 668 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 25, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Kenneth Moeller; Comments Due: April 2, 2025.

None. See Section II for public proceedings.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .