Title: Regional Food Business Center Program.

OMB Number: 0581-0335.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2025.

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

Abstract: The Regional Food Business Center Program is authorized pursuant to the authority of Division N, Title VII, subtitle B, Section 751 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260) and is implemented through the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Super Circular) (2 CFR part 200). The AMS Local and Regional Foods Division requests to extend its current approval to collect information for its Regional Food Business Center Program. The Regional Food Business Center Program, authorized and funded by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, is a partnership between Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and twelve organizations designed to spur business growth, accelerate market development, and enhance supply chain resilience for farms and food businesses across the United States. The Regional Food Business Centers will also provide technical assistance to increase economic viability, create new market opportunities, and enhance competitiveness of small and mid-sized food businesses.

The twelve organizations leading the Regional Food Business Centers have active cooperative agreements with AMS. The information collected is needed to certify that cooperators are complying with applicable program regulations, and the data collected is the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the program requirements. The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of section 751 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, to provide the respondents service they need, and for AMS to administer this program. AMS is the primary user of the information. The burden of the Regional Food Business Center is as follows:

Estimate of Burden (Total annual burden divided by estimated number of responses per respondent): 25.6.

Respondents: Cooperative agreement recipients.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12.

Estimated Total Annual Responses including Recordkeeping: 169.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 14.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents and Recordkeepers: 358.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 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 to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Authority: 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Elect a Chairperson;

2. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;

3. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;

4. Schedule the next meeting; and

5. Other.

The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under DATES .

Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , by or before the deadline, for all questions related to the meeting. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received upon request.

Meeting Accommodations: The meeting location is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the USDA provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpretation, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation to the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, or contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.

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

Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to Commerce's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s) and suspended investigation(s):

As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerce's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address: https://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/. All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with Commerce's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.

In accordance with section 782(b) of the Act, any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. Commerce's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 1

Domestic interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with Commerce's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, Commerce will automatically revoke the order without further review. 2

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondents and domestic parties. Also, note that Commerce's information requirements are distinct from the ITC 's information requirements. Consult Commerce's regulations for information regarding Commerce's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at Commerce.

Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 3 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day on which it is due.

In prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their comments, including footnotes. In these sunset reviews, we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their comments, an executive summary for each issue raised in their comments. 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 decision memorandum that will accompany the notice to be published in the Federal Register . Finally, we request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(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 March 29, 1995, Commerce published the China Order in the Federal Register . 1 On December 10, 2012, Commerce published an affirmative determination of circumvention of the Order, finding that glycine processed in India by Salvi using Chinese-origin inputs ( e.g., crude or technical-grade glycine), and exported to the United States from India is circumventing the China Order. 2 Commerce affirmed its preliminary determination  3 that the processing of Chinese-origin technical-grade or crude glycine, including but not limited to AAA-97TE, ACAA-97TE, sodium glycinate and glycine slurry, is not substantially transformed into glycine of Indian-origin, and therefore such glycine remains within the scope of the China Order. 4 In its Glycine China Circumvention Final, Commerce instituted a countrywide certification mechanism for all imports of glycine from India, to ensure that the inquiry merchandise does not enter the United States as glycine from India. 5 Commerce adopted the certification requirement to ensure that merchandise meeting this scope clarification is properly identified as merchandise subject to the China Order. 6 Commerce applied this certification to all imports of glycine from India, with the exception of certain companies, including Salvi, because Commerce determined that glycine produced by Salvi was circumventing the China Order, and therefore subject to the rates established for glycine from China. 7

Salvi requested that Commerce conduct a CCR pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b), asserting that Commerce: (1) should permit Salvi to participate in the certification process; (2) should determine that glycine produced by Salvi is not produced from Chinese-origin raw material; and, (3) should not subject Salvi's glycine to cash deposit requirements under the Glycine China Circumvention Final. 8 Salvi claims that the raw materials it used to produce glycine in recent years  9 have been produced from non-glycine inputs which are outside the scope of the China Order, irrespective of origin. 10 Moreover, Salvi claims that all of the raw materials it used to produce glycine in recent years have been procured from Indian sources. 11 Commerce initiated this CCR, pursuant to the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), upon finding that there is sufficient information to warrant a CCR. 12

We issued supplemental questionnaires to Salvi between November 2024 and January 2025, 13 to which Salvi timely responded. 14 Deer Park Glycine, LLC (DPG), a domestic glycine producer, submitted comments regarding Salvi's supplemental questionnaire responses in January and February 2025. 15

The product covered by the Order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This order covers glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 16 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the Order is dispositive.

The product covered by Glycine China Circumvention Final was glycine, as described in the “Scope of the Order ” section, above, which is exported from India, but processed using Chinese-origin inputs ( e.g., crude or technical-grade glycine). The Glycine China Circumvention Final covers glycine produced by certain companies, including Salvi. Salvi has stated on the record that it also self-produced glycine from Indian-origin inputs. The focus of the Glycine China Circumvention Final was to determine whether glycine exported from India is: (1) produced from inputs manufactured in China; (2) processed by certain companies, including Salvi in India; and (3) then exported to the United States as Indian-origin glycine, constituting circumvention of the China Order under section 781(b) of the Act.

Salvi claimed that it produced glycine during fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 using only Indian-origin inputs, and has not exported glycine to the United States which was processed nor produced using Chinese-origin inputs ( e.g., crude or technical-grade glycine). 18 In order to determine whether Salvi's claims were accurate, and to determine whether Salvi has the ability to make such a determination, including maintaining sufficient records in the ordinary course of business, we requested information about Salvi's sales, any affiliated suppliers of glycine inputs, glycine production processes, and other business records with respect to its 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 fiscal years. 19 We requested that Salvi identify all glycine sales (including export and domestic sales) and all of the purchases of inputs used to produce the subject glycine that it sold to all markets, on a sale-by-sale basis. 20 We also requested that Salvi include inputs used to produce intermediate products that Salvi may have produced, and then further processed, before eventually selling the associated subject glycine finished products. 21 In addition, we reviewed and reconciled Salvi's financial statements and information from Salvi's accounting systems to the reported domestic and import purchase and sales registers. 22 Further, to confirm the overall accuracy of the information Salvi provided, we also requested documents related to specific sales and purchase transactions which we selected. 23 Salvi complied with our requests and provided the requested information. 24

Based on the information provided by Salvi, we preliminarily find that Salvi has demonstrated that it has eliminated the use of Chinese inputs from its production process, and that Salvi records, and is able to identify, the origin of the inputs used to produce glycine. Further, Salvi is able to track the origin of these inputs through its production processes of glycine and track it to the final glycine it sells. 25 Accordingly, because of the elimination of the use of Chinese inputs in its production process, not solely Salvi's ability to track the origin of its inputs through to non-U.S. sales, we preliminarily determine that Salvi is eligible to participate in the certification process established in Glycine China Circumvention Final.

If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, effective on the publication date of our final results, Salvi, its downstream exporters, and its importers will be eligible, where appropriate, to certify that glycine produced by Salvi in India and exported from India was not processed from Chinese-origin glycine ( e.g., crude or technical-grade glycine) or other Chinese-origin raw material inputs. Glycine entering the United States with such certification will not be subject to suspension of liquidation and a requirement to post cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties associated with the China Order. However, glycine entering the United States with such certification will be subject to suspension of liquidation and cash deposits related to the India Order. 26 The draft certification language is attached as an appendix to this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on the draft certification language in their case briefs.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(3), the notice of suspension of liquidation and of the certification requirements for entries of glycine produced in India using Chinese-origin glycine inputs ( e.g., crude or technical-grade glycine) or other Chinese-origin raw material inputs occurred with the publication of the Glycine China Circumvention Final. 27 If the final results of this CCR remain unchanged from the preliminary results, glycine produced by Salvi in India using non-glycine inputs or using non-Chinese-origin inputs ( e.g., crude or technical-grade glycine) and subsequently exported to in the United States, will no longer be subject to the China Order, as the subject glycine sourced and produced by Salvi in India is of Indian origin. However, imports of such merchandise will remain subject to the certification requirements, and cash deposits applicable to glycine from China may be required if the certification requirements are not satisfied. Accordingly, if an importer enters glycine produced by Salvi in India, and claims that the subject glycine was produced in India using inputs of non-Chinese-origin, in order not to be subject to cash deposit requirements the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in the certification. 28 Where no certification is provided for an entry of subject glycine produced by Salvi in India and exported from India to the United States, the China Order will apply to that entry and Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties equal to the cash deposit rates established for entries of subject merchandise from China. 29

For shipments and/or entry summaries made on or after the date of publication of the initiation of the CCR through 30 days after the date of publication of the final results of this CCR for which certifications are required, importers and exporters should complete the required certification within 45 days after the publication of the final results of this CCR in the Federal Register . Accordingly, where appropriate, the relevant item in the certification should be modified to reflect that the certification was completed within the time frame specified above. For such entries/shipments, importers and exporters each have the option to complete a blanket certification covering multiple entries/shipments, individual certifications for each entry/shipment, or a combination thereof. For shipments and/or entries made on or after 31 days after the date of publication of the final results of this CCR in the Federal Register , for which certifications are required, importers should complete the required certification at or prior to the date of entry summary, and exporters should complete the required certification and provide it to the importer at or prior to the date of shipment.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than seven days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 30 All comments are to be filed electronically using Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (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. 31

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 CCR, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 32 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this CCR. We request that the 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).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic record system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within seven days after the date of publication of this notice. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d).

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which these reviews were initiated, or within 45 days after the publication of the preliminary results if all parties in this CCR agree to our preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b), 351.221(b) and 351.221(c)(3).

We are issuing and publishing this notice of preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i).

Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping duty (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation.

All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review (POR). We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. Commerce invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

1. In general, Commerce finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating AD rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of a review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this AD proceeding ( i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review, or changed circumstances review).

2. For any company subject to a review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection.

3. Parties are requested to: (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed; and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed.

4. Further, if companies are requested to complete a Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of a proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

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

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

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

Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of April 2025, 2 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in April for the following periods:

On January 10, 2025, notice was published in the Federal Register (90 FR 1965) that a request for an amendment to Permit No. 27514-01 had been submitted by the above-named applicant. This permit authorizes research on northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ) in California. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

Permit No. 27514, issued on March 21, 2024 (89 FR 27418, April 17, 2024), authorizes the permit holder to conduct research on northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ) in California, including unintentional harassment of California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ), and northern fur seals ( Callorhinus ursinus ). This permit (27514-01) was amended on July 11, 2024, increasing the unintentional harassment for California sea lions and northern fur seals. This permit amendment (27514-02) increases the number of northern elephant seals that may be taken during the thermography study and updates to the acoustic conditions associated with the 2024 NMFS Technical Guidance. In addition, this amendment authorizes the opportunistic collection of molt for the thermography study and clarifies the number of animals that may be taken in Appendix A of the permit.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-1306.

Title: Do Not Originate Requirements Voice Service Providers Report and Order.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 6,493 respondents; 77,916 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403.

Total Annual Burden: 155,832 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: This notice and request for comments seeks to revise an existing information collection as it pertains to the Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls Sixth Report and Order and Call Authentication Trust Anchor Fifth Report and Order (“Gateway Provider Report and Order”), FCC 22-37. These revisions stem from the Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls Eighth Report and Order (“Call Blocking Eighth Report and Order”), FCC 25-15. Unwanted and illegal robocalls have long been the Commission's top source of consumer complaints and one of the Commission's top consumer protection priorities. Foreign-originated robocalls represent a significant portion of illegal robocalls, and gateway providers serve as a critical choke-point for reducing the number of illegal robocalls received by American consumers. In the Gateway Provider Report and Order, the Commission took steps to prevent these foreign-originated illegal robocalls from reaching consumers and to help track these calls back to the source.

Call Blocking Eighth Report and Order, FCC 25-15, paras. 9-14, 47 CFR 64.1200(o).

A voice service provider must block any calls purporting to originate from a number on a reasonable do-not-originate list. A list so limited in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be included with little effort may be deemed unreasonable. The do-not-originate list may include only:

(i) Numbers for which the subscriber to which the number is assigned has requested that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked because the number is used for inbound calls only;

(ii) North American Numbering Plan numbers that are not valid;

(iii) Valid North American Numbering Plan Numbers that are not allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator; and

(iv) Valid North American Numbering Plan numbers that are allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number and confirms that the number is unused or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of blocking.

The modified information collection for which OMB approval is sought comes from the revisions in the Eighth Call Blocking Report and Order (Call Blocking Eighth Report and Order at paras. 9-14) to the requirement originally adopted in the Gateway Provider Report and Order (Gateway Provider Order. at paras. 87-91). The categories of numbers that may be included on the reasonable DNO list are the same categories of numbers for which the Commission first authorized blocking in 2017 (Gateway Provider Order. at paras. 87-88; Call Blocking Eighth Report and Order at paras. 9-14), and did not change in the Eighth Call Blocking Report and Order. There is no valid reason for a caller to originate a call from these numbers calls purporting to originate from these numbers are highly likely to be illegal.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

OMB Control Number: 3060-1096.

Title: Prepaid Calling Card Service Provider Certification, WC Docket No. 05-68.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 121 respondents; 1,452 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.5 hours-20 hours.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 202 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 12,100 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: Prepaid calling card service providers must report quarterly the percentage of interstate, intrastate and international access charges to carriers from which they purchase transport services. Prepaid calling card providers must also file certifications with the Commission quarterly that include the above information and a statement that they are contributing to the federal Universal Service Fund based on all interstate and international revenue, except for revenue from the sale of prepaid calling cards by, to, or pursuant to contract with the Department of Defense (DoD) or a DoD entity.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1222.

Title: Incarcerated People's Communications Services (IPCS) Provider Annual Reporting, Certification, and Other Requirements, WC Docket Nos. 23-62, 12-375.

Form Number(s): FCC Form 2301(a) and FCC Form 2301(b).

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

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 35 respondents; 47 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 5-200 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting and certification reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirements, and on-occasion reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 5(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 155(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 617, and the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, Public Law 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.

Total Annual Burden: 15,175 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: This notice addresses the paperwork burdens associated with several sets of new and revised rules that the Commission adopted to implement the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022 (Martha Wright-Reed Act or Act), which expands the Commission's statutory authority over communications between incarcerated people and the non-incarcerated to include “any audio or video communications service used by inmates . . . regardless of technology used.” The new Act also amends section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), to make clear that the Commission's authority extends to intrastate as well as interstate and international communications services used by incarcerated people.

The Act directs the Commission to “promulgate any regulations necessary to implement” it, including the mandate that the Commission establish a “compensation plan” ensuring that all rates and charges for IPCS “are just and reasonable,” not earlier than 18 months and not later than 24 months after the Act's January 5, 2023 enactment date. Pursuant to that directive, on July 22, 2024, the Commission released the 2024 IPCS Order, FCC 24-75, 89 FR 77244 (Sept. 20, 2024), which fundamentally reforms the regulation of IPCS in all correctional facilities, regardless of the technology used to deliver these services, and significantly lowers the IPCS rates that incarcerated people and their loved ones will pay.

The 2024 IPCS Order comprehensively reforms the regulation of the IPCS industry to implement the Martha Wright-Reed Act, addressing six major rulemaking areas that implicate the PRA. This submission seeks OMB review of five of these areas: disability access (new paperwork requirements), alternate pricing plans (new paperwork requirements), inactive accounts (new paperwork requirements), consumer disclosure (revised paperwork requirements), and waiver requests (revised paperwork requirements). These revisions include the addition of new rules addressing disability access, alternate pricing plans, and inactive accounts; and changes to the rules addressing consumer disclosure, annual reporting and certification rules, waiver reporting, rate cap, site commission, and ancillary service charges. Separately, we are seeking comment on paperwork burdens arising from the sixth area—revisions to the annual reporting and certification rules.

47 CFR 64.6040(f) (Accessible formats)—requiring among other information collection requirements, that the information and documentation IPCS providers furnish to current or potential consumers of IPCS is accessible;

47 CFR 64.6130(d) through (f) and (h) through (k) (Protection of consumer funds in inactive accounts)—requiring, among other information requirements, that providers follow certain specified procedures when an IPCS account is deemed inactive, including contacting account holders when an incarcerated person is released or transferred; and

47 CFR 64.6140(c) and (d), (e)(2) through (4), and (f)(2) and (4) (Alternate Pricing Plans)—requiring, among other information collection requirements, that providers choosing to offer alternate pricing plans comply with the rules generally applicable to all IPCS, in addition to specific consumer protection and disclosure rules.

47 CFR 64.6110(a) and (c) through (g) (Consumer Disclosure of Incarcerated People's Communications Services Rates)—requiring, among other information collection requirements, that providers post on their public websites clear, accurate, and conspicuous information about their IPCS offerings, including information on rates, charges, and associated practices; and

47 CFR 64.6120 (Waiver process)—requiring, among other information collection requirements, that providers follow certain procedures when filing waiver requests, including a showing that the request will not result in unjust and unreasonable IPCS rates and charges.

47 CFR 64.6040(c) (Communications Access for Incarcerated People with Communications Disabilities)—requiring, among other information collection requirements, that providers, as part of their obligation to provide access to Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), notify the TRS provider(s) when an incarcerated person who has individually registered to use Video Relay Service (VRS), internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay), or internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) is released from incarceration or transferred to another correctional facility.

47 CFR 64.6060 (Annual Reporting and Certification Requirements)—requiring IPCS providers, among other information collection requirements, to file certain pricing and related data and information annually to promote transparency and heighten IPCS providers' accountability. In 2015, the Commission released the Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Further Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 12-375, 30 FCC Rcd 12763, 80 FR 79135 (Dec. 18, 2015) (2015 ICS Order), in which it required that inmate calling services (ICS) providers file Annual Reports providing data and other information on their ICS operations, as well as Annual Certifications that the reported information is complete and accurate and complies with the Commission's ICS rules. Pursuant to the authority delegated them by the Commission, WCB and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (collectively, the Bureaus) released an Order on January 8, 2025, WC Docket Nos. 23-62, 12-375, DA 25-23 (rel. Jan. 8, 2025) ( 2025 Annual Reports Order ), https://www.fcc.gov/document/2025-ipcs-annual-reports-order, revising the instructions and reporting templates for the Annual Reports, as well as the associated certification form. The revisions reflect previous proposals by the Bureaus, including those regarding access to IPCS and TRS by persons with communication disabilities, as well as refinements and modifications made in response to comments in support of more streamlined, and therefore less burdensome, overall reporting obligations. The revisions also reflect the Commission's expanded authority under the Martha Wright-Reed Act, including authority over video IPCS and video-only IPCS providers.

In this submission, we are seeking OMB review of the paperwork burdens arising from the new rules addressing disability access, alternate pricing plans and inactive accounts and from the revisions to the consumer disclosure rules and waiver reporting requirements. We are also seeking renewal of the previously-approved paperwork requirements for communications access for incarcerated people with communication disabilities in section 64.6040(c) of the Commission's rules, as well as renewal of the previously approved paperwork requirements for the annual reporting and certification rule.

We will continue to address the paperwork burdens associated with the revisions to the annual reporting and certification rules separately.

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: New Collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Transaction Facilitator for 2026 and 2027 under Sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA); Use: Under the authority in sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( Pub. L. 117-169 ), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is implementing the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, codified in sections 1191 through 1198 of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). The Act establishes the Negotiation Program to negotiate maximum fair prices (“MFPs”), defined at 1191(c)(3) of the Act, for certain high expenditure, single source selected drugs covered under Medicare Part B and Part D (“selected drugs”). In accordance with section 1193(a) of the Act, any Primary Manufacturer of a selected drug that continues to participate in the Negotiation Program and reaches agreement upon an MFP must provide access to the MFP to MFP-eligible individuals, defined in section 1191(c)(2)(A) of the Act, and to pharmacies, mail order services, other dispensing entities, providers and suppliers with respect to such MFP-eligible individuals who are dispensed that selected drug during a price applicability period. The purpose of this information collection request (ICR) is for CMS to collect information from manufacturers of drugs covered under Part D selected for negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act for the initial price applicability years 2026 and 2027 and the dispensing entities that dispense the selected drugs to MFP-eligible individuals. To facilitate the effectuation of the MFP, CMS will engage a Medicare Transaction Facilitator (“MTF”). The MTF system will be composed of two modules: the MTF Data Module (MTF DM), and the MTF Payment Module (MTF PM).

Medicare Transaction Facilitator Data Elements: The MTF system will be composed of two modules: the MTF Data Module (MTF DM), and the MTF Payment Module (MTF PM). Primary Manufacturers participating in the Negotiation Program are required to participate in the MTF DM. Further, CMS intends to propose in future rulemaking to require Part D plan sponsors to include in their pharmacy agreements provisions requiring dispensing entities to participate in the MTF DM for purposes of data exchange. As such, for the purposes of this ICR, CMS assumes full participation in the MTF DM by affected Primary Manufacturers and dispensing entities. Meanwhile, participation in the MTF PM, for use in passing through payment from the Primary Manufacturer to dispensing entities, will be optional for Primary Manufacturers; as a result, dispensing entities may receive fund transfers from the MTF PM, or via an alternative process established by a Primary Manufacturer. As discussed in section 40.4 of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: Final Guidance, Implementation of Sections 1191-1198 of the Social Security Act for Initial Price Applicability Year 2027 and Manufacturer Effectuation of the Maximum Fair Price (MFP) in 2026 and 2027 (“final guidance”), 1 CMS will engage the MTF DM to facilitate the exchange of certain claim-level data elements and payment elements for selected drugs. The data exchange component of the MTF will involve both the transmission of certain claim-level data elements to the Primary Manufacturer and receipt of claim-level payment elements from the Primary Manufacturer. Both Primary Manufacturers and dispensing entities will need to provide certain information at the onset of their enrollment in the MTF DM system to facilitate effectuation of the MFP via refunds from Primary Manufacturers. Both Primary Manufacturers and dispensing entities will be able to submit complaints and disputes through their participation in the MTF DM. Primary Manufacturers will also submit information to fulfill their requirement to provide an MFP Effectuation Plan and transmit recurring data submissions reflecting their payment elements, as described in the final guidance. Given these information collection requirements, this ICR includes the following forms: (A) Drug Price Negotiation Program MTF DM Dispensing Entity and Third-Party Support Enrollment Form; (B) Drug Price Negotiation Program MTF DM Primary Manufacturer Maximum Fair Price (MFP) Effectuation Plan Form; (C) Drug Price Negotiation Program MTF DM Primary Manufacturer Payment Elements Form; and (D) Drug Price Negotiation Program Complaint and Dispute Intake Form. Form Number: CMS-10912 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Once and Daily; Affected Public: Private sector, Business or other for-profit, and individuals; Number of Respondents: 85,853; Total Annual Responses: 93,120; Total Annual Hours: 877,510. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Brennan Folsom at 667-414-0014.)

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) publishes a notice listing all HHS-certified laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITFs) in the Federal Register during the first week of each month, in accordance with Section 9.19 of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines) using Urine and Section 9.17 of the Mandatory Guidelines using Oral Fluid. If any laboratory or IITF certification is suspended or revoked, the laboratory or IITF will be omitted from subsequent lists until such time as it is restored to full certification under the Mandatory Guidelines.

If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.

This notice is also available on the internet at https://www.samhsa.gov/workplace/drug-testing-resources/certified-lab-list .

HHS separately notifies Federal agencies of the laboratories and IITFs currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines using Urine and of the laboratories currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines using Oral Fluid.

The Mandatory Guidelines using Urine were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970), and subsequently revised in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908); September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118); April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644); November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858); December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75122); April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809); January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920); and on October 12, 2023 (88 FR 70768).

The Mandatory Guidelines using Oral Fluid were first published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2019 (84 FR 57554) with an effective date of January 1, 2020, and subsequently revised in the Federal Register on October 12, 2023 (88 FR 70814).

The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71 and allowed urine drug testing only. The Mandatory Guidelines using Urine have since been revised, and new Mandatory Guidelines allowing for oral fluid drug testing have been published. The Mandatory Guidelines require strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on specimens for Federal agencies. HHS does not allow IITFs to conduct oral fluid testing.

To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.

Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines using Urine and/or Oral Fluid. An HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that the test facility has met minimum standards. HHS does not allow IITFs to conduct oral fluid testing.

In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines using Oral Fluid effective October 10, 2023 (88 FR 70814), the following HHS-certified laboratories meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on oral fluid specimens:

At this time, there are no laboratories certified to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on oral fluid specimens.

In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines using Urine effective February 1, 2024 (88 FR 70768), the following HHS-certified IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines using Urine effective February 1, 2024 (88 FR 70768), the following HHS-certified laboratories meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

The following laboratory is voluntarily withdrawing from the National Laboratory Certification Program effective January 10, 2025:

* The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories continued under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.

Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory as meeting the minimum standards of the current Mandatory Guidelines published in the Federal Register . After receiving DOT certification, the laboratory will be included in the monthly list of HHS-certified laboratories and participate in the NLCP certification maintenance program. DOT established this process in July 1996 (61 FR 37015) to allow foreign laboratories to participate in the DOT drug testing program.

Members of the public desiring specific information concerning an ongoing matching activity may request a copy of the applicable computer matching agreement at the address provided above.

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Housing, Multifamily Housing (MFH), and Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH); and the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

AUTHORITY FOR CONDUCTING THE MATCHING PROGRAM: The statutory authorities for the matching program include the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (31 U.S.C. 3351 et seq. ), OMB Memorandums M-21-19, M-18-20, the Presidential Memorandum on Enhancing Payment Accuracy through a “Do Not Pay List” (June 18, 2010), and Executive Order 13520 “Reducing Improper Payments and Eliminating Waste in Federal Programs” (November 20, 2009).

PURPOSE(S): The purpose of this Computer Matching Agreement (CMA) is to establish the conditions, safeguards, and procedures under which HUD will conduct a matching program with the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service), Do Not Pay Business Center (DNP), to provide identifying information through Treasury's Working System. The information will be used by HUD to detect suspected instances of programmatic fraud, waste, and abuse (FW&A). The CMA provides prompt access to up-to-date information and avoids the need for manual file comparison.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS: Individuals applying for or receiving benefits under HUD-administered programs.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS: Data elements will be sent by HUD to Fiscal Service for matching against Treasury's Working System including Tax Identification Number (TIN), entity Name, Person First Name, Person Middle Name, Person Last Name.

SYSTEM(S) OF RECORDS: The records involved in the matching program are maintained in systems including Bureau of the Fiscal Service .017, HUD/PIH-01, HUD/HOU-11, HUD/CFO-03, and HUD/PIH-5.

In accordance with the PRA, as part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period on this information collection was published on November 12, 2024 (89 FR 89025). One comment was received from the Bureau of Economic Analysis supporting the collection of this data as nationally important. We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues:

(1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS minerals information mission; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments 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 personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: Respondents will provide the USGS with domestic production and consumption data for 22 ores, concentrates, and metals, some of which are considered strategic and critical. This data will help determine national defense stockpile goals. USGC will collect this data through the use of on-line electronic and paper forms. These data and derived information will be published as chapters in minerals yearbooks, monthly mineral industry surveys, annual mineral commodity summaries, and special publications for use by government agencies, congressional offices, educational institutions, research organizations, financial institutions, consulting firms, industry, academia, and the general public.

We will add a currently OMB-exempt “Battery Recycling” (USGS Form 9-4147-A) canvass that will permanently exceed 9 potential respondents and convert to OMB-exempt status the “Alumina” (USGS Form 9-4055-A) and “Pig Tin” (USGS Form 9-4090-M) canvasses because of a permanent reduction in the number of potential respondents.

OMB-exempt canvasses are the canvasses with less than 10 expected potential respondents. Canvasses with less than 10 potential respondents are exempted under the PRA, and, therefore, are not included in ICRs. Such canvasses contain the statement “OMB approval not required” in the upper right corner. We also include the following statement on the canvass instrument: “This canvass is exempt from requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 35) and does not require clearance from OMB.”

Title of Collection: Nonferrous Metals Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0053.

Form Number: Various (26 USGS forms).

Type of Review: Renewal with revisions of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; U.S. nonfuel minerals producers and consumers of nonferrous metals and related materials.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 1,508.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 4,885.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: For each form, we will include an average burden time ranging from 20 minutes to 90 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,616.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: monthly, quarterly, or annually.

Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this ICR.

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

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

Background. —On November 13, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued a countervailing duty order on imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from China (79 FR 67424). Following the five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective May 7, 2020, Commerce issued a continuation of the countervailing duty order on imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from China (85 FR 27207). The Commission is now conducting a second review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR part 201, subparts A and B, and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full or expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions. —The following definitions apply to this review:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by Commerce.

(2) The Subject Country in this review is China.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determination and its expedited five-year review determination, the Commission defined a single Domestic Like Product consisting of all chlorinated isocyanurates, coextensive with Commerce's scope.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determinations, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as all domestic integrated producers of chlorinated isocyanurates, as well as all domestic tableters of chlorinated isocyanurates. One Commissioner defined the Domestic Industry differently. In its expedited five-year review determination, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as consisting of all U.S. producers of chlorinated isos, including tableters.

(5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the proceeding and public service list. —Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the proceeding as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the proceeding.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list. —Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this proceeding available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the proceeding, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the proceeding. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification. —Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this proceeding must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will acknowledge that information submitted in response to this request for information and throughout this proceeding or other proceeding may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

Written submissions. —Pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is 5:15 p.m. on May 1, 2025. Pursuant to § 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is 5:15 p.m. on June 13, 2025. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's procedures with respect to filings. Also, in accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the proceeding must be served on all other parties to the proceeding (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the proceeding you do not need to serve your response).

Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https://edis.usitc.gov ). No in-person paper-based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice.

No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 25-5-633, expiration date June 30, 2026. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.

Inability to provide requested information. —Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to § 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) in making its determination in the review.

Information to be Provided in Response to this Notice of Institution: As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at https://usitc.gov/reports/response_noi_worksheet , where one can download and complete the “NOI worksheet” Excel form for the subject proceeding, to be included as attachment/exhibit 1 of your overall response.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandi se, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association (a majority of whose members are interested parties under the statute), or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the countervailing duty order on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 2018.

(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the Domestic Like Product and the Subject Merchandise (including street address, World Wide Web address, and the name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of a responsible official at each firm).

(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the Domestic Like Product or the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or other markets.

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2024, except as noted (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Domestic Like Product (that is, the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix);

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s);

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends).

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2024 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country; and

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country.

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2024 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country (that is, the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and

(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country after 2018, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission's rules.

The Commission instituted the original investigation on December 1, 2020, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Meenaxi Enterprise Inc. (“Meenaxi”) of Edison, New Jersey. 85 FR 77237-38 (Dec. 1, 2020). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain chocolate milk powder and packaging thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,206,026 (“the '026 mark”). The Commission's notice of investigation named several respondents, including but not limited to Bharat Bazar of Union City, California; Coconut Hill of Sunnyvale, California; Organic Food d/b/a Namaste Plaza Indian Super Market (“Organic Food”) of Fremont, California; and New India Bazar of San Jose, California. Id. at 77237. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also a party to the investigation. Id.

In the underlying investigation, all respondents were found in default. See Order No. 6 (Feb. 10, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Mar. 2, 2021); Order No. 23 (May 19, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jun. 14, 2022). On May 24, 2021, Meenaxi moved for summary determination of violations of section 337 by the respondents found in default by Order No. 6 and requested a GEO. On December 1, 2021, the former chief administrative law judge (“former CALJ”) granted the motion as an initial determination (Order No. 15), but noted discrepancies with respect to respondent Organic Food, calling into question whether that respondent was ever properly served with the complaint and notice of investigation and with the former CALJ's order to show cause why the respondents should not be found in default, Order No. 5 (Jan. 13, 2021). See Order No. 15 at 1 n.1. No petitions for review of Order No. 15 were filed. The Commission determined sua sponte to review Order No. 15 and ordered reconsideration of Order No. 6 as to Organic Food and/or any other respondents who may not have been properly served with documents in the underlying investigation. See Comm'n Notice at 3 (Jan. 18, 2022). The Commission remanded the investigation to an ALJ for further proceedings. Id.

On remand, the current chief administrative law judge (“CALJ”) issued Order No. 18, granting Meenaxi's unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to (i) substitute Organic Food with proposed respondent Organic Ingredients of San Diego, California; (ii) correct the address of respondent New India; (iii) correct the address of respondent Bharat Bazar; and (iv) supplement the complaint with Exhibits 9-a, 9-b, and 9-c, concerning Organic Food and/or Organic Ingredients. Order No. 18 at 1-5 (Mar. 11, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr. 12, 2022); see also 87 FR 22940-41 (Apr. 18, 2022). Meenaxi also demonstrated that Bharat Bazar had been actually served with all of the documents in the investigation (prior to remand) despite incorrectly spelling Bharat Bazar's address as being on “Niled Road” instead of “Niles Road.” See Order No. 18 at 4.

The CALJ conducted remand proceedings as to Organic Ingredients and New India with respect to service of the amended complaint and notice of investigation, and upon the failure of these respondents to respond to the amended complaint and notice of investigation, the CALJ ordered them to respond to an order to show cause why they should not be found in default. See Order No. 19 (Mar. 11, 2022); Order No. 21 at 2-3 (May 3, 2022). On May 19, 2022, the CALJ issued an initial determination finding Organic Ingredients and New India in default. Order No. 23 (May 19, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (June 14, 2022). Accordingly, the Commission found all respondents in default (collectively with the respondents previously found in default, the “Defaulting Respondents”).

On June 13, 2022, Meenaxi again moved for summary determination of violations by the Defaulting Respondents and requested a GEO. On July 6, 2022, OUII filed a response supporting the motion.

On August 3, 2022, the CALJ issued a remand ID (“RID”) (Order No. 27), granting the second motion for summary determination and finding a violation of section 337 with respect to the '026 mark. The RID found that all Defaulting Respondents met the importation requirement and that Meenaxi satisfied the domestic industry requirement. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2)-(3). No party petitioned for review of the RID.

On September 19, 2022, the Commission determined not to review the RID. See 87 FR 58130-32 (Sept. 23, 2022). On November 15, 2022, the Commission issued a final determination finding a violation, issuing a GEO prohibiting the unlicensed importation of chocolate milk powder and packaging thereof that infringe the '026 mark, and terminating the investigation. See 87 FR 70864-66 (Nov. 21, 2022). The GEO is currently in effect and prohibits the unlicensed importation of “chocolate milk powder in consumer-sized container with the Bournvita label.” Id.; GEO at 2 (Nov. 15, 2022). On the same day, the Commission issued an opinion explaining the basis for its final determination. See Comm'n Op. (Nov. 15, 2022) (Conf. Ver.); Comm'n Op. (Dec. 9, 2022) (Pub. Ver.).

Approximately ten (10) months later, the Enforcement Complaint was filed with the Commission on behalf of Meenaxi to enforce the GEO entered in the original investigation, seeking, inter alia, issuance of CDOs for alleged violations of the GEO. On November 9, 2023, upon consideration of Meenaxi's Enforcement Complaint, the Commission issued a notice of its determination to institute an enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate alleged violations of the GEO by the four Enforcement Respondents. See Comm'n Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 808258 (Nov. 9, 2023). This enforcement proceeding was instituted by publication in the Federal Register on November 16, 2023. See 88 FR 78786-87 (Nov. 16, 2023) (“NOI”). OUII is also named as a party. Id. at 78787. On the same day the Commission determined to institute, the Commission issued an order (the “Commission Order”) certifying the enforcement proceeding to the CALJ for designation of a presiding Administrative Law Judge to conduct any necessary proceedings, issue an Enforcement Initial Determination, and make a recommendation on appropriate enforcement measures. See Comm'n Order (Nov. 9, 2023), EDIS Doc. ID 808290. Meenaxi filed proof that the Enforcement Complaint and Exhibits, the Commission's November 9th notice, and the Commission Order were served on each of the four Enforcement Respondents. See Nov. 14, 2023 Letter from Anil Gandhi to Secretary Barton, Ex. A, EDIS Doc. ID 808539. No responses to the Enforcement Complaint and NOI were filed.

On January 10, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued an order directing the Enforcement Respondents to show cause why they should not be found in default and why judgment should not be rendered against them for failing to respond to the Enforcement Complaint and NOI. See Order No. 6 (Jan. 10, 2024). Order No. 6 directed the Enforcement Respondents to make any showing of good cause by no later than February 2, 2024. Id. at 3. Meenaxi filed proof that Order No. 6 was served on each of the four Enforcement Respondents. See Jan. 16, 2024 Letter from Llofel Rogolifoi to Secretary Barton, Ex. A, EDIS Doc. ID 812042. No party responded to Order No. 6. See Order No. 8 at 1 (Feb. 13, 2024).

On March 14, 2024, the Commission determined that the four Enforcement Respondents were in default. See Order No. 8 (Feb. 13, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Mar. 15, 2024). On March 15, 2024, Meenaxi filed a motion requesting summary determination of violation of the GEO and the issuance of CDOs against the four Enforcement Respondents. See Order No. 9 at 5 (Aug. 16, 2024).

On August 16, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued the subject ID granting Meenaxi's motion for summary determination and recommending issuance of the requested CDOs. The ALJ concluded that “the unrebutted evidence [ ] demonstrates that the Enforcement Respondents have imported and/or sold after importation chocolate milk powder products bearing the `Bournvita' label” in violation of the GEO. ID at 16-17. The ID noted that Meenaxi alleged that the Enforcement Respondents have violated the GEO by offering for sale, selling, advertising, and aiding and abetting the sale of Cadbury's “BOURNVITA” products. Id. at 17-18. The ID explained that “[t]hese (or similar) products were found to infringe the '026 Mark during the violation phase” of this investigation. Id. at 18. The ID applied the same trademark infringement analysis to the products accused of violating the GEO in Meenaxi's Enforcement Complaint. See id. at 19-26. Meenaxi filed proof that the ID was served on each of the four Enforcement Respondents. See Aug. 30, 2024 Letter from Llofel Rogolifoi to Secretary Barton, Ex. A, EDIS Doc. ID 831085. No party filed a petition seeking review of the ID.

On August 19, 2024, the Commission issued a notice soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation of the GEO, specifically, CDOs against the four Enforcement Respondents. See 89 FR 68203-04 (Aug. 23, 2024). No comments were received in response to the notice.

On October 28, 2024, the Commission determined to review the ID's findings that the Enforcement Respondents have violated the GEO. See 89 FR 81547-49 (Oct. 8, 2024). In connection with these findings, the Commission requested responses from the parties to the issues under review. See 89 FR at 81548. The Commission also requested parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. at 81549.

On November 18, 2024, the Commission issued a final determination finding that all four enforcement respondents violated the GEO, issuing a CDO order against each of them, and terminating the investigation. 89 FR 92722-23. On the same day, the Commission issued an opinion explaining the basis for its final determination.

On February 24, 2025, Meenaxi filed a second enforcement complaint requesting that the Commission institute an enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate alleged violations of the GEO and the CDOs by the same four enforcement respondents: (1) Organic Ingredients; (2) New India; (3) Bharat Bazar; and (4) Coconut Hill Inc. Meenaxi asserts that the four proposed enforcement respondents continue to import, sell for importation, advertise, market, distribute, and offer to sell “Bournvita” products that infringe the '026 mark despite the GEO and CDOs. Meenaxi also alleges that the four proposed enforcement respondents are in continuing violation of the GEO and CDOs and as a result, it is sustaining “immediate and irreparable harm.” None of the respondents answered Meenaxi's enforcement complaint.

Having examined the enforcement complaint and the supporting documents, the Commission has determined to institute a formal enforcement proceeding, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.75(a) (19 CFR 210.75(a)), to determine whether violations of the GEO, issued on November 15, 2022, and CDOs, issued on November 18, 2024, in the above-referenced investigation, have occurred and to determine what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate. The named respondents are: (1) Organic Ingredients Inc. d/b/a Namaste Plaza Indian Super Market; (2) New India Bazar Inc.; (3) Bharat Bazar Inc.; and (4) Coconut Hill Inc. d/b/a Coconut Hill. OUII is also named as a party.

In the Order issued concurrently herewith, the Commission has delegated this enforcement proceeding to the CALJ for designation of a presiding Administrative Law Judge to conduct any necessary proceedings, issue an Enforcement Initial Determination, and make a recommendation on appropriate enforcement measures, if any.

The Commission's vote on this determination took place on March 26, 2025.

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

The information collected by these forms is used by claims examiners in OWCP to determine eligibility for compensation. The information, with the medical evidence and other supporting documentation, is used to determine whether the claimant is entitled to compensation under Part B or Part E of EEOICPA, and the amount of that compensation. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2024 (89 FR 90072).

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.

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.

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-OWCP.

Title of Collection: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Forms.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0002.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Private Sector—Businesses or other for-profits; State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 11,575.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 109.717.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 741,351 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $26,523.

OWCP requires institutional medical providers who provide services to beneficiaries covered under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101, the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U.S.C. 901, and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384, to bill using a form based on the industry standard form approved by the American Hospital Association, the UB-04. Form OWCP-04 identifies the beneficiary, the type of services provided, the conditions being treated and billed amounts. This information is required by OWCP to enable it to pay providers for covered services. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2024 (89 FR 94765).

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.

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.

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-OWCP.

Title of Collection: Uniform Billing Form.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0019.

Affected Public: Private Sector—Businesses or other for-profits; Not-for-profit institutions.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,549.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 198,830.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 16,420 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

In the Federal Register of March 12, 2025, in FR Doc. 2025-03884, on page 11853, in the third column, correct the first line of the table under the heading to read:

Each year satellite providers must submit royalty payments to the Register of Copyrights as required by the statutory license detailed in section 119 of the Copyright Act for the retransmission to satellite subscribers of over-the-air television broadcast signals. See 17 U.S.C. 119(b). The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) oversee distribution of royalties to copyright owners whose works were included in a qualifying transmission and who timely filed a claim for royalties.

Allocation of the royalties collected occurs in one of two ways. In the first instance, the Judges may authorize distribution in accordance with a negotiated agreement among all claiming parties. 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(5)(A), 801(b)(3)(A). If all claimants do not reach an agreement with respect to the royalties, the Judges must conduct a proceeding to determine the distribution of any royalties that remain in controversy. 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(5)(B), 801(b)(3)(B). Alternatively, the Judges may, on motion of claimants and on notice to all interested parties, authorize a partial distribution of royalties, reserving on deposit sufficient funds to resolve identified disputes. 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(5)(C), 801(b)(3)(C).

On March 21, 2025, representatives of all the Allocation Phase Parties claimant categories  1 filed with the Judges a motion pursuant to section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act requesting a partial distribution amounting to 40% of the 2022 satellite royalty funds on deposit. That statutory section requires that, before ruling on the motion, the Judges publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking responses to the motion for partial distribution to ascertain whether any claimant entitled to receive the subject royalties has a reasonable objection to the requested distribution. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(3)(C).

Accordingly, this notice seeks comments from interested claimants on whether any reasonable objection exists that would preclude the distribution of the requested amounts of the 2022 satellite royalty funds to the Allocation Phase Parties. Parties objecting to the proposed partial distribution must advise the Judges of the existence and extent of all objections by the end of the comment period. The Judges will not consider any objections with respect to the partial distribution that come to their attention after the close of the comment period.

Members of the public may read the motion by accessing the Copyright Royalty Board's electronic filing and case management system at https://app.crb.gov and searching for docket number 23-CRB-0009-SD (2022).

Each year cable systems must submit royalty payments to the Register of Copyrights as required by the statutory license detailed in section 111 of the Copyright Act for the retransmission to cable subscribers of over-the-air television and radio broadcast signals. See 17 U.S.C. 111(d). The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) oversee distribution of royalties to copyright owners whose works were included in a qualifying transmission and who file a timely claim for royalties.

Allocation of the royalties collected occurs in one of two ways. In the first instance, the Judges may authorize distribution in accordance with a negotiated agreement among all claiming parties. 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(A), 801(b)(3)(A). If all claimants do not reach agreement with respect to the royalties, the Judges must conduct a proceeding to determine the distribution of any royalties that remain in controversy. 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(B), 801(b)(3)(B). Alternatively, the Judges may, on motion of claimants and on notice to all interested parties, authorize a partial distribution of royalties, reserving on deposit sufficient funds to resolve identified disputes. 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(C), 801(b)(3)(C).

On March 21, 2025, representatives of the Allocation Phase Parties claimant categories  1 filed with the Judges a motion pursuant to section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act requesting a partial distribution of 40% of the 2022 cable royalty funds on deposit. That statutory section requires that, before ruling on the motion, the Judges publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking responses to the motion for partial distribution to ascertain whether any claimant entitled to receive the subject royalties has a reasonable objection to the requested distribution. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(3)(C).

Accordingly, this notice seeks comments from interested claimants on whether any reasonable objection exists that would preclude the distribution of the requested amounts of the 2022 cable royalty funds to the Allocation Phase Parties. Parties objecting to the proposed partial distribution must advise the Judges of the existence and extent of all objections by the end of the comment period. The Judges will not consider any objections with respect to the partial distribution that come to their attention after the close of the comment period.

Members of the public may read the motion by accessing the Copyright Royalty Board's electronic filing and case management system at https://app.crb.gov and searching for docket number 23-CRB-0008-CD (2022).

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0065 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-2025-0065.

• 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. 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. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

• 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. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking Website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2025-0065 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, 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 the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

The NRC is considering the issuance of an order pursuant to 10 CFR 40.46, “Inalienability of licenses,” 10 CFR 110.50, “Terms,” and 10 CFR 110.51, “Amendment and renewal of licenses,” approving the transfer of control of NRC license number SUB-526, held by Honeywell, as well as the indirect transfer of control of Honeywell's economic interest in ConverDyn, GP (“ConverDyn”) which holds NRC export license number XSOU8789. Honeywell is the owner and licensee of the Metropolis Works Uranium Conversion Facility (MTW) near Metropolis, Illinois. Through its wholly owned subsidiary Honeywell Energy Services, Inc. (HES), Honeywell also holds a 50 percent ownership interest in ConverDyn, which is a joint venture between Honeywell and General Atomics, for marketing the uranium hexafluoride produced at the MTW.

According to the application dated January 24, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25024A105), as supplemented by letters dated February 14, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25049A139), March 3, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25062A232), and March 7, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25066A215), Honeywell is requesting NRC consent for a proposed transaction that would implement Honeywell's publicly announced plan to spin off its advanced materials business (including the MTW, and Honeywell's interest in the ConverDyn joint venture between Honeywell and General Atomics) to existing Honeywell shareholders (the Spin). The transaction involves the creation of two new subsidiaries, one of which has already been created and named US Athens SpinCo, LLC. The second subsidiary which, for the time being, is named NewCo. Corporation, based on the information provided by Honeywell in its application, will be a direct subsidiary of US Athens SpinCo, LLC.

The proposed transfers (collectively, “The Transaction”) will occur in two steps. This first step of the Transaction (which includes the direct and indirect transfers of control resulting therefrom) is referred to by Honeywell as the “Internal Reorganization.” The first step involves two sub-steps. The first sub-step involves the direct transfer of control of Honeywell's NRC materials license SUB-526 for the MTW and ownership of the relevant assets and operations related to the MTW to NewCo Corp. As a result of this sub-step, NewCo Corp. will become the new licensee for the MTW. The second sub-step will involve (1) an indirect change of control of the HES materials license, which will occur when Honeywell transfers ownership of HES to NewCo Corp. and would occur substantially concurrently with the direct transfer of control of the NRC license for the MTW, and (2) an indirect change of control to occur when Honeywell transfers ownership of NewCo Corp. to US Athens SpinCo, LLC. As a result of this last indirect change of control, NewCo Corp. will become an indirect intermediate corporate parent of Honeywell's 50 percent ownership interest in the ConverDyn joint venture. US Athens SpinCo, LLC would then become (1) the direct intermediate corporate parent of NewCo Corp. and (2) the indirect intermediate corporate parent of HES, which will continue to hold the 50 percent ownership interest in the ConverDyn joint venture. For the sake of clarity, before and after the first step, US Athens SpinCo, LLC will be wholly owned by Honeywell. In its request for NRC consent submittal, Honeywell also stated that, for tax and other corporate purposes related to the Transaction, Honeywell will also create two additional intermediate holding companies. These two companies would become corporate parents of NewCo Corp. and wholly owned subsidiaries of US Athens SpinCo LLC as depicted in Exhibit F-2 of Honeywell's revised submittal (Revision 1 dated February 14, 2025—ADAMS Accession No. ML25024A105). After the proposed Transaction, the two intermediate holding companies would remain corporate parents of NewCo Corp. and be wholly owned subsidiaries of US Athens SpinCo Corp. as depicted in Exhibit F-3 of Honeywell's revised submittal.

The second step of the Transaction is referred to by Honeywell as the “Internal Reorganization.” The second step of the transaction involves an indirect transfer of control that will involve converting US Athens SpinCo, LLC into a corporation (“US Athens SpinCo Corp.”). As a result, Honeywell will then distribute shares in US Athens SpinCo Corp. to Honeywell's existing common shareholders, on a pro rata basis, according to the shareholders' ownership of Honeywell's common stock at the time. As a result of the second step, US Athens SpinCo Corp. will become the new ultimate parent company for NewCo Corp, as well as the ultimate corporate owner of the 50 percent of the ConverDyn joint venture. Because the Internal Reorganization and the Spin are both required to effectuate the Transaction and the Spin would not occur without the Internal Reorganization, Honeywell submitted a single application with the request that the NRC grant its consent to each of the two steps of the Transaction previously described in this document. More information on the proposed transaction is provided in Honeywell's request.

In its submittal, Honeywell stated that there are no anticipated changes in the operations, key operating personnel, or licensed activities resulting from the Transaction. Honeywell further stated that it will transfer all employees responsible for the NRC-licensed materials and activities at the MTW to NewCo Corp. as part of the Internal Reorganization. Honeywell further stated that those employees will remain responsible for such materials and activities after the closing of the Transaction and that, for this reason, NewCo Corp. would remain technically qualified to hold the MTW's NRC license and fulfill all responsibilities as the licensee. Honeywell also stated that there are no anticipated changes at ConverDyn as a result of the transfer of Honeywell's indirect 50 percent ownership of the ConverDyn joint venture. Honeywell will notify the NRC if changes become anticipated as part of the Transaction.

In its submittal, Honeywell also stated that NewCo Corp. will be financially qualified to engage in NRC-licensed activities and that, prior to closing the Transaction, and, upon the NRC providing its consent to the transfers of control of the licenses, US Athens SpinCo Corp. will replace the standby trust and irrevocable standby letters of credit upon which Honeywell currently relies to demonstrate decommissioning funding assurance for the MTW. On this regard, Honeywell will either transfer the irrevocable letters of credit to US Athens SpinCo Corp. or US Athens SpinCo Corp. will replace the letters of credit with new financial assurance instruments. These instruments will likely be in the form of a surety bond, insurance, bank or third-party lender guarantee, or new letters of credit.

Section 184, “Inalienability of Licenses,” of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (the Act) states that “[n]o license granted hereunder and no right to utilize or produce special nuclear material granted hereby shall be transferred, assigned or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license to any person, unless the Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and shall give its consent in writing.” The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.80, 70.36, and 72.50 provide that no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The NRC's regulation at 10 CFR 110.50(d) states that a specific export license may be transferred only with the approval of the Commission by license amendment. The Commission will approve an application for the indirect transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transfer of control will not affect the qualifications of the licensee to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.

Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305 and 10 CFR 110.81. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

Petitions must be filed no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).

A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 ( https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML20340A053 ) and on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing.html#participate .

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html .

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html . After a digital ID certificate is obtained and a docket created, the participant must submit adjudicatory documents in Portable Document Format. Guidance on submissions is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html . A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system timestamps the document and sends the submitter an email confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed to obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as previously described, click “cancel” when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants should not include copyrighted materials in their submission.

The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.

For further details with respect to this notice, see the application dated January 24, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25024A105), as supplement by letters dated February 14, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25049A139) and March 3, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25049A139).

Any person who desires access to proprietary, confidential commercial information that has been redacted from the application should contact the Applicant by emailing Anne Madden, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, GE, at anne.madden@honeywell.com for the purpose of negotiating a confidentiality agreement or a proposed protective order with the Applicant. If no agreement can be reached, persons who desire access to this information may file a motion with the Secretary and addressed to the Commission that requests the issuance of a protective order.

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

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).: MC2025-1264 and K2025-1263; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 669 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 26, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Elsie Lee-Robbins; Comments Due: April 3, 2025.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1265 and K2025-1264; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 670 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 26, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Elsie Lee-Robbins; Comments Due: April 3, 2025.

3. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1267 and K2025-1266; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 671 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 26, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Almaroof Agoro; Comments Due: April 3, 2025.

4. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1268 and K2025-1267; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 672 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 26, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Christopher Mohr; Comments Due: April 3, 2025.

None. See Section II for public proceedings.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended and restated application, dated February 21, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system.

The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch. You may also call the SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy at (202) 551-8090.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal https://lending.sba.gov or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at disastercustomerservice@sba.gov or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

The Interest Rates are:

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21001C and for economic injury is 210020.

The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Oklahoma.

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a petition from Eric Hein, Director of the Institute for Safer Trucking dated July 3, 2024, requesting an investigation of all van-type (also known as box) semi-trailers due to collisions with passenger vehicles and other vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, or motorcyclists) resulting in significant injuries or death due to the lack of side underride guards (SUGs). No trailer manufacturer or equipment supplier was identified as the specific subject of the petition. The petition itself can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11599188.

Currently, a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) requiring side underride guards on semi-trailers does not exist. The petitioner contends that a failure to include side underride guards equates to a safety defect in the semi-trailer's design, construction and performance. ODI was petitioned in 2021 for this same issue and, after evaluation, denied the request (DP21-004). The petitioner here states that evidence of SUG effectiveness to prevent fatalities and mitigate serious injuries “has continued to accumulate” since the denial of DP21-004. The petitioner also alleges that “[d]espite a high severity of risk resulting in frequent severe or fatal injuries from side underride crashes, NHTSA has taken no action to investigate recalling semi-trailers without SUGs.”

Pursuant to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), NHTSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that summarized and requested comment on a 2022 NHTSA report with an analysis of potential effects of a requirement for side underride guards on new trailers and semitrailers. 88 FR 24536 (Apr. 21, 2023). NHTSA's Office of Rulemaking is currently reviewing over 2,000 comments received. Also pursuant to the IIJA, on June 18, 2024, the NHTSA-facilitated Advisory Committee on Underride Protection (ACUP) issued its biennial report to Congress and the Secretary of Transportation. This biennial report consists of a majority report and a minority report summarizing its work to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on safety regulations related to underride crashes that have caused severe injury and death. Though the committee's charter was extended through June 2025, the committee concluded its work following the publication of the biennial report in June 2024.

In addition, NHTSA previously announced several actions related to truck trailer underride safety, including improving data collection of underride crashes by recommending inclusion of underride data in state crash data systems and by providing educational materials to state and local police departments on identifying and recording underride crashes. ODI also actively participates in the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) events where it has encouraged law enforcement to report underride crashes, and proposed CVSA focus on underride guards during the 2024 Operation Road Check, a nationwide 72-hour safety blitz. NHTSA is, further, conducting research on rear impact guard designs that better protect occupants of passenger vehicles in even more rear underride crash scenarios. And NHTSA, with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), published a pamphlet in August 2022—which was distributed to law enforcement through various channels—that explains how to identify and record such crashes (this pamphlet is available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/les/2022-08/Underride-Crash-Pamphlet_071522_v6atag.pdf ).

ODI searched its databases and found no injury or fatality trend specific to any make, model, or model year trailer within Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) and Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data and found only one EWR report of vulnerable road user injury or fatalities. ODI also met, separately, with Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. (UTM) and Auto Haulers Association of America (AHAA) regarding UTM's SUG and to better understand the operational environment of low clearance vehicles, respectively. Based on the information available to the agency, trailer manufacturers continue to pursue side underride guard technology, and at least one manufacturer is currently offering an optional guard.

The petitioner submitted two documents to ODI on September 11, 2024. The first was a letter from UTM to Marianne Karth (Petitioner of DP21-004 & DP22-004) which recounted UTM's testing of SUGs. The second document was an information sheet generated by the petitioner contesting UTM's claims. The petitioner also submitted certain documents to ODI on October 1, 2024, which the petitioner had previously submitted separately as part of comments on a collection of information pertaining to Reporting and Documents About Potential Defects (Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0055). This included forth-five (45) files regarding forty-nine (49) unique crashes. ODI reviewed that information and found that of the forty-nine (49) crashes, twenty-nine (29) potentially involved a subject vehicle. The majority of the forty-five (45) files were from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), which is a NHTSA-maintained database of state crash data comprised of certain, albeit often relatively limited information. Notably, of the twenty-nine files (29), only two (2) included the make, model, and model year of the subject vehicle.

After consideration of the petition, including the reports and documents provided by the petitioner, NHTSA believes the issues raised here are best addressed through its recent rulemaking and the ongoing actions under IIJA. Accordingly, NHTSA has decided not to open a defect investigation, and the petition is denied. The denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or making a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d) and 49 CFR part 552; delegation of authority at CFR 1.95(a). 1