Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Closed captions will be provided for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialists, at atrevino@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota (DFO) at kfajota@usccr.gov.

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

On February 19, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14217, Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy. The order states that within 30 days of the date of the order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy shall identify and submit to the President additional unnecessary governmental entities and Federal Advisory Committees that should be terminated on grounds that they are unnecessary. Consistent with the E.O., the Secretary of the Department of Commerce terminated these committees effective February 28, 2025, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, as amended (5 U.S.C. Ch. 10).

The Judges Panel, composed of approximately nine members preeminent in the field of organizational performance excellence and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, makes an annual report on the results of Award activities to the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), along with its recommendations for improvement of the Award process.

The meeting will include a discussion of the 2025 Baldrige Award process, including the identification of which award applicant organizations should be advanced to the site visit phase. The meeting will include discussions of lessons learned from the 2024 judging process and on the 2024 Award process.

The agenda may change to accommodate the Judges Panel's business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Baldrige Performance Excellence website at https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/how-baldrige-works/baldrige-community/judges-panel .

There will be no open session during this meeting.

There will be no public participation during this meeting; therefore, public accommodations will not be necessary.

There will be no public participation during this meeting.

The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the June 24, 2025 meeting of the Judges Panel may be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) because the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and are privileged or confidential, and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because the meeting is likely to disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. This meeting is closed to the public in order to protect the proprietary data to be examined and discussed.

If the meeting is canceled, a cancellation notice will be posted on the website at: https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/how-baldrige-works/baldrige-community/judges-panel .

Section 204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and in consultation with the Council, to negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands. The Governor of the Pacific Insular Area to which the PIAFA applies must request the PIAFA. The Secretary of State may negotiate and enter the PIAFA after consultation with, and concurrence of, the applicable Governor.

Before entering into a PIAFA, the applicable Governor, with concurrence of the Council, must develop and submit to the Secretary a 3-year MCP providing details on uses for any funds collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA. The MCP must be consistent with the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plans, must identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives have been met), and must prioritize planned marine conservation projects. NMFS is the designee of the Secretary for MCP review and approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires payments received under a PIAFA to be deposited into the United States Treasury and then conveyed to the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for which funds were collected.

In the case of violations by foreign fishing vessels in the EEZ around any Pacific Insular Area, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including sums collected from the forfeiture and disposition or sale of property seized subject to its authority, are deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area adjacent to the EEZ in which the violation occurred, after direct costs of the enforcement action are subtracted. The Pacific Insular Area government may use funds deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for fisheries enforcement and for implementation of a MCP.

At its September 2023 meeting, the Council reviewed and concurred with the Guam MCP. On November 27, 2023, the Governor of Guam submitted the MCP to NMFS for review and approval. NMFS approved this MCP on March 18, 2024, it became effective on March 27, 2024, and it is in effect through August 3, 2026 (89 RF 21241). Following the approval in March 2024, the Governor of Guam submitted an amended MCP to the Council, which reviewed and concurred with the amended MCP at its meeting in December 2024. The Governor of Guam submitted the amended MCP to NMFS for review and approval on January 14, 2025. The amended MCP included revisions to Program Strategy 5.3, the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessible Fishing Platform, to refine its scope and implementation. The approved strategy initially outlined objectives focused on community fishing access, cultural preservation, conservation, education, and inclusivity in Guam's fisheries. The amendments shifted the focus toward structural improvements, including the replacement of steel guardrails and wheel stops with fiberglass; replacing railings on the platform, stairway, and wheelchair ramp; and securing funding for regular maintenance. These refinements increased the priority level of the project from high to very high by emphasizing critical structural improvements that enhance safety and accessibility for users with disabilities. The overall cost was reduced from $320,000 to $140,000 as a result of a more defined scope and the use of more cost-effective materials. All other elements of Program Strategy 5.3 remain unchanged.

The conservation and management objectives of this amended MCP are identical to those included in the MCP currently in effect. Please refer to the amended MCP for projects and activities designed to meet each objective, the evaluative criteria, and priority rankings. The evaluative criteria have also not been amended.

This notice announces that NMFS has reviewed the amended MCP and determined that it satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Accordingly, NMFS has approved the amended MCP for the time period from the publication of this notice through August 3, 2026. This MCP supersedes the plan approved previously for March 27, 2024, through August 3, 2026 (89 FR 21241, March 27, 2024).

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Among the exceptions is section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) which directs the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and the public has an opportunity to comment on the proposed IHA.

Specifically, NMFS will issue an IHA if it finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least [practicable] adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definition of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS' implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).

On March 24, 2025, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to ADOT&PF for take of marine mammals incidental to the Angoon Ferry Terminal Modification Project in Angoon, Alaska was published in the Federal Register (90 FR 13463). In that notice, NMFS indicated the estimated numbers, type, and methods of incidental take proposed for each species or stock and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures that would be required should the IHA be issued. The Federal Register notice also included analysis to support NMFS' preliminary conclusions and determinations that the IHA, if issued, would satisfy the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for issuance of the IHA. The Federal Register notice included web links to a draft IHA for review and other supporting documents.

No substantive comments were received during the public comment period. There are no changes to the specified activity, the species taken, the proposed numbers, type, or methods of take, or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in the proposed IHA notice. All information for species taken remains the same with one exception. In the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section of the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (90 FR 13463, March 24, 2025), table 2 and the associated species description inadvertently misidentified the humpback whale stock as the Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock rather than the Mexico-North Pacific stock. However, NMFS' analysis was based upon the appropriate stock information for the Mexico-North Pacific stock, and no changes to the IHA are necessary. Furthermore, no new information that would change any of the preliminary analyses, conclusions, or determinations in the proposed IHA notice has become available since that notice was published and, therefore, the preliminary analyses, conclusions, and determinations included in the proposed IHA are considered final.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of this IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species, in this case with the Alaska Regional Office.

There are two ESA-listed marine mammal species (Steller sea lion (Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS)) and humpback whale (Mexico DPS)) with confirmed occurrence in the project area. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion on June 3, 2025, under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to ADOT&PF under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and Conservation Division. The Biological Opinion concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Western DPS of Steller sea lions and the Mexico DPS of humpback whales, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for either species.

Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued an IHA to ADOT&PF for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Angoon Ferry Terminal Modification Project in Angoon, Alaska.

On April 29, 2025, notice was published in the Federal Register (90 FR 17779) that a request for a scientific research permit had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit was issued on June 4, 2025, 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), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222 through 226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

The permit authorizes import, export, and receipt of marine mammal parts and the development of cell lines to understand diving, metabolic, and reproductive physiology of marine mammals. The permit expires on June 30, 2035.

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.

As required by the ESA, issuance of this permit was based on a finding that such permit: (1) was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Under the PRA, 1 Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 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 provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the Commission is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

Title: Part 162—Protection of Consumer Information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (OMB Control No. 3038-0067). This is a request for an extension of currently approved information collection.

Abstract: On July 21, 2010, the President signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). 2 Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, which is titled the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFP Act”), amends a number of federal consumer protection laws enacted prior to the Dodd-Frank Act including, in relevant part, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)  3 and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (“FACT Act”). 4 Specifically, Section 1088 of the CFP Act sets out certain amendments to the FCRA and the FACT Act directing the Commission to promulgate regulations that are intended to provide privacy protections to certain consumer information held by an entity that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Section 1088 amends section 214(b) of the FACT Act—which added section 624 to the FCRA in 2003—and directs the Commission to implement the provisions of section 624 of the FCRA with respect to persons that are subject to the Commission's enforcement jurisdiction. Section 624 of the FCRA gives a consumer the right to block affiliates of an entity subject to the Commission's jurisdiction from using certain information obtained from such entity to make solicitations to that consumer (hereinafter referred to as the “affiliate marketing rules”). 5 Under the affiliate marketing rules, the entities covered by the regulations are expected to prepare and provide clear, conspicuous and concise opt-out notices to any consumers with whom such entities have a pre-existing business relationship. A covered entity only has to provide an opt-out notice to the extent that an affiliate of the covered entity plans to make a solicitation to any of the covered entity's consumers. The purpose of the opt-out notice is to provide consumers with the ability to prohibit marketing solicitations from affiliate businesses that do not have a pre-existing business relationship with the consumers, but that do have access to such consumers' nonpublic, personal information. A covered entity is required to send opt-out notices at the maximum of once every five years.

Section 1088 of the CFP Act also amends section 628 of the FCRA and mandates that the Commission implement regulations requiring persons subject to the Commission's jurisdiction who possess or maintain consumer report information in connection with their business activities to properly dispose of that information (hereinafter referred to as the “disposal rules”). 6 Under the disposal rules, the entities covered by the regulations are expected to develop and implement a written disposal plan with respect to any consumer information within such entities' possession. The regulations provide that a covered entity develop a written disposal plan that is tailored to the size and complexity of such entity's business. The purpose of the written disposal plan is to establish a formal plan for the disposal of nonpublic, consumer information, which otherwise could be illegally confiscated and used by unauthorized third parties. Under the rules, a covered entity is required to develop a written disposal plan only once, but may subsequently amend such plan from time to time.

In addition, section 1088 of the CFP Act amended the FCRA by adding the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC,” together with the CFTC, the “Commissions”) to the list of federal agencies required to jointly prescribe and enforce identity theft red flags rules and guidelines and card issuer rules. Thus, the Dodd-Frank Act provides for the transfer of rulemaking responsibility and enforcement authority to the CFTC and SEC with respect to the entities under their respective jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Commissions have issued final rules and guidelines (hereinafter referred to as the “identity theft rules”)  7 to implement new statutory provisions enacted by the CFP Act that amend section 615(e) of the FCRA and direct the Commissions to prescribe rules requiring entities that are subject to the Commissions' jurisdiction to address identity theft. Under the identity theft rules, entities covered by the regulation are required to develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures to identify, detect, and respond to relevant red flags for identity theft that are appropriate to the size and complexity of such entity's business and, in the case of entities that issue credit or debit cards, to assess the validity of, and communicate with cardholders regarding, address changes. 8 They are also required to provide for the continued administration of identity theft policies and procedures.

With respect to the collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations. 9

The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from https://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the information collection request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its burden estimate for this collection to reflect its estimate of the current number of CFTC registrants subject to the requirements of part 162 regulations. The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,510.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 46,603.

Frequency of Collection: As applicable.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

Title: Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.

OMB Number: 3041-0156.

Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Third party conformity assessment bodies seeking acceptance of accreditation or continuing accreditation.

General Description of Collection: On March 12, 2013, the Commission issued a rule Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (78 FR 15836). The rule established the general requirements concerning third party conformity assessment bodies, such as the requirements and procedures for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation of a third party conformity assessment body, and the rule prescribed adverse actions that might be imposed against CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies. The rule also amended the audit requirements for third party conformity assessment bodies and amended the CPSC's regulation for inspections. CPSC's requirements pertaining to third party conformity assessment bodies can be found at 16 CFR part 1112.

Estimated Respondent Burden:

• Application Burden.

The application for CPSC acceptance of accreditation is completed by submitting a Consumer Product Conformity Assessment Body Registration Form (CPSC Form 223); an accreditation certificate for ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories; and a statement of scope that clearly identifies each CPSC rule and/or test method for which CPSC acceptance is sought. 16 CFR 1112.13(a). For independent third party conformity assessment bodies, the estimated time to complete the initial application materials is 75 minutes. For governmental and firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies, the estimate is longer because of their additional requirements. See 16 CFR 1112.13(b)-(c). Firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies will require an estimated 8.4 hours to develop and upload their requirements to the CPSC. Governmental third party conformity assessment bodies will require three hours to develop and upload their requirements to the CPSC.

Based on applications received from FY 2020 to FY 2024, we estimate receiving 40 new applications from independent third party conformity assessment bodies, three applications from firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies, and four applications from governmental third party conformity assessment bodies, each year.

Therefore, we estimate the total hourly burden for new applications to be 87.2 hours (75 minutes per independent application × 40 applications = 3,000 minutes or 50 hours) + (8.4 hours per firewalled application × 3 applications = 25.2 hours) + (3 hours per governmental application × 4 applications = 12 hours).

• Updating Information Burden.

To update the information on CPSC Form 223, third party conformity assessment bodies will not need to fill out an entirely new form to submit new information. They can access their existing CPSC Form 223 via the third party conformity assessment body application program on the CPSC's website and change only those elements that need updating. From FY 2020 through the first half of 2025, there has been a large increase in additions to scope applications submitted each year. The additions to scope applications accommodate new testing related to toys, furniture, batteries and durable nursery products. We estimate it will take a third party conformity assessment body 30 minutes to update its information to add scope items. Further, we estimate that about 20 percent of the approximately 670 third party conformity assessment bodies will do this per year, for an estimated 134 addition to scope applications annually. Therefore, we estimate the total hourly burden to update information to be 67 hours (134 applications per year × 30 minutes per application = 4,020 minutes or 67 hours per year).

• Third Party Disclosure Burden.

During their normal course of business, third party conformity assessment bodies maintain testing records. In addition, CPSC requires that when a test conducted for purposes of section 14 of the CPSA is subcontracted, a prime contractor's report must clearly identify which test(s) were performed by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body acting as a subcontractor, and the test from the subcontractor must be appended to the prime contractor's report. Records maintained by a conformity assessment body during their normal course of business would not be considered in calculating Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) burden, but we estimate that an average third party conformity assessment body engages in recordkeeping related to 12,000 tests annually pursuant to section 14 of the CPSA that may be considered PRA burden. We estimate that five percent of third party conformity assessment bodies, or 33.5 bodies (670 conformity assessment bodies × 5% = 33.5 subcontracting test bodies), will subcontract tests to other CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies. It is difficult to estimate how many tests will be subcontracted, but for current purposes, we estimate that of the third party conformity assessment bodies who subcontract, they will subcontract 25 percent of their tests. We estimate that it will take seven minutes, on average, to comply with the recordkeeping requirements related to subcontracted tests. If five percent of third party conformity assessment bodies subcontract 25 percent of tests annually, that is a total of 100,500 subcontract tests per year (33.5 subcontracting test bodies × 12,000 tests per body × 25% tests subcontracted = 100,500 subcontract tests). Therefore, at seven minutes per test, we estimate a total burden for third party disclosure to be 11,725 hours (or 703,500 minutes) per year to comply with the subcontracting recordkeeping requirement.

• Discontinue Burden.

If a third party conformity assessment body wishes to voluntarily discontinue its participation with the CPSC, an estimated 30 minutes is needed to create and submit the required documentation. See 16 CFR 1112.29. From FY 2020-24, 106 labs withdrew from the CPSC program. Accordingly, we estimate 20 labs will withdraw at an estimated total hourly burden of 10 hours (or 600 minutes) annually.

• Audit Burden.

The CPSC portion of an audit is required no less than once every two years. See 16 CFR 1112.35(b). Therefore, we estimated that 50 percent of third party conformity assessment bodies each year will go through an audit. This is based on FY20-24 data showing an average of 354 CPSC Audits per year. Based on the number of third party conformity assessment bodies that have already been accepted by the CPSC as of the end of May 2025 (686) and based upon our experience with the rate of new successful applications, we predict that the total number of third party conformity assessment bodies will be 700 by FY26. Half of those, 350, will be audited annually. Depending on the type of conformity assessment body ( i.e., independent, firewalled, or governmental), and other factors not controlled by CPSC, audit burden would vary somewhat from body to body. We estimate that laboratories will spend approximately 15 minutes to resubmit their updated materials, including the CPSC Form 223, accredited scope listing and accreditation certificate for the CPSC Audits. Firewalled and governmental labs are also expected to submit an updated attestation, as well as an employee undue influence memorandum. In addition, for firewalled labs, a revised risk assessment of impartiality and undue influence is also included. Therefore, the total amount of time spent by conformity assessment bodies will be approximately 87.5 hours (350 bodies audited × 15 min. per audit = 5,250 minutes, or 87.5 hours).

Total Estimated Annual Burden: Adding all the annual estimated burden hours results in a total of approximately 11,977 hours (87.2 hours application burden + 67 hours updating burden + 11,725 hours disclosure burden + 10 hours discontinue burden + 87.5 hours audit burden = 11,976.7 total annual burden hours).

To calculate the total cost of this PRA burden, we use the total compensation for all civilian workers, available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” which is $47.20 per hour worked as of December 2024. At $47.20 per hour, the total cost of the PRA burden is approximately $565,314 ($47.20 × 11,977 hours = $565,314.40).

Request for Comments:

The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

• whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;

• whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;

• whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and

• whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.

The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The USMA BoV provides independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters related to morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and any other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.

Purpose of the Meeting: This is the 2025 Organizational Meeting of the USMA BoV. Members of the Board will be provided updates on Academy issues. Agenda: Introduction; Board Business: Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2025, Swearing in of Presidential Appointees, Approval of the 2025 Rules of the US Military Academy Board of Visitors, Approval of the Minutes from the November 2024 BoV Meeting, select Summer 2025 meeting date; Open Discussion; Academy Update; Cadet Summer Training overview.

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first to arrive basis. Attendees are requested to submit their name, affiliation, and daytime phone number seven business days prior to the meeting to Mr. Nagle, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting, and members of the public attending the committee meeting will not be permitted to present questions from the floor or speak to any issue under consideration by the committee. Because the committee meeting will be held in a Federal Government facility security screening is required. A DoD government photo ID is required to enter the installation. Without a DoD ID, members of the public must first go to the Visitor Control Center in the West Point Visitor Center and undergo a background check before being allowed access to the installation. Members of the public should park at the West Point Motor Pool, located on New York State Route 293 across from the entrance to Camp Buckner. Transportation will be provided from the Motor Pool to Barth Hall. A government employee will escort members of the public to and from Barth Hall. Barth Hall is handicap accessible. Please note that all vehicles and persons entering the installation are subject to search and/or an identification check. Any person or vehicle refusing to be searched will be denied access to the installation. Members of the public should allow at least an hour for security checks, movement to the Motor Pool, and transportation to Barth Hall. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Mr. Nagle at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Nagle, the committee Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the committee. The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the committee Chairperson and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the committee until its next meeting.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting. However, the committee Designated Federal Official and Chairperson may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the committee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.

The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) Evaluation Protocol.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0825.

Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 40.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 788.

Abstract: In October 2020, the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI), UMass Boston received a five-year cooperative agreement from the Office of Postsecondary Education to serve as the National Coordinating Center (NCC) for colleges and universities implementing inclusive higher education programs for students with intellectual disabilities, including 22 model demonstration projects aimed at creating inclusive comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities known as Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSIDs).

To reduce respondent burden, the NCC has streamlined and simplified the previously approved evaluation system for the TPSID programs. The NCC will enhance the collection and analyses of longitudinal follow-up data from the 22 TPSID model programs via an already developed and previously OMB approved evaluation system for the TPSID programs. The revised data collection system is part of an evaluation effort. The system will collect program data at the institutions from TPSID program staff via an online, secure data management system.

The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Application Package for TRIO Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0814.

Type of Review: A reinstatement without change of a previously approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 46.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,452.

Abstract: This information collection provides the U.S. Department of Education with information needed to evaluate, score and rank the quality of the projects proposed by institutions of higher education and public or private nonprofit agencies and organizations applying for a TRIO Training grant, in accordance with Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Section 402G of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), which requires the collection of specific information and data necessary for applicants to receive an initial competitive grant and a non-competing grant for the second year.

This collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1894-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1905-0186;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Generic Clearance for Questionnaire Testing, Evaluation, and Research;

(3) Type of Request: Three-year extension with change;

(4) Purpose: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is requesting a three-year approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to utilize qualitative and quantitative methodologies to pretest questionnaires and validate the quality of the data that are collected on EIA and DOE survey forms. Through the use of these methodologies, EIA will conduct research studies to improve the quality of energy data being collected, reduce or minimize survey respondent burden, and increase agency efficiency. This authority would also allow EIA to improve data collection in order to meet the needs of EIA's customers while also staying current in the evolving nature of the energy industry.

The specific methods EIA will continue to use for the coverage by this clearance are described below.

Pilot Surveys. Pilot surveys conducted under this clearance will generally be methodological studies and will always employ statistically representative samples. The pilot surveys will replicate all components of the methodological design, sampling procedures (where possible), and questionnaires of the full-scale survey. Pilot surveys will normally be utilized when EIA undertakes a complete redesign of a particular data collection methodology or when EIA undertakes data collection in new energy areas of the energy sector where data collection would provide utility to EIA.

Cognitive Interviews. Cognitive interviews are typically one-on-one interviews in which the respondent is usually asked to “think aloud” or is asked “retrospective questions” as they answer questions, reads survey materials, defines terminology, or completes other activities as part of a typical survey process. A number of different techniques may be involved including asking respondents what specific words or phrases mean or asking respondents probing questions to determine how they estimate, calculate, or determine specific data elements on a survey. The objectives of these cognitive interviews are to identify problems of ambiguity or misunderstanding, examine the process that respondents follow for reporting information, assess survey respondents' ability to report new information, or identify other difficulties respondents have answering survey questions in order to reduce measurement error from estimates based on a survey.

Respondent Debriefings. Respondent debriefings conducted under this clearance will generally be methodological or cognitive research studies. The debriefing form is administered after a respondent completes a questionnaire either in paper format, electronically, or through personal interviews. The debriefings contain probing questions to determine how respondents interpret the survey questions, how much time and effort was spent completing the questionnaire, and whether they have problems in completing the survey/questionnaire. Respondent debriefings also are useful in determining potential issues with data quality and in estimating respondent burden.

Usability Testing. Usability tests are similar to cognitive interviews in which a respondent is typically asked to “think aloud” or asked “retrospective questions” as they review a survey questionnaire, related materials, or website. The objective of usability testing is to check that respondents can easily and intuitively navigate survey questionnaires, related materials, and websites to submit their data to EIA.

Focus Groups. Focus groups are a qualitative method used early in questionnaire development to gather information about a topic that can later be used to write survey questions, such as specific terminology, definitions, sensitivity of topics, organizational processes, and burden associated with reporting. Information is collected by a moderator using a guided discussion with small groups of people ( e.g., 8-10).

Field Techniques. Field techniques described in survey research and survey methodology literature will be employed as appropriate. These include follow-up probing, memory cue tasks, paraphrasing, confidence rating, response latency measurements, free and dimensional sort classification tasks, and vignette classifications. The objective of all of these techniques is to aid in the development of surveys that work with respondents' thought processes, thus reducing response error and burden. These techniques have also proven useful for studying and revising pre-existing questionnaires.

Behavior Coding. Behavior coding is a quantitative technique in which a standard set of codes is systematically applied to respondent/interviewer interactions in interviewer-administered surveys or respondent/questionnaire interactions in self-administered surveys.

Split Panel Test. Split panel tests refer to controlled experimental testing of alternative hypotheses. Thus, they allow one to choose from among competing questions, questionnaires, definitions, error messages or survey improvement methodologies with greater confidence than any of the other methods. Split panel tests conducted during the fielding of the survey are superior in that they can support both internal validity (controlled comparisons of the variable(s) under investigation) and external validity (represent the population under study). Most of the previously mentioned survey improvement methods can be strengthened when teamed with this method.

(4a) Changes to Information Collection:

EIA proposes to collect personally identifiable information (PII) only to the extent necessary to recruit participants for questionnaire testing, evaluation, and research. This PII would not be retained, with the exception of information needed to provide renumeration for participants of questionnaire testing, evaluation, and research and conduct associated data analysis.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,500;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 7,500;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 7,500;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $712,425 (7,500 annual burden hours multiplied by $94.99 per hour). EIA estimates that respondents will have no additional costs associated with the surveys other than the burden hours and the maintenance of the information during the normal course of business.

Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 772(b), 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Access to TSCA Confidential Business Information under TSCA section 14(d)(4), (5), and (6).

EPA ICR No.: 2570.03.

OMB Control No.: 2070-0209.

ICR status: This ICR is currently approved through March 31, 2026. Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: The TSCA amendments of June 22, 2016, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, expanded the categories of people to whom EPA may disclose TSCA confidential business information (CBI). The amendments authorize EPA to disclose TSCA CBI to state, tribal, and local governments; environmental, health, and medical professionals; and emergency responders, under certain conditions, including consistency with guidance that EPA is required to develop. Three guidance documents have been developed, corresponding to the new authorities in TSCA section 14(d)(4), (5), and (6).

The conditions for access vary under each of the new provisions, but generally include the following: requesters must show that they have a need for the information related to their employment, professional, or legal duties; recipients of TSCA CBI are prohibited from disclosing or permitting further disclosure of the information to individuals not authorized to receive it (physicians/nurses may disclose the information to their patient); and except in emergency situations EPA must notify the entity that made the CBI claim at least 15 days prior to disclosing the CBI. In addition, under these new provisions, requesters (except in some emergency situations) are required to sign an agreement and may be required to submit a statement of need to EPA.

In accordance with the requirements of TSCA section 14(c)(4)(B), the guidance documents cover the content and form of the agreements and statements required under each provision and include information on where and how to submit requests to EPA.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 14.8 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

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

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected are those that Respondents affected by this activity are mainly government employees (federal, state, local, tribal), as well as medical professionals, such as doctors and nurses. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes for health care and social assistance is 62.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

Forms: None.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated number of potential respondents: 6.

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

Total estimated annual burden hours: 89 hours.

Total estimated annual respondent costs: $6,585.49, which includes $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

There is no change in the estimated total annual burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB, but there is an increase in the estimated burden costs and a decrease in the estimated number of total respondents. The increase in the respondent burden and agency costs were caused by an increase in the hourly wages and a change in the methodology to calculate loaded wages (wages plus fringe benefits and overhead). This is an adjustment.

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

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

EPA is announcing that there will be two virtual public meetings of the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). On July 21, 2025, a preparatory meeting for the SACC to consider the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions for the peer review; and on August 4 through 8, 2025, a peer review meeting for the SACC to consider the draft risk evaluations and technical support documents and public comments. The charge questions associated with these draft risk evaluations will address scientific and technical issues identified for peer review of all five phthalate risk evaluations scheduled to be finalized in 2025. The charge questions will be available in EPA docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0551 on or before June 16, 2025.

EPA is also announcing the availability of and soliciting public comment on the draft documents that will be provided to the SACC for this peer review, including the draft charge questions that will be provided to the peer reviewers; the draft risk evaluations to inform risk management decisions under TSCA for DBP, DCHP, and DEHP; the non-cancer human health and environmental hazard draft technical support documents for BBP and DIBP; and three cross-phthalate technical support documents, specifically the:

• Draft Meta-Analysis and Benchmark Dose Modeling of Fetal Testicular Testosterone Technical Support Document;

• Draft Cancer Human Health Hazard Assessment Technical Support Document; and

• Revised Draft Technical Support Document for the Cumulative Risk Analysis (CRA).

EPA recently announced the availability of the draft risk evaluations for DBP and DEHP, and two cross-phthalate technical support documents (the Draft Cancer Human Health Hazard Assessment Technical Support Document and the Revised Draft Technical Support Document for the Cumulative Risk Analysis (CRA)) for public comment (see https://www.epa.gov/chemicals-under-tsca/epa-releases-draft-tsca-risk-evaluations-phthalates-dbp-and-dehp-public (FRL-12808-01-OCSPP)). In January 2025, EPA released the draft risk evaluations for DCHP, along with the draft technical support documents for BBP and DIBP; and the cross-phthalate Draft Meta-Analysis and Benchmark Dose Modeling of Fetal Testicular Testosterone Technical Support Document. The draft risk evaluations were prepared under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and will be submitted to the SACC for peer review.

This document provides instructions for accessing the materials, submitting written comments, and registering to provide oral comments and virtually attend the public meetings.

EPA established the SACC in 2016 in accordance with TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2625(o), to provide independent advice and expert consultation with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of issues relating to the implementation of TSCA. The SACC operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 10, and supports activities under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., and other applicable statutes.

This action is directed to the public in general and may be of particular interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, and disposal of the subject chemical substances, and/or those interested (including members of at-risk communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and federal, state, and local officials) in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI or other sensitive information to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. To include information in your comment that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting that information.

2. Tips for preparing comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. See also the instructions in Unit III.C.

You may subscribe to the following listserv for alerts regarding this and other SACC-related activities: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOPPT/subscriber/new?topic_id=USAEPAOPPT_101.

The SACC provides independent advice and recommendations to the EPA on the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures and approaches for chemicals regulated under TSCA. The SACC is composed of experts in toxicology; environmental risk assessment; exposure assessment; and related sciences ( e.g., chemistry, biology, pharmacology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, biochemistry, biostatistics, physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, computational toxicology, epidemiology, environmental fate, and environmental engineering and sustainability). When needed, the SACC committee will be assisted by ad hoc reviewers with specific expertise in the topics under consideration.

TSCA requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations on high-priority chemical substances and identifies the minimum components EPA must include in all chemical substance risk evaluations. The purpose of conducting risk evaluations is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment under the conditions of use (COUs). These evaluations include assessing risks to relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. As part of this process, EPA: (1) Integrates hazard and exposure assessments using the best available science that is reasonably available to assure decisions are based on the weight of the scientific evidence, and (2) Conducts peer review for risk evaluation approaches that have not been previously peer reviewed. For more information about the three stages of EPA's process for ensuring the safety of existing chemicals ( i.e., prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management), go to https://www.epa.gov/assessing- and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/how-epa-evaluates-safety-existing-chemicals.

EPA designated the following chemicals as High-Priority Substances for risk evaluation under TSCA (84 FR 71924, December 30, 2019 (FRL-10003-15)): butyl benzyl phthalate (also known as benzyl butyl phthalate, CASRN 85-68-7), dibutyl phthalate (CASRN 84-74-2), dicyclohexyl phthalate (CASRN 84-61-7), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (CASRN 117-81-7), and diisobutyl phthalate (CASRN 84-69-5). For these chemicals, EPA published draft and final scope documents (85 FR 22733, April 23, 2020 (FRL-10008-05) and 85 FR 55281, September 4, 2020 (FRL-10013-90)). The scope documents outlined the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations the Agency expected to consider in its risk evaluations. Although there are some differences in conditions of use and exposures, these chemical substances are primarily used as plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products and in adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, rubbers, and other applications.

Given the significant similarities in exposure and physical chemical properties of these phthalates, EPA is developing these risk evaluations, and the cross-phthalate draft technical support documents in parallel. Di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) and di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) were reviewed previously by the SACC (89 FR 43847, May 20, 2024 (FRL-11760-02-OCSPP)); the draft risk evaluations for BBP, DBP, DCHP, DEHP, and DIBP are incorporating many of the SACC recommendations from this previous peer review. Draft risk evaluations for BBP and DIBP will be released prior to the SACC peer review meeting and announced subsequently in the Federal Register .

In this SACC peer review of the draft risk evaluations for DBP, DCHP, and DEHP, EPA is soliciting comments from the SACC on the draft risk evaluations, including analyses of physical chemical properties, fate and transport in the environment, exposure to workers, consumers and general population including potentially exposed susceptible subpopulations, releases to the environment, environmental hazard and risk characterization for terrestrial and aquatic species, and human health hazard and risk characterization for workers, consumers, and the general population. Along with the full draft risk evaluations for DBP, DCHP, and DEHP, EPA is also soliciting feedback on its BBP and DIBP non-cancer human health hazard, and environmental hazard, draft technical support documents and the three cross-phthalate technical support documents (specifically, the Draft Meta-Analysis and Benchmark Dose Modeling of Fetal Testicular Testosterone Technical Support Document, the Draft Cancer Human Health Hazard Assessment Technical Support Document, and the Revised Draft Technical Support Document for the Cumulative Risk Analysis). The Revised Draft Technical Support Document for the Cumulative Risk Analysis was developed based on the Draft Proposed Approach for Cumulative Risk Assessment under TSCA including recommendations from the May 2023 SACC review (see docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0918).

EPA anticipates that the SACC peer review will focus on the complete draft risk evaluations for DBP, DCHP, and DEHP; the non-cancer human health and environmental hazard draft technical support documents for BBP and DIBP; and the three cross-phthalate technical support documents (specifically, the Draft Meta-Analysis and Benchmark Dose Modeling of Fetal Testicular Testosterone Technical Support Document, the Draft Cancer Human Health Hazard Assessment Technical Support Document, and the Revised Draft Technical Support Document for the Cumulative Risk Analysis). EPA anticipates requesting SACC peer review of the questions pertaining to critical inputs and novel approaches contained in these documents to constitute full peer review of all high priority substance phthalate risk evaluations.

The purpose of the preparatory public meeting is for the SACC to consider and ask questions regarding the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions, and the public peer review meeting is for the SACC to consider, and peer review the draft risk evaluations and technical support documents. These public meetings are part of the SACC's peer review of the Agency's methods and novel analyses for the draft risk evaluations. The agenda for these meetings will be posted in the docket and will also be available through the SACC website.

Recommendations from this SACC review and public comments will be considered in the development of the TSCA risk evaluations and may inform other EPA efforts related to the assessment and regulation of the chemical substances. The Agency will be seeking SACC review of its data analyses and methodologies relevant to human health hazard and exposure analyses that have not been previously peer-reviewed.

To participate in these virtual public meetings, you must register online to receive the webcast and streaming service meeting links and audio teleconference information for each meeting. Online registration will be available approximately one month prior to the meeting and will remain open through the end of the meeting. To make oral comments during one of these meetings, follow the instructions in this document.

The draft risk evaluations, related supporting materials and draft charge questions are available in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0551. EPA will include additional meeting background materials as they become available, ( e.g., SACC members and the meeting agenda) in the docket and through the Peer Review of High-Priority Phthalates website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review/peer-review-evaluating-risk-high-priority-phthalates.

To ensure proper receipt of comments, it is imperative that you identify docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0551 in the subject line on the first page of your comments and follow the instructions in this document.

1. Written comments. Submit written comments by the deadlines set in the DATES section of this document and as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

2. Oral comments. To request time to present oral comments during one of the virtual public meetings, you must register online by the deadlines set in the DATES section of this document. Oral comments during the virtual public meetings are limited to five minutes unless arrangements have been made, within the constraints of the meeting agenda, prior to July 24, 2025. In addition, each speaker should submit a written copy of their oral comments and any supporting materials ( e.g., presentation slides) to the DFO prior to the meetings for distribution to the SACC by the deadlines set in the DATES section of this document.

After the SACC public meeting, the SACC will prepare the meeting minutes and a final report document summarizing its recommendations to the EPA, which will also be available in the docket and through the SACC website. EPA will consider the SACC recommendations and public comments to complete the risk evaluations and unreasonable risk determinations under TSCA for these chemical substances. Under TSCA, EPA must then initiate risk management actions to address the unreasonable risk it identified.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625(o); 5 U.S.C. 10.

The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

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: 3060-1306.

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.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1022.

Title: Sections 101.1403, 101.103(f), 101.1413, 101.1440, 101.1417 and 25.139 (MVDDS reporting, recordkeeping and third-party disclosures; NGSO FSS and DBS recordkeeping and third-party disclosures).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 18 respondents; 2,238 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hour-40 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual and on occasion reporting requirements; 5- and 10-years reporting requirements; third party disclosure requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 308, and 309(j).

Total Annual Burden: 5,316 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: This collection includes a Part 25 rule and various rules in Part 101 that govern record retention, reporting, and third-party disclosure requirements related to satellite and terrestrial sharing of the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The satellite operators are Non-Geostationary Orbit Fixed Satellite Service (NGSO FSS) and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. The terrestrial operators are Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS). The following information collected will assist the Commission in analyzing trends and competition in the marketplace. Section 25.139 requires NGSO FSS licensees to maintain a subscriber database in a format that can be readily shared to enable MVDDS licensees to determine whether a proposed MVDDS transmitting antenna meets the minimum spacing requirement relative to qualifying, existing NGSO FSS subscriber receivers (set forth in § 101.129, FCC Rules). Section 101.1403 requires certain MVDDS licensees that meet the statutory definition of Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) to comply with the broadcast carriage requirements located 47 U.S.C. 325(b)(1). Any MVDDS licensee that is an MVPD must obtain the prior express authority of a broadcast station before retransmitting that station's signal, subject to the exceptions contained in § 325(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934. Section 101.103(f) requires MVDDS licensees to provide notice of intent to construct a proposed antenna to NGSO FSS licensees operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band and to establish and maintain an internet website of all existing transmitting sites and transmitting antenna that are scheduled for operation within one year including the “in service” dates. Section 101.1413, as a construction requirement, requires MVDDS licensees to file a showing of substantial service at five and ten years into the initial license term. Substantial service is defined as a “service that is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which might minimally warrant renewal.” The Commission set forth a safe harbor to serve as a guide to licensees in satisfying the substantial service requirement, as well as additional factors that it would take into consideration in determining whether a licensee satisfies the substantial service standard. Section 101.1440 requires MVDDS licensees to collect information and disclose information to third parties. Therefore, the reporting and disclosure requirements are as follows: Section 101.1440 requires MVDDS licensees to conduct a survey of the area around its proposed transmitting antenna site to determine the location of all DBS customers of record that may potentially be affected by the introduction of its MVDDS service. At least 90 days prior to the planned date of MVDDS commencement of operations, the MVDDS licensee must then provide specific information to the DBS licensee(s). Alternatively, MVDDS licensees may obtain a signed, written agreement from DBS customers of record stating that they are aware of and agree to their DBS system receiving MVDDS signal levels in excess of the appropriate Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits. The DBS licensee must thereafter provide the MVDDS licensee with a list of only those new DBS customer locations that have been installed in the 30-day period following the MVDDS notification that the DBS licensee believes may receive harmful interference or where the prescribed EPFD limits may be exceeded. If the MVDDS licensee determines that its signal level will exceed the EPFD limit at any DBS customer site, it shall take whatever steps are necessary, up to and including finding a new transmitter site. Section 101.1417 requires MVDDS licensees to file an annual report. The MVDDS licensees must file with the Commission two copies of a “licensee information report” by March 1st of each year for the preceding calendar year. This “licensee information report” must include name and address of licensee; station(s) call letters and primary geographic service area(s); and statistical data for the licensee's station.

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: 3060-0349.

Title: Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Policy, 47 CFR 73.2080, 76.73, 76.75, 76.79 and 76.1702.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 21,034 respondents, 21,034 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 42 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; annual reporting; five and eight year reporting requirements and third-party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority which covers this information collection is contained in sections 154(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 634 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984.

Total Annual Burden: 883,428 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements approved under this collection are as follows: 47 CFR 73.2080 provides that equal opportunity in employment shall be afforded by all broadcast stations to all qualified persons and no person shall be discriminated against in employment by such stations because of race, color, religion, national origin or sex. Section 73.2080 requires that each broadcast station employment unit with 5 or more full-time employees shall establish, maintain and carry out a program to assure equal opportunity in every aspect of a broadcast station's policy and practice. These same requirements also apply to Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (“SDARS”) licensees. In 1997, the Commission determined that SDARS licensees must comply with the Commission's EEO requirements. See Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, 12 FCC Rcd 5754, 5791, ¶ 91 (1997) (“ 1997 SDARS Order ”), FCC 97-70. In 2008, the Commission clarified that SDARS licensees must comply with the Commission's EEO broadcast rules and policies, including the same recruitment, outreach, public file, website posting, record-keeping, reporting, and self-assessment obligations required of broadcast licensees, consistent with 47 CFR 73.2080, as well as any other Commission EEO policies. See Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses, SM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Transferor, to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee, 23 FCC Rcd 12348, 12426, ¶ 174, and note 551 (2008).

47 CFR 76.73 provides that equal opportunity in employment shall be afforded by all multichannel video program distributors (“MVPD”) to all qualified persons and no person shall be discriminated against in employment by such entities because of race, color, religion, national origin, age or sex.

Section 76.75 requires that each MVPD employment unit employing six or more full-time employees shall establish, maintain and carry out a program to assure equal opportunity in every aspect of a cable entity's policy and practice.

Section 76.79 requires that every MVPD employment unit employing six or more full-time employees maintain, for public inspection, a file containing copies of all annual employment reports and related documents.

Section 76.1702 requires that every MVPD employment unit employing six or more full-time employees place certain information concerning its EEO program in its public inspection file.

The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit, or various Tribal-specific federal assistance programs.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, 2129-36 (2020), Congress created the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, and directed use of the National Verifier to determine eligibility based on various criteria, including the qualifications for Lifeline (Medicaid, SNAP, etc.). EBBP provided $3.2 billion in monthly consumer discounts for broadband service and one-time provider reimbursement for a connected device (laptop, desktop computer or tablet). In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, 1238-44 (2021) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1751-52), Congress modified and extended EBBP, provided an additional $14.2 billion, and renamed it the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). A household may qualify for the ACP benefit under various criteria, including an individual qualifying for the FCC's Lifeline program.

In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, (81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016) ( 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order ), the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 directs the FCC to leverage the National Verifier to verify applicants' eligibility for ACP. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of Lifeline and ACP applicants and subscribers by determining whether they receive SNAP and Tribal TANF benefits administered by the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2024 (89 FR 94750) and allowed 60 days for public comment. One public comment was received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.

Proposed Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (NIAID), 0925-0668, Expiration Date 07/31/2025, EXTENSION, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Need and Use of Information Collection: There are no changes being requested for this submission. The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide information about the NIAID's customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the NIAID and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours over 3 years are 7,200 (2,400 per year).

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the BLM published on September 10, 2010, its NOI to prepare a RMP and associated EIS (75 FR 55344). The RMP/EIS would have analyzed the impacts of long-term management of resources, activities, and uses across 2.1 million acres of public land in the BLM Cedar City Field Office. Due to the length of time since the public scoping process was completed and the changed circumstances and resource management pressures that have occurred in the planning area during that time, the BLM is rescinding its NOI to prepare a RMP and is terminating the EIS announced in the Federal Register at 75 FR 55344.

Background. —These investigations are being instituted, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), in response to a petition filed on June 4, 2025, by Rebar Trade Action Coalition, Washington, DC. The individual members of the Rebar Trade Action Coalition are Byer Steel Corporation; Commercial Metals Company; Gerdau Ameristeel US Incorporated; Nucor Corporation; Optimus Steel; and Steel Dynamics, Incorporated.

For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

Participation in the investigations and public service list. —Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in §§ 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. —Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Conference. —The Office of Investigations will hold a staff conference in connection with the preliminary phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on June 25, 2025. Requests to appear at the conference should be emailed to preliminaryconferences@usitc.gov (DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before noon on June 23, 2025. Please provide an email address for each conference participant in the email. Information on conference procedures, format, and participation, including guidance for requests to appear as a witness via videoconference, will be available on the Commission's Public Calendar (Calendar (USITC) | United States International Trade Commission). A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to participate by submitting a short statement.

Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during 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.

Written submissions. —As provided in §§ 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before 5:15 p.m. on June 30, 2025, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties shall file written testimony and supplementary material in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 24, 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.

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Certification. —Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these investigations 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 any information that it submits to the Commission during these investigations 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 these or related investigations or reviews, 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.

Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.12 of the Commission's rules.

Background. —In March 2021, the Commission determined that a domestic industry was materially injured by reason of imports of phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. Phosphate Fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-650-651 (Final), USITC Pub. 5172 (March 2021). Respondents, OCP S.A and EuroChem North America Corporation, contested the Commission's determinations before the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), along with PhosAgro PJSC, International Materials Ltd., and Koch Fertilizer. On September 23, 2023, the CIT issued an order remanding the case to the Commission. OCP, S.A. v. United States, 658 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1324 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2023).

On January 17, 2024, the Commission filed its remand results in which it continued to find that the domestic industry was materially injured by reason of subject imports. Phosphate Fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-650-651, USITC Pub. 5490 (Jan. 2024) (Final) (Remand). On April 22, 2025, the CIT issued a decision under seal in which it remanded the Commission's decision for further proceedings. OCP S.A. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 21-00219, Slip Op. No. 25-51 (April 22, 2025) (“ OCP III ”). The CIT's decision has not been publicly released at this time.

Participation in the remand proceedings. —Only those persons who were interested parties that participated in the investigations of Phosphate Fertilizers from Morocco and Russia and were also parties to the appeal may participate in these remand proceedings. Such persons need not file any additional appearances with the Commission to participate in the remand proceedings, unless they are adding new individuals to the list of persons entitled to receive business proprietary information (“BPI”) under administrative protective order (“APO”). BPI referred to during the remand proceedings will be governed, as appropriate, by the APO issued in the investigations. The Secretary will maintain a service list containing the names and addresses of all persons or their representatives who are parties to the remand proceedings, and the Secretary will maintain a separate list of those authorized to receive BPI under the administrative protective order during the remand proceedings.

Written submissions. —The Commission is not reopening the record and will not accept the submission of new factual information for the record. The Commission will permit the parties entitled to participate in the remand proceedings to file comments concerning how the Commission could best comply with the court's remand instructions.

The comments must be based solely on the information in the Commission's record. The Commission will reject submissions containing additional factual information or arguments pertaining to issues other than those on which the court has remanded this matter. The deadline for filing comments is June 20, 2025. Comments must be limited to no more than twenty-five (25) double-spaced and single-sided pages of textual material, inclusive of attachments and exhibits.

Parties are advised to consult with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for provisions of general applicability concerning written submissions to the Commission. All written submissions must conform to the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. 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. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's website at http://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, will not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The collections of information in the LS-801 and LS-802 forms waive the requirement for compensation orders to be delivered by certified mail. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2025 (90 FR 11555).

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

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

Agency: DOL-OWCP.

Title of Collection: Request for Electronic Service of Orders—Waiver of Certified Mail Requirement.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0053.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 58,732.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 58,732.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 4,894 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $330.

The Department of Labor's VETS administers funds for the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP) grant on an annual basis. These competitive grants are codified under 38 U.S.C. 2021, 2021A, and 2023. VETS provides funds to grant recipients through annual Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) and incremental funding throughout the grant's three-year (12 quarters) period of performance. The total number of grant recipients varies from year to year based on the amount of available funds. Grants are awarded up to $500,000 each year, for a total of up to $1,500,000 for the three-year period of performance.

The Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training monitors and supervises the distribution and use of those funds as required by 38 U.S.C. 2021 and 38 U.S.C. 2021A. Additionally, and in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 2021(d), the Secretary shall collect such information as that Secretary considers appropriate to monitor and evaluate the distribution and expenditure of funds appropriated to carry out this section.

The approval of this form will create the use of standardized formats for grant recipients' preparation of the budget and budget narrative. In accordance with 2 CFR appendix-I-to-part-200(b)(4)(ii)(I), VETS' annual FOA requires the submission of a budget narrative for VETS' applicants to show that their proposed costs are allowable under 2 CFR 200.403 and are necessary and reasonable for carrying out the HVRP grant. Collecting this information via this form helps to ensure that requested data is provided in a uniform way, reporting burdens are minimized, errors in budget formulation and calculation are nullified, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents are described in its instructions. VETS will use the HVRP Budget and Narrative Form for monitoring the expenditure of grant funds according to the program budget throughout the period of performance, and to satisfy the regulatory requirements in accordance with 2 CFR 200.308(c) if there is a need for the grant recipient to request a budget revision. This collection instrument is clearly understood by respondents, and the information is easily evaluable by VETS for cost principles guidelines found in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E.

VETS is particularly interested in comments on these topics:

• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of VETS' estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;

• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Documents related to this information collection request are available at https://regulations.gov and at DOL-VETS located at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/vets/programs/hvrp. Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this notice.

This information collection request concerns HVRP Budget and Narrative Form . VETS has listed the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request. VETS seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an Information Collection Review cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal.

Type of Review: New Collection.

Agency: VETS.

OMB Control Number: 1293-0NEW.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits, Not-for-profit institutions, State and Local Governments.

Number of Respondents: 151.

Annual Burden Hours: 6.

Annual Respondent or Recordkeeper Cost: $448.68.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 906.

VETS Forms: HVRP Budget and Narrative Form.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at https://www.reginfo.gov .

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0092, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject 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-2025-0092.

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

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

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2025-0092, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject, 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.

For the facility-specific amendment requests shown in this notice, the Commission finds that the licensees' analyses provided, consistent with section 50.91 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) “Notice for public comment; State consultation,” are sufficient to support the proposed determinations that these amendment requests involve NSHC. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, operation of the facilities in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed determinations. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determinations.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final NSHC determination for any of these amendments, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take action on any amendment before 60 days have elapsed will occur very infrequently.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that 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 a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a 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 60 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).

If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

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 60 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 located 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 time-stamps 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 docket 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 following table provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensees' proposed NSHC determinations. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.