Section 4103 of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019 (16 U.S.C. 7913), hereinafter “the Dingell Act,” requires the Forest Service to provide advance notice and opportunity for public comment before temporarily or permanently closing any National Forest System lands to hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting.

The Forest Service has completed the public notice and comment process required under the Dingell Act for the permanent order prohibiting recreational shooting in the southern Clear Creek, northern Larimer and Grand County areas in the Clear Creek, Canyon Lakes, and Sulphur Ranger Districts of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. The Forest Service is issuing the final permanent order prohibiting recreational shooting. The final permanent recreational shooting order, map, justification for the final permanent recreational shooting order, and the response to comments on the proposed permanent recreational shooting order are posted on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland's web page at www.fs.usda.gov/r02/arp/recreation/shooting .

The primary purpose of the proposed action is to develop measures that will prevent or reduce damage from flooding caused by degradation of the St. Johns Bayou Ditch and closure of the Mississippi River floodgates. The EIS is needed to address a range of issues caused by flooding, including property damage, reduced agricultural productivity and income, the socioeconomic impacts of traffic disruptions, delays in emergency response, and loss of life. Sedimentation of drainage canals is one contributing factor to the degradation that reduces the drainage capacity of the canals and contributes to flooding. This degradation leaves the surrounding area vulnerable to flooding that affects agricultural production, results in community isolation, and damaged transportation infrastructure. Excessive floodwater, created when the watershed outlet is closed, also compounds additional degradation of the regional drainage system, road infrastructure, and creates community hardship. Drainage water management is essential to the vitality of the region.

The EIS will develop and evaluate potential measures for addressing the range of issues caused by flooding. The EIS will be prepared as required by section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NRCS regulations in 7 CFR Subtitle A Part 1b (7 CFR 1b).

The sponsoring local organizations (SLOs) for this project are St. Johns Levee and Drainage District (SJLDD) and St. Johns Bayou Basin Drainage District (SJBBDD). The drainage districts are granted authority under State of Missouri Title XV, Chapter 242 to organize, appoint a board, and levy taxes for improvements to drainage district infrastructure to benefit public health, convenience, and welfare of the local population.

The EIS will identify and evaluate all reasonable alternatives that include a range of measures to address the impacts of flooding caused by degradation of the drainage canal system and backwater flooding that occurs when the Mississippi River flood gates are closed. The EIS is expected to evaluate four alternatives: three action alternatives and one no-action alternative. The action alternatives, along with other scenarios, were evaluated in a 2023 Preliminary Investigation Feasibility Report conducted for NRCS for the NRCS Watershed Operations Program. Additionally, Alternative 3 was studied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) through the development of an EIS in 2013; this alternative was determined to be feasible and to meet environmental scrutiny at the time of evaluation. The action alternatives may not be mutually exclusive and may not be limited to the preliminary alternatives described here, depending on public and agency input. The alternatives identified for preliminary consideration include the following:

Alternative 1—No Action Alternative: This alternative represents what would happen if no Federal assistance or funding were provided. In the No-Action Alternative, the existing degradation of drainage canals would not be addressed. Backwater flooding when the Mississippi River floodgates are closed would continue to occur. Flooding of agricultural land, roads, and communities would continue, and the local community would continue to face the risk of property damage, negative socioeconomic impacts, and public safety issues.

Alternative 2—Proposed Action—Cleanout of Dry Run Ditch: The proposed action would include restoring degraded areas of Dry Run Ditch to the flow capacity as originally designed and installing drop pipes where head cuts from the adjacent agricultural fields are present. Sedimentation from gully erosion would be reduced, and flow capacity of the drainage canal would be improved. Potential locations and extents of the canal cleanout will be evaluated during the EIS process.

Alternative 3—Proposed Action—Construct flood control measures at the St. Johns Bayou Basin: The proposed action would include channel modification and the installation of a 1,000-cubic feet per second (cfs) pumping station east of the existing outlet at the lower extent of St. Johns Bayou. Channel modification would include widening St. Johns Bayou on both banks from the outlet near New Madrid to the north approximately 4.5 miles, widening 8 miles of the Setback Levee Ditch on one bank, and widening 3.5 miles of St. James Ditch on one bank. Embankment dimensions would be designed to minimize erosion and allow for efficient water conveyance. Channel modification would improve drainage efficiency and installation of a pumping station at the watershed outlet would allow for the draw-down of floodwaters within the watershed when the Mississippi River floodgates are closed when the river is at flood stage. Potential cleanout methods and locations will be evaluated during the EIS process and would include the impacts of any channel, wetland, or habitat modifications.

Alternative 4—Proposed Action—Growing flood-resistant crops and planting native grasses and forbs along drainage canals: The proposed action would include establishing native grass and forb buffers to reduce erosion, improve streambank stability, trap sediments from adjacent land, and improve wildlife habitat. Additionally, crops that are more tolerant of flooding in areas that are particularly vulnerable to flooding would be grown to reduce economic impacts on farmers. Potential specific locations for native grass and forb buffers will be evaluated during the EIS process.

The natural resources and aspects of the human environment to be identified and addressed for potential impacts in the EIS include soils, farmland, erosion, surface and groundwater quality and quantity, wetlands, waterways, floodplains, air quality, endangered and threatened species, fish and wildlife habitats, migratory birds, riparian areas, invasive species, cultural and historic resources, socioeconomics, public health and safety, and transportation, among others.

The natural resources and aspects of the human environment that have more potential than others to be impacted—whether positively or negatively—include the socioeconomics of agricultural production and for landowners, wooded areas of drainage canals that may provide habitat for endangered bats, and the ecosystem services provided by floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. The full list of concerns to be addressed for impacts will be developed through public scoping, agency consultations, and other components of the EIS process.

The following permits and authorizations, among others, will be evaluated for relevance to this project:

• Federal Emergency Management Agency, Floodplain Development Permit. Implementation of the proposed action will require coordination with the local floodplain administrator and may require a Floodplain Development Permit to ensure all development and engineering requirements for construction within the Special Flood Hazard Areas are implemented.

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

• Missouri State 401 Water Quality Certification. The Missouri State 401 Water Quality certification will be required from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources if a US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) individual permit is required. If the work is accomplished under USACE Nationwide Permits, then a programmatic Clean Water Section 401 certification may be granted, which specifies pre-established conditions.

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

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be conducted if needed based on ESA requirements.

Following the initial public scoping meeting and comment period described above, NRCS will prepare a Draft EIS (DEIS) and circulate it for review and comment by agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and the public for 45 days.

Changes resulting from the DEIS public comments will be incorporated into the Final EIS, to be published within 24 months after publication of this NOI. A Record of Decision will be completed and will be publicly available. The Responsible Federal Official and decision-maker for NRCS is the Missouri State Conservationist.

In addition to the initial public scoping meeting and comment period described above, NRCS and the SLOs are planning to hold a second public meeting during preparation of the DEIS to provide an opportunity to review and comment on the alternatives that are developed. This second meeting will also be an opportunity to express concern or support and to gain further information regarding the proposed action.

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

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who commented, will become part of the public record. Scoping meeting presentation materials will be available for review and comment for 30 days following the meeting.

NRCS invites agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the St. Johns Watershed project to provide written comments concerning the scope of the analysis and identification of potential alternatives, information, and analyses relevant to the proposed project.

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

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

Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534).

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

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

The primary purpose of the proposed action is to prevent or reduce damage that results from flooding of the Black River in Butler County, Missouri. Flooding along the Black River in recent years has damaged agricultural land and infrastructure, interfered with the production of agricultural commodities, and interrupted transit by inundating roads and bridges. Most of the damage occurs when the existing levee system breaches and sends floodwater onto the landscape. The most recent levee system breaches occurred in 2008, 2011, 2017, and 2024.

The EIS will develop and evaluate potential measures for addressing the range of issues caused by flooding, including property damage, reduced agricultural productivity and income, the socioeconomic impacts of traffic disruptions, delays in emergency response, and loss of life. The EIS will be prepared as required by section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NRCS regulations in 7 CFR Subtitle A Part 1b (7 CFR 1b).

Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534).

Reorganized Butler County Drainage District No. 7 (DD7), North Inter-River Drainage District (IRDD), and Ring Levee Drainage District (RLDD) are the Sponsoring Local Organizations (SLOs) for the proposed action. The drainage districts are granted authority under State of Missouri Title XV, Chapter 243 to organize, appoint a board, and levy taxes for improvements to drainage district infrastructure to benefit public health, convenience, and welfare of the local population. In the National Levee Database, the authorization category for DD7 and IRDD is Locally Constructed, Locally Operated and Maintained; RLDD is in the category Federally Authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Operated and Maintained by Another Entity (meaning RLDD).

The EIS will identify and evaluate all reasonable alternatives for addressing the cause(s) of flooding in the Black River watershed and potential solutions for preventing or reducing damage. A known cause of flooding is deterioration of the levee infrastructure that has been in place for many decades. Other issues and opportunities may be identified during the EIS process.

The EIS is expected to evaluate four alternatives: three action alternatives and one no-action alternative, as described below. The action alternatives may not be mutually exclusive and may not be limited to the preliminary alternatives described here, depending on public and agency input going forward. The action alternatives, along with other scenarios, were explored in a 2023 hydrology study by USACE, which included local stakeholder input. 1

Alternative 1, No Action: This alternative represents what would happen if no Federal assistance or funding were provided. In the No-Action Alternative, the levee system would continue to be vulnerable to breaches and consequent flooding of land surrounding the Black River. The local community would continue to face the risk of property damage, negative socioeconomic impacts, and public safety issues.

Alternative 2, Proposed Action—Two-stage Ditches: These are drainage canals that have been modified from the conventional trapezoidal cross-section by adding benches on either side of an inset channel. The benches serve as floodplains within the drainage canal, emulating natural fluvial form and process more closely than conventional drainage canals, leading to greater channel stability and reduced nutrient loading. As modeled in the USACE study, two-stage ditches reduced flood duration more than they reduced peak flood elevation. Potential specific locations and designs for two-stage ditches will be evaluated as part of the EIS.

Alternative 3, Proposed Action—Standard Channel Cleanout or Maintenance with a Low-water Weir at Swift Ditch: The standard channel cleanout or maintenance would be implemented from upstream of the Hargrove Pivot Bridge (where County Road 658 crosses the Black River) south to the state border with Arkansas. Swift Ditch runs roughly parallel to the Black River for a portion of this stretch. Combining channel cleanout or maintenance with a low-water weir at Swift Ditch would improve river efficiency and allow the river to naturally scour and increase carrying capacity with less risk than other scenarios causing head cutting and bank failures. This alternative would restrict flow in Swift Ditch and direct the river's energy back towards the Black River, removing much of the deposition that has occurred. Potential cleanout methods, weir designs, and specific locations for these measures will be evaluated as part of the EIS.

Alternative 4, Proposed Action—Levee Setbacks: The Black River is narrowly confined by levees that are close to the river on both sides. Relocating strategic sections of levee to a greater distance from the river's edge would provide more space for the river to flow. As modeled in the USACE study, levee setbacks reduced flood flows in duration and in peak flood elevation for nearly the full range of flows analyzed. Levee setbacks would also reduce the pressure and risk of failure on the existing levee layout. Potential specific locations and extents for levee setbacks will be evaluated as part of the EIS.

The natural resources and aspects of the human environment to be analyzed in the EIS for potential impacts include soils, farmland, erosion, surface and groundwater quality and quantity, wetlands, waterways, floodplains, air quality, endangered and threatened species, fish and wildlife habitats, migratory birds, riparian areas, invasive species, cultural and historic resources, socioeconomics, public health and safety, and transportation, among others.

The natural resources and aspects of the human environment that have more potential than others to be impacted—whether positively or negatively—include the socioeconomics of agricultural production and for landowners, wooded areas of levees or drainage canals that may provide habitat for endangered bats, possible changes in the flood regime in the Coon Island Conservation Area, and the ecosystem services provided by floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. The full list of concerns to be analyzed for potential impacts will be developed through public scoping, agency consultations, and other steps in the EIS process.

The following permits and authorizations, among others, will be evaluated for relevance to the proposed action.

• Federal Emergency Management Agency, Floodplain Development Permit. Implementation of the proposed action will require coordination with the local floodplain administrator and may require a Floodplain Development Permit to ensure all development and engineering requirements for construction within Special Flood Hazard Areas are implemented.

• Clean Water Act (CWA), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and Missouri State 401 Water Quality Certification. Implementation of the proposed action will require NPDES permitting under section 402 of the CWA and section 404 of the CWA for potential impacts on the Black River and associated wetlands. If a USACE Individual Permit is required, water quality certification under section 401 of the CWA will be required from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. If the work is accomplished under USACE Nationwide Permits, then a programmatic Clean Water Section 401 certification may be granted under specific pre-established conditions.

• Rivers and Harbors Act. Consultation with USACE will be conducted as required by Section(s) 10 and/or 14 the Rivers and Harbors Act.

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

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be conducted based on ESA requirements.

Following the initial public scoping meeting and comment period described above, NRCS will prepare a Draft EIS (DEIS) and circulate it for review and comment by agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and the public for 45 days.

Changes resulting from the DEIS public comments will be incorporated into the Final EIS, to be published within 24 months after publication of this NOI. A Record of Decision will be completed after the required 30-day waiting period and will be publicly available. The Responsible Federal Official and decision-maker for NRCS is the Missouri State Conservationist.

In addition to the initial public scoping meeting and comment period described above, NRCS and the SLOs are planning to hold a second public meeting during preparation of the DEIS to provide an opportunity to review and comment on the alternatives that are developed. This second meeting will also be an opportunity to express concern or support and to gain further information regarding the proposed action. NRCS will coordinate the scoping process to correspond with Section 106 of NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306108) as allowed in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3) and 800.8.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record. Scoping meeting presentation materials will be available on the NRCS website during EIS development.

NRCS invites agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the EIS to provide written comments concerning the scope of the analysis and identification of potential alternatives, information, and analyses relevant to the proposed action. Information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist NRCS in identifying and evaluating impacts on such resources in the context of both NEPA and NHPA.

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

Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534).

The title and number of the Federal Assistance Program as found in the Assistance Listing, 2 to which this document applies is 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.

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

NRCS, in cooperation with the NYC Parks and Recreation Department GreenThumb Network, is issuing this notice to advise the public that USDA NRCS will not be preparing an EIS for the GreenThumb Gardens Water Supply Project watershed plan located within the Five Borough Watershed in New York City, New York. NRCS New York State Office issued the NOI to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on April 24, 2024, at 89 FR 31130.

The primary purpose of the watershed plan is to supply dependable and accessible water to the existing GreenThumb Community Gardens that produce food. Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534). The sponsoring local organization is the NYC Parks and Recreation Department GreenThumb Network, which supports the creation and maintenance of volunteer led community gardens within the NYC Parks and Recreation Department jurisdiction.

The GreenThumb Gardens Water Supply Project is essential for the establishment of a secure and reliable on-site agricultural water supply to address deficiencies in the existing water delivery systems to these food producing gardens. Improving on-site water infrastructure within the existing community gardens would strengthen the local food system, improve efficiency, contribute to the conservation and enhancement of natural resources, and lower barriers to food production. This action would implement water conservation activities on existing agricultural lands and would address solutions to insufficient water supply and quality for the community gardens. Based on further review of the project, an EE was conducted that indicates the action has no reasonably foreseeable significant effect, and the proposed action is within scope of CE found at 7 CFR 1b.4 (d)(23)(USDA-23d-NRCS): “Implementing water conservation activities on existing agricultural lands, such as minor irrigation land leveling, irrigation water conveyance (pipelines), irrigation water control structures, and various management practices.”

Any public comment received from the original NOI and scoping period will be considered during Watershed Plan development. Questions concerning this notice of rescission should be directed to USDA NRCS through the contact provided above.

On April 27, 2021, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on aluminum sheet from South Africa in the Federal Register . 1 On April 1, 2024, we published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order. 2 On June 12, 2024, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce initiated an administrative review of the Order on aluminum sheet from South Africa covering Hulamin Operations (Pty) Ltd. (Hulamin Operations). 3 On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled the deadline for the preliminary results by seven days. 4 On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled the deadline for the preliminary results for an additional 90 days. 5 On March 28, 2025, May 9, 2025, and June 12, 2025, Commerce extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review until August 5, 2025. 6

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 7 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included in the appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The merchandise under review is common alloy aluminum sheet from South Africa. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Constructed export price was calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value was calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 8

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 9 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 10 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and, (2) a table of authorities. 11

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

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice. 14 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing at a time and location to be determined. 15 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing no fewer than two days before the scheduled date. Parties are reminded that all briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

If the weighted-average dumping margin for Hulamin Operations is above de minimis ( i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 16 If the respondent has not reported entered values, we will calculate a per-unit assessment rate for each importer by dividing the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made to that importer by the total quantity associated with those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis ( i.e., 0.50 percent). Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 17

In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation ( i.e., 8.85 percent)  18 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of the final results of the administrative review for all shipments of common alloy aluminum sheet from South Africa entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate Hulamin Operations will be equal to the dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the ultimate rate is de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 8.85 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping duty investigation. 19 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

The meeting will begin in FULL COUNCIL for the induction of New Council Members followed by Committee Sessions. The Administrative/Budget Committee will present the 2023-2024 Audit Report, review Final 2025 Funded Budget and Activities and discuss Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures (SOPPs) and Administrative Handbook updates.

The Gulf SEDAR Committee will provide a meeting summary from the August 2025 SEDAR Steering Committee meeting, provide an update on the Southeast Fisheries Science Center Resources and review the Gulf SEDAR Schedule.

The Sustainable Fisheries Committee will review and discuss the Advisory Panel Summary Reports for Executive Order 14276 Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness and Executive Order 14192 Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation. They will also review the Public Comment Summary Report on Executive Order Recommendations, organize and prioritize of Recommendations for the Executive Orders 14276 and 14192, receive an update from Louisiana and Texas on State Regulations for Wahoo, and discuss U.S. Coast Guard Safety Requirements to Carry Observers.

The Council will return to FULL COUNCIL for a CLOSED SESSION to discuss Scientific and Statistical Committee Membership.

The Council will begin with the Reef Fish Committee review of Final Action Items: Modifications to the Federal For-Hire Red Snapper Fishing Season, Reef Fish Amendment 58B: Modifications to Deep-water Grouper Management Measures and Draft Options: Reef Fish Amendment 58A: Shallow-water Grouper Complex Catch Level Management Considerations and for Reef Fish Amendment 62: Modifications to Gulf Red Grouper Management Measures. The Committee will review Recreational Initiative recommendations and prioritization and discuss Draft Options: Reef Fish Amendment 55/ Snapper Grouper Amendment 44: Modifications to Mutton Snapper and Yellowtail Snapper Management Measures.

The Shrimp Committee will review Draft Shrimp Amendment 19: Shrimp Permit Moratorium, receive a presentation on Protected Resources Bycatch in Shrimp Trawls: A summary review of data for Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation.

The Council will reconvene at approximately 10:15 a.m., CDT with a Call to Order, Announcements and Introductions, Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes.

The Council will receive updates from the following supporting agencies: South Atlantic Council Liaison, Texas Law Enforcement Efforts, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) Report and Presentation, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of State.

Following lunch, the Council will hold public testimony from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., CDT for FINAL ACTION Items (a). Modifications to the Federal For-Hire Red Snapper Fishing Season and (b). Reef Fish Amendment 58B: Modifications to Deep-water Grouper Management Measures; Recommendations: E.O. 14276 Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness and E.O. 14192 Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation and open testimony on other fishery issues or concerns. Public comment may begin earlier than 1 p.m. CDT but will not conclude before that time. Persons wishing to give public testimony in-person must register at the registration kiosk in the meeting room. Persons wishing to give public testimony virtually must sign up on the Council website on the day of public testimony. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour (12 p.m. CDT) before public testimony begins.

The Council will receive Committee reports from Administrative/Budget, Gulf SEDAR, Shrimp, Sustainable Fisheries and Reef Fish.

The Council will discuss Council Planning and Primary Activities, and Other Business items, if any.

The Council will hold an Election for Council Chair and Vice-Chair.

The meeting will be a hybrid meeting; both in-person and virtual participation available. You may register for the webinar to listen-in only by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org and click on the Council meeting on the calendar.

The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the website as they become available.

Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final-action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid or accommodations should be directed to Kathy Pereira, (813) 348-1630, at least 15 days prior to the meeting date.

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

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are promulgated or, if the taking is limited to harassment, an incidental harassment authorization is issued.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 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 measures”). 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 NMFS's implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).

NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned, or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the DATES section of the notice of issuance of the initial IHA, provided all of the following conditions are met:

1. A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).

2. The request for renewal must include the following:

• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor ( e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).

• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.

3. Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-harassment-authorization-renewals.

On August 9, 2024, NMFS issued an IHA to Phillips 66 to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities at the Ferndale Refinery Dock in Ferndale, Washington (89 FR 66057; August 14, 2024), effective from August 9, 2024 through August 8, 2025.

On May 29, 2025, NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA. Phillips 66 submitted a revised version on June 5, 2025, which was deemed adequate and complete. As described in the application for renewal, the activities for which incidental take was requested are nearly identical to those covered in the initial authorization. As required, the applicant also provided a monitoring report (available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-phillips-66-cos-ferndale-refinery-dock-maintenance-and-pile ), which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted. The report indicates that harbor porpoise (10 animals) and harbor seal (7 animals) were the only species sighted within the estimated zones, and at far fewer numbers than estimated (447 and 157 respectively). The notice of the proposed renewal IHA was published on July 21, 2025 (90 FR 34240), beginning a supplementary 15-day comment period.

The purpose of the project is to strengthen the existing timber and steel pier that has long served as a petroleum loading facility, and replace it with a new steel structure that meets current industry best practices. The continuing project will require vibratory pile installation and is expected to take 15 intermittent days between August 1, 2025 and October 31, 2025, since marine conditions are expected to be relatively calm during this period. This IHA renewal will be valid for a period of 1 year from August 9, 2025, through August 8, 2026.

The planned work is nearly identical to the activities analyzed for this IHA and the same monitoring plan will be implemented during pile driving to minimize impacts to marine mammals in the project area. Relative to the initial construction plans, there are 54 piles of 116 remaining to drive. Phillips 66 also requested a minor change to add 4 additional piles to the project to complete all pile driving work on the causeway (58 piles total). These additional piles incorporate the maintenance of a foam building for fire suppression into the current approved Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application for the causeway maintenance. NMFS reviewed the plan for the additional four piles at the terminal end of the dock and determined that it would not change our original analysis.

The additional piles are of the same size and materials, requiring only 48 minutes of additional vibratory driving time to complete installation. NMFS has determined that the amount of take authorized through this renewal IHA is sufficient to cover any marine mammal take likely to result from this insignificant incremental increase in pile driving activity.

A detailed description of the demolition and construction activities for which take is authorized may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (89 FR 53046, June 25, 2024; 89 FR 66057, August 14, 2024; 90 FR 34240, July 21, 2025). The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are nearly identical to those described in the previous notices. The activities are nearly identical, but are a subset of the initial work, except for the minor change of the addition of the four support piles.

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which take is authorized, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the Federal Register notices of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (89 FR 53046, June 25, 2024). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent stock assessment reports (SARs), information on relevant unusual mortality events, and other scientific literature, and determined there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat. As noted in table 1, the 2024 NMFS Draft SARs lists the minimum population estimate (Nmin) for the Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident stock of killer whales as increased from 73 to 75 animals (NMFS 2024). No incidental take is here authorized for this species, and this does not change our initial analysis.

A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (89 FR 53046, June 25, 2024). Specifically, the source levels, days of operation (reduced to 15 days in this renewal), and marine mammal density/occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. The number of takes authorized is based on the subset of activities to be completed under this renewal IHA, and therefore represents a proportion of the initial authorized takes. These takes reflect the estimated remaining number of days of work and number of piles to be driven. Estimated take by Level B harassment for the renewal was calculated using the same methodology as in the initial proposed and final IHAs (89 FR 53046, June 25, 2024; 89 FR 66057, August 14, 2024). Similarly, the stocks taken, methods of take, and types of take remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. The number of takes, reduced to a subset of the initial IHA (smaller number of piles and days pile driving), are indicated below in table 2.

On October 24, 2024, NMFS published (89 FR 84872) its final Updated Technical Guidance ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools ), which includes updated thresholds and weighting functions to inform auditory injury estimates and is replacing the 2018 Technical Guidance referenced in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (89 FR 53046, June 25, 2024; 89 FR 66057, August 14, 2024). In consideration of the best available science, NMFS conducted calculations using the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance and NMFS optional user spreadsheet, using the source levels and spreadsheet inputs provided in the notices for the proposed and final IHAs (89 FR 53046, June 25, 2024; 89 FR 66057, August 14, 2024), for the purpose of understanding how Level A harassment (auditory injury) zones might change from the initial IHA. The updated marine mammal hearing groups and updated thresholds can be found in tables 3 and 4.

When using the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance and the NMFS optional user spreadsheet ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools ), the estimated Level A harassment zone sizes remain functionally the same as those in the initial IHA, and are consistent with the intent of the measures prescribed through the initial IHA.

The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the initial proposed IHA, and the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in that document remains accurate (89 FR 53046, June 25, 2024; 89 FR 66057, August 14, 2024). The following measures apply to this renewal:

(a) The holder must employ protected species observers (PSOs) and establish monitoring locations. The holder must monitor the project area to the maximum extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental conditions.

(b) Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity ( i.e., pre-start clearance monitoring) through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity.

(c) Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to determine that the shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals. Pile driving may commence following 30 minutes of observation when the determination is made that the shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals.

(d) If a marine mammal is observed entering or within the shutdown zones, pile driving activity must be delayed or halted. Pile driving must be commenced or resumed as described in condition 4(e) of this IHA.

(e) If pile driving is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone, or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.

(f) Specific measures for avoiding take of killer whales and humpback whales:

(i) Prior to the start of pile driving activities each day, the Holder must contact the Orca Network to obtain the latest sightings information for killer whales and humpback whales.

(ii) The holder must delay or halt pile driving activities if Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW), unidentified killer whale ( i.e. transient), or humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zones during in-water activities.

(iii) If a SRKW, unidentified killer whale, or humpback whale enters the Level B harassment zone undetected, in-water pile driving must be suspended immediately upon detection and must not resume until the animal exits the Level B harassment zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.

(g) Pile driving activity must be halted (as described in condition 4(d) of initial IHA) upon observation of either a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met, entering or within the harassment zone.

(h) The Holder, construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and relevant Phillips 66 staff must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a renewal IHA to Phillips 66 was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2025 (90 FR 34240). That notice either described, or referenced descriptions of, the Phillips 66's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and their habitat, estimated amount and manner of take, and proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures. NMFS received no public comments.

The proposed action is nearly identical to that of the initial authorization in terms of effects. The minor change of four additional piles does not modify our findings. The same marine mammals are affected, and the potential effects and estimated take are a subset of the initial IHA. Mitigation and monitoring remain the same as the initial authorization. When considering the updated NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS, 2024), Level A harassment shutdown zone sizes remain comparable to those of the initial IHA, functionally resulting in no changes.

With a subset of estimated take, the extensive analysis, as well as the associated findings included in the prior documents remain applicable. We found that the previous IHA had a negligible impact, and with the issuance of a renewal, the taking would be small relative to population size.

NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) Phillip 66's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action; and (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

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 a renewal IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental take authorizations 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 determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency ensure 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. No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized for this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

NMFS has issued a renewal IHA to Phillips 66 for the take of marine mammals incidental to conducting Ferndale Refinery Dock Maintenance and Pile Replacement Project Activities in Ferndale, Washington, for 1 year from August 9, 2025 through August 8, 2026.

Title: Patent Review and Derivation Proceedings.

OMB Control Number: 0651-0069.

Abstract: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which was enacted into law on September 16, 2011, changed the procedures of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board,” formerly the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences). These changes included the introduction of inter partes review, post-grant review, derivation proceedings, and the transitional program for covered business method patents. Under these administrative trial proceedings, third parties may file a petition with the PTAB challenging the validity of issued patents, with each proceeding having different requirements regarding timing restrictions, grounds for challenging validity, and who may request review.

Inter partes review is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent, but only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. Post-grant review is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on any ground that could be raised under section 282(b)(2) or (3). A derivation proceeding is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to determine whether: (1) an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application, and (2) the earlier application claiming such invention was filed without authorization. The transitional program for covered business method patents is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a covered business method patent. The covered business method program expired on September 16, 2020, and the Board no longer accepts new petitions related to this program, but continues to accept papers in previously-instituted proceedings.

The USPTO's projections are based on data from the past year. The USPTO recognizes that the numbers may fluctuate given interim changes to the institution process. The USPTO has adjusted the estimated burden hours and the number of estimated filings based on recent changes to these proceedings.

This collection covers information submitted by the public to petition the Board to initiate an inter partes review, post-grant review, derivation proceeding, and the transitional program for covered business method patents, as well as any responses to such petitions, and the filing of any motions, replies, oppositions, and other actions, after a review/proceeding has been instituted.

Forms: None.

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

Affected Public: Private sector.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 7,897 respondents.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 11,947 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that the responses in this information collection will take the public approximately 18 minutes (0.30 hours) to 170 hours to complete. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, create the document, and submit the completed item to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 590,630 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Non-hourly Cost Burden: $76,099,956.

CPSC's playground handbook (Handbook) is intended to provide information about playground safety to childcare personnel, school officials, parks and recreation personnel, equipment purchasers and installers, playground designers, and any other members of the general public ( e.g., parents and school groups) concerned with playground safety and interested in evaluating their respective playgrounds. The Handbook also includes references to voluntary standards that contain technical requirements that are primarily intended for use by equipment designers and manufacturers, architects, and any others requiring more technical information. The Handbook is not a rule and does not establish legally enforceable responsibilities.

The Commission published the first Handbook for Public Playground Safety (the Handbook) in 1981. This original document was a two-volume set containing technical information intended to reduce deaths and injuries to children associated with playground equipment. In 1991, the Handbook was revised to a single volume, which contained recommendations based on a COMSIS Corporation report to the CPSC (COMSIS Human Factors Report). 1 Also in 1991, the first ASTM International (ASTM) standard for playground safety, F1292: Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment, was published. In 1993, ASTM F1487: Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Playground Equipment for Public Use was published. CPSC published minor revisions to the Handbook in 1994. In 1997, the Handbook was updated based on ASTM F1487, a playground safety roundtable meeting held in October of 1996, and comments received in response to a May 1997 CPSC request.

Due to the lack of a Commission quorum at the time, 2008 revisions to the Handbook were released as a draft staff document. Later in 2008, members of ASTM's voluntary standards committee on playground equipment and the International Play Equipment Manufacturers Association (IPEMA) identified areas where the voluntary standards and the Handbook did not align. In 2010, CPSC published a revised Handbook that resolved many of these issues.

Since 2010, ASTM has published new and revised public playground standards, 2 and new materials and equipment have been installed in playgrounds. Additionally, members of ASTM, the National Program for Playground Safety (NPPS), IPEMA, and members of the general public have requested clarifications and recommended an update to the Handbook.

Based on the current editions of the relevant ASTM standards, feedback from the public, and comments from ASTM and NPPS, CPSC published a revised draft Handbook with a focus on improvements to safety. The draft changes included updates relating to: (1) signage and labeling; (2) common hazards for supervisor awareness; (3) new impact attenuation testing for suspended elements in ASTM F1487; (4) an updated warning label on potential strangulation hazards; (5) safety recommendations concerning merry-go-rounds and other spinning equipment, consistent with requirements in ASTM F1487; and (6) several other minor revisions and corrections.

On October 1, 2024, CPSC published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register that presented its draft updates to the Playground Handbook. 89 FR 79901. The comment period closed on December 2, 2024. CPSC received 37 public comments.

The 2025 Handbook includes changes from the 2024 draft Handbook, and additional revisions made in response to public comments on the NOA. 3 The staff memorandum accompanying the Handbook, available at https://www.cpsc.gov/content/Ballot-Vote-Notice-of-Availability-Public-Playground-Safety-Handbook-Update, summarizes major revisions included in the final edition. The final edition contains the updates described above in the 2024 draft Handbook, with revisions made in response to public comments, which are addressed in Section III below.

The updated and final Handbook is available on the Commission's website at: https://www.cpsc.gov/safety-education/safety-guides/playgrounds/public-playground-safety-handbook, and from the Commission's Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7479.

CPSC received thirty-seven public comments on the draft updates to its Handbook, in response to the NOA. This section summarizes those comments and provides the Commission's responses.

Comment: Blue Imp Recreational Products, IPEMA, and a safety consultant commented that the technical information in the playground handbook is not of value to the audience, primarily the consumer. The commenters added that when CPSC and ASTM technical requirements are in conflict, it causes confusion in the marketplace. Another safety consultant stated that references to ASTM standards for technical content on signage are not helpful because consumers must pay for access to the standards.

Response: The Commission disagrees with the commenters that the technical information in the Handbook is not valuable to the intended audience. As described in section 1.2 of the Handbook, the intended audience includes childcare personnel, school officials, parks and recreation personnel, equipment purchasers and installers, playground designers, and any other members of the general public ( e.g., parents and school groups) concerned with public playground safety and interested in evaluating their respective playgrounds. References to voluntary standards that contain technical requirements are primarily intended for use by equipment designers and manufacturers, architects, and any others requiring more technical information. Professionals generally have the ability to access the ASTM standards through their organizations and therefore can benefit both from the Handbook and the ASTM standards to see an explanation of the hazards and the steps that should be taken to mitigate those hazards. Non-technical audiences, including the general public, will benefit from the explanation of information in the Handbook, but likely do not require access to the technical information in the ASTM standards. In addition, free, read-only copies of some ASTM standards are available for viewing on the ASTM website at https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/.

The Commission acknowledges that there are some technical requirements in the Handbook that are not consistent with the ASTM standards. In this case, the Commission concludes that the recommendations in the Handbook provide a greater level of safety than a similar requirement in the ASTM standards. The Commission revisits these differences and the available safety information during each update process to determine whether conflicts can be resolved without reducing safety.

Every Handbook update balances technical and non-technical safety information, and in this instance, the Commission concludes that a reference to ASTM standards for technical content on signage is adequate because the general public are not responsible for designing playground signage. The Commission also notes that the Playground Handbook section on signage and labeling (section 2.2.6) refers to ASTM1487, Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Playground Equipment for Public Use, and ASTM has made a free, read-only copy of this standard available viewing at https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/.

Comment: NPPAS and IPEMA identified photographs on the front and rear cover of the Handbook and in section 2.2.7 and noted that the equipment shown does not follow recommendations in the Handbook or the requirements of ASTM standards. The commenters identified that the photographs included a slide that lacked a chute or hood at the top, an opening in a net climber that appeared to be an entrapment hazard, and a photo of a bucket swing that appeared to have a leg opening that is too large. Additionally, NPPAS recommended that pictures be consistent with having children or not having children present.

Response: The Commission thanks the commenters for their feedback and has changed the referenced photographs in the Handbook. The Commission intends for the Handbook to depict playground equipment both in and out-of-use by children to allow readers to see the equipment in various contexts, therefore, photographs were not changed to either have children or not have children present.

Comment: Three commenters, NPPAS, an ASTM standard technical contact, and IPEMA, recommended general changes to the Handbook's references to ASTM standards. NPPAS recommended adding a brief description of ASTM in section 1.4 and moving all the bullet details and listing of standards to an appendix. The technical contact for ASTM F1292 Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment, stated that ASTM F3351 Standard Test Method for Playground Surface Impact Testing in Laboratory at Specified Test Height will be incorporated into ASTM F1292 in 2025 and recommended not to include ASTM F3351 in the new Handbook. IPEMA recommended providing a reference to the ASTM F1487 standard rather than the specific sections, as section numbers may change in future revisions.

Response: The Commission lacks the resources to edit and reorganize the references in the Handbook as requested by NPPAS at this time but will consider them in future revisions. ASTM F3351 is only referenced once, with respect to laboratory testing; the testing is intended to provide more information to the manufacturer or owner/operator of the surface, rather than to meet a performance requirement; and the standard is likely to be incorporated into ASTM F1292. Therefore, the Commission agrees to remove the listing of ASTM F3351 in section 1.4 and the reference in section 2.4.

The Commission agrees that referenced section numbers could change but concludes that a simple reference to an ASTM standard would not be appropriate in all cases. Section numbers are replaced with section subjects, where applicable, to facilitate the public's ability to find the appropriate section.

Comment: IPEMA and Ape Studio commented that the reported incident data should be limited to public playgrounds only and should not include home playgrounds because it misrepresents the hazards of public playgrounds. IPEMA added that the reported emergency room-treated injuries from 2021-2023 are not sourced from a CPSC published document and are therefore difficult to verify.

Response: The Commission disagrees that the inclusion of all playground equipment-related incidents is misrepresentative of the hazard because home playgrounds and public playgrounds share common hazard patterns. Furthermore, because the location categories in the data do not delineate public playgrounds, the Commission concludes that attempting to report only public playground data would be overly burdensome.

The Commission confirms that the report of an average of over 190,000 estimated emergency room-treated injuries annually from 2021-2023 includes all playground equipment, including both home playgrounds and public playgrounds, and is based on publicly available data in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). 4 This report is consistent with how incident data were analyzed and reported in the 2010 Handbook and in the 2017 playground injury statistics report, Injuries and Investigated Deaths Associated with Playground Equipment 2009-2014. 5 Staff conducted an analysis of more recent injuries because the most recent playground injury statistics report is based on data that are over 10 years old. A footnote is added to the NEISS data described in section 1.7 to clarify their source.

Comment: NPPAS recommended defining the terms “playground,” “play component/play structure,” “shock absorbing,” “critical height,” “flangeless tube connections,” “impalement,” and “designated play surface” to avoid ambiguity and align the Handbook with other standards. National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) also recommended defining the term “shock absorbing.”

Response: The final version of the Handbook adds descriptions of some of the recommended terms, such as “playground,” “impalement,” and “shock absorbing,” that serve as definitions. The terms “critical height” and “designated play surface” are already defined in section 1.8. The terms “flangeless tube connections” and “play component” are no longer used in the Handbook, so formal definitions in section 1.8 of the Handbook are not needed. The term “play structure” is self-explanatory ( i.e., a structure for play) and is used contextually in several new and existing definitions, therefore, a formal definition is not needed.

Comment: NPPAS and IPEMA recommended including a reference to CPSC publication 3200, Burn Safety Awareness on Playgrounds. NPPAS recommended emphasizing the importance of environmental hazards and the physical design elements that can influence the safety and thermal comfort of playgrounds. NRPA, IPEMA, and Blue Imp Recreational Products commented that the revised recommendations for shading are not feasible in the marketplace and will reduce access to playgrounds.

Response: The Commission agrees that including a reference to publication 3200 will be helpful. Publication 3200, which emphasizes the risk of thermal burns from playground equipment, was the impetus for many of the draft changes to the Handbook regarding burns and shading. The reference is added to section 2.1.1.

The new information on thermal burn hazards, including the reference to publication 3200, along with the pre-existing recommendations on shading considerations and the effects of extreme heat or cold on surfacing, are adequate to address the request to emphasize the importance of environmental hazards and physical design elements.

Shading is an important consideration for safety to mitigate burn hazards on playground equipment. The recommendations for shading allow playground designers to best address the need for shading and are not legally enforceable responsibilities. The phrasing of the recommendations in section 2.1.1 is revised to address the commenters' concerns. Additionally, section 2.5.6, which provided recommendations for shading plastics, added no new information and is removed.

Comment: IPEMA and NRPA recommended removing the year designation that was added to ASTM F2049 for consistency with other referenced standards and to ensure that the latest version of the standard is reflected.

Response: The year designation (-11) was added to ASTM F2049 because of concerns that the standard would be revised to a guide, effectively reducing the level of safety it provides; CPSC staff voted negative on a ballot item aiming to do that. 6 To ensure consistency with other standards, the year designation is removed from ASTM F2049, and instead, specific recommendations for fencing are added in a new section, 2.1.2.

Comment: NPPAS and the Hummingbird Alliance recommended expanding the discussion of fence safety to include gate safety standards and to protect consumers from the risk of vehicular accidents, drownings, falling gates, and other adjacent hazards.

Response: The Commission agrees that gate safety is an important topic. The Hummingbird Alliance identified 13 fatalities related to gate incidents from September 2007 to May 2024 that would likely have been prevented by the newest revisions to the ASTM gate voluntary standards, including at least one incident at a playground. The relevant gate voluntary standards, ASTM F900, ASTM F1184, and ASTM F2200, have been updated over the past two years to protect consumers from the unreasonable risk of being crushed by a falling gate. These standards are now referenced in the Handbook in sections 1.4 and 2.1, alongside recommendations for fencing to address nearby hazards, as requested.

Comment: IPEMA requested to remove the following sentence from section 2.2.6 because it is unclear whether it applies to playground design or labels: “If the playground is used by multiple age groups, special consideration should be made for protecting children in the youngest age group.” IPEMA also recommended adjusting the lowest recommended age for horizontal ladders from 4 years old to 2 years old. NPPAS recommended that horizontal ladders should not exceed 3-4 feet in height for younger children and consumers should be cautious of purchasing horizontal ladders for preschool children.

Response: The Commission agrees that the referenced sentence in 2.2.6, which was included in the draft as an update, should not be included in the final update because age considerations are addressed in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, and the added sentence did not provide clarity. The Commission disagrees with adjusting age or height recommendations for horizontal ladders, as most 2-3-year-olds lack the physical ability to use a horizontal ladder without risking injury, and the data used to support a maximum 3-4-foot height for young children is unclear.

Comment: Richter Spielgeräte GmbH recommended adjusting supervision recommendations to allow walking barefoot. IPEMA recommended adding a statement to “limit children from running on, under, and around equipment,” to reduce the risk of children running into equipment.

Response: The Commission is aware of burn incidents on playgrounds due to children being barefoot (see publication 3200). Therefore, the Commission disagrees with revising the recommendation to make sure children are wearing footwear. While the Commission agrees in principle that limiting children from running on, under, and around the equipment could reduce injuries, caregivers may not have the practical ability to follow this recommendation, which could increase the likelihood that this advice is dismissed. Therefore, no recommendation is added to limit children from running on, under, and around equipment.

Comment: IPEMA recommends rewriting the list of examples of heavy swinging and rotating equipment subject to suspended element impact attenuation testing in ASTM F1487 for the following reasons: swinging gates and doors are not subject to suspended element impact attenuation testing; giant strides are not subject to the testing and should still be included on the list of equipment not recommended; and tire swings are subject to suspended element impact attenuation testing, so should not be excepted from the examples. APE Studio and NRPA suggested that some multi-user swings should be allowed if they pass swing impact testing. NRPA added that public play areas have safely incorporated inclusive/generational swings. A safety consultant questioned how a consumer or an inspector would know if a product met the requirements in ASTM F1487, section 8.6.7.

Response: The Commission agrees that swinging gates, doors, and giant strides are not subject to suspended element impact attenuation testing and therefore removed this equipment from a list of examples for that testing. Giant strides are added back to the list of equipment not recommended because giant strides pose a unique impact and fall hazard to children using the equipment. The Commission also removed tire swings as an exception to suspended element impact attenuation testing and agrees that some multi-user swings should be allowed. However, the impact testing in ASTM F1487 does not appear to account for the mass of users of the swing. Therefore, the Commission cautions that because some multi-user swings, such as generational swings, are relatively new to public playgrounds, it is unclear whether they may pose unique hazards to users. The Commission will continue to monitor incident data for emerging hazards related to these products.

Playground operators are expected to know whether their equipment has been certified to meet ASTM F1487 before installation, and consumers and inspectors should be able to contact the equipment owner and/or manufacturer to obtain such information, if necessary.

Comment: Recycled Rubber Coalition (RRC), Recycled Materials Association (ReMA), U.S. Tire Manufacturer's Association (USTMA), and IPEMA commented that the discussion of rubber mulch as potentially “toxic” is inaccurate and is not based on scientific consensus; RRC and USTMA referred to the EPA's Federal Research Action Plan on tire crumb as supporting evidence for their comment. RRC added that all references that imply recycled rubber poses a risk, a hazard, or is toxic should be removed.

Response: The Commission has revised the short-hand for ASTM F3012 testing to accurately reflect the requirements of F3012 by stating “loose-fill rubber testing” instead of “toxic/hazardous metal testing,” which has been deleted in sections 2.4 and 3.7. The Commission, however, disagrees with the statement that no recycled rubber poses a risk or a hazard. The testing in ASTM F3012 limits the concentration of hazardous metals (such as arsenic, chromium, and lead) and places a size limit on tramp metals to mitigate the potential hazards posed by loose-fill rubber surfacing. Untested rubber mulch has not been verified to mitigate these hazards and should therefore be avoided. References to the risks or potential hazards of using such materials are clarified but remain in place.

Comment: IPEMA, ReMA, RRC, and USTMA commented that it is inaccurate to single out the risks of rubber mulch compared to other loose-fill surfacing materials. IPEMA, NRPA, and ForeverLawn explained that the use of synthetic turf as a unitary play surface has been rapidly growing and should be referenced in the Handbook. Richter Spielgeräte GmbH and NPPAS suggested emphasizing maintenance of loose-fill surfacing. A safety consultant, IPEMA, and NRPA offered various edits for Figure 1 and Table 2, which they asserted conflict with ADA or ASTM standards or with other material in the Handbook.

Response: The Commission agrees that rubber mulch should not be singled out in comparison to other loose-fill surfacing materials, such as engineered wood fiber. Therefore, the Handbook is revised to discuss both ASTM F3012 and ASTM F2075, where appropriate. The Commission is aware that synthetic turf has seen increased use as playground surfacing in recent years and that ASTM is in the process of developing a proposed standard for synthetic turf for playground surfacing. At this time, CPSC does not have data on the installation and testing of synthetic turf supporting its inclusion in the Handbook. The Commission may consider this information in future editions, if the data becomes available.

The Commission appreciates the identification of discrepancies with Figure 1, Table 2, and the characterization of rubber mulch. These issues are addressed in section 2.4.

Comment: IPEMA recommended harmonizing the definition of “critical height” with ASTM F1292. NPPAS commented that there are inconsistencies in fall heights for different pieces of equipment.

Response: The definition of “critical height” in the Handbook aligns with the last sentence of the definition of “critical fall height” in ASTM F1292. This alignment avoids technical descriptions of the performance criterion in ASTM F1292 and is adequate for the purposes of the Handbook. The fall heights, identified as being inconsistent by NPPAS, are two different hazard scenarios for different equipment types: one is a fall height from equipment onto the same equipment; the other is a fall height from equipment ( e.g., embankment slides, balance beams) onto protective surfacing. In response, the Commission clarifies, in section 5.3.9, that composite structures should be considered one structure with a single critical height based on the highest fall height for the structure.

Comment: IPEMA commented that the Handbook should exempt any portions of equipment located more than 84 inches above any underlying designated play surface from the recommendations in section 3. NPPAS recommended adding an illustration for crush or shear hazards rather than directing consumers to ASTM F1487 for testing criteria. IPEMA recommended exempting partially bounded openings below 24 inches to align with major recognized playground standards including ASTM F1487, CSA Z614, and EN 1176. IPEMA also recommended including a reference to the sharp points and edges requirements in 16 CFR 1500.48 and 1500.49 to align with ASTM F1487. In addition, IPEMA recommended allowing chimes, tubes, and other musical instruments to have open ended tubes provided there are no sharp edges. NPPAS commented that the statement, “consider using plastic playground equipment that resembles tires,” is unclear.

Response: The Commission disagrees that portions of equipment located more than 84 inches above any underlying designated play surface and that partially bounded openings below 24 inches should be explicitly exempted from the recommendations in the Handbook. These exemptions are a technical specification in ASTM F1487 that are based on the ASTM playground subcommittee's assessment that children are unlikely to reach 84 inches above play equipment and are unlikely to become entrapped in partially bounded openings less than 24 inches from the ground. The Handbook already refers to ASTM F1487 for technical specifications and tests. Similarly, the Commission concludes that the reference to ASTM F1487 testing criteria for crush/shear hazards is adequate, as the hazard can be specific to certain pieces of moving equipment (as discussed in section 3.1) and the reference is consistent with existing recommendations in the Handbook.

The Commission also disagrees that the testing in 16 CFR 1500.48 and 1500.49 for sharp points and edges should be referenced because the Handbook already describes practical ways that consumers can evaluate potential sharp points and edges, rather than relying on a specific test that most consumers will not be able to perform.

The Commission agrees that caps or plugs may not be appropriate for chimes, tubes, or other musical equipment with no sharp edges because caps or plugs will prevent such musical equipment from functioning. Section 3.4 is revised to allow musical equipment to have exposed open ends so long as the ends are rounded and are guarded from potential impalement and entrapment hazards. Additionally, to clarify the recommendation, the unclear statement on using “plastic playground equipment that resembles tires” is revised to refer to equipment that “simulates tires” as stated in the 2010 Handbook.

Comment: A safety consultant commented that the strangulation pictogram in section 3.2.1 is offensive and would be disturbing to children. NPPAS commented to state that the pictogram is a great addition. IPEMA recommended changing “scarves” to “neck scarves” in the text of the strangulation warning to not discriminate against cultures that wear head scarves.

Response: The Commission appreciates the support for the strangulation pictogram. An additional example warning label is added without the pictogram in section 3.2.1 for readers of the Handbook who think the example pictogram is not appropriate. The Commission agrees with the recommended change from “scarves” to “neck scarves,” which more accurately conveys the strangulation hazard, and revised the text accordingly.

Comment: IPEMA recommended modifying the suspended component hazard section to add multiple suspended components to the list of equipment to which the recommendations do not apply, and to align with the recently balloted corresponding section in ASTM F1487 which includes requirements for increased visibility of suspended hazards.

Response: The Commission concludes that the hazard mitigation steps listed in section 3.5 for suspended hazards apply to both single suspended components and multiple suspended components. This section is further clarified to state that other features, in addition to bright colors or contrast with the surrounding equipment and surfacing, can be used to increase visibility of suspended hazards.

Comment: IPEMA and Richter Spielgeräte GmbH commented that the draft Handbook's recommendation to label transfer points is unnecessary because it does not increase safety.

Response: The text in section 5.1.3 is revised to clarify that labeling of transfer points should be considered to help users identify them.

Comment: IPEMA commented that upper body equipment, entry to stairways, and entry to ramps should be included among the equipment to which the guardrail and barrier recommendations do not apply. IPEMA also suggested that barriers on stairs should be treated differently than other types of equipment and should be required on all stairs greater than 48 inches above the protective surfacing.

Response: The Commission agrees that upper body equipment and entryways do not require barriers or guardrails and added them to the examples of equipment to which the recommendations do not apply in section 5.1.3. The revisions in the draft Handbook clarified that barriers are recommended on all elevated platforms, including stairs, greater than 48 inches above the protective surfacing (and lower on equipment for toddler and pre-school age children). These revisions are included in this final update.

Comment: IPEMA recommended removing the preference for a rung diameter of 1.25 inches for maximal grip because the recommended grip range is sufficient for design. IPEMA also recommended increasing the maximum rung spacing to 18 inches (similar to the maximum step height for adjacent platforms) in Table 6 for older children.

Response: The Handbook's recommendations for a preferred rung diameter and rung spacing and the rationale for their inclusion is based on the COMSIS Human Factors Report. Therefore, the Commission is not revising this section.

Comment: IPEMA commented that the handrail height of 22 inches to 26 inches for children ages 2 to 5 is overly restrictive and makes it difficult to meet guardrail and handrail recommendations and to meet entrapment space requirements. IPEMA suggested that the recommended height range for school age children should be harmonized with ASTM (22 inches to 38 inches).

Response: The Commission continues to recommend a lower handrail height for 2- to 5-year-old children based on the COMSIS Human Factors report.

Comment: NPPAS recommended providing a maximum height on different play components for children of different ages due to a growing body of research that connects equipment height and surfacing materials to injury.

Response: The Commission has not analyzed data which supports recommending specific maximum heights on different playground equipment. Maximum height recommendations should be considered by the ASTM playground subcommittees and could be considered in future revisions if supported by data analysis.

Comment: IPEMA recommended moving an arrow in Figure 9 to show where a child may fall.

Response: Figure 9 is updated to show arrows to measure the fall distance in locations where a child may fall.

Comment: IPEMA suggested that the Handbook should not state that freestanding flexible climbers are not recommended for preschool children based on their assumption that there are flexible climbers that are functional for preschool age children. NPPAS stated that the Handbook should tell consumers to be cautious of purchasing freestanding flexible climbers for preschool children. Additionally, IPEMA recommended removing the reference to the perimeter of a net opening between 17 and 28 inches in Figure 13 asserting that it has no bearing on whether an opening creates an entrapment.

Response: Flexible climbers are recommended for preschool age children only if there is another method of egress from the equipment. Freestanding flexible climbers are not recommended for preschool age children because there is only a sole means of access to the equipment. If young children become unable or unwilling to climb down while near the top of the equipment, they will be more likely to jump or fall off, increasing the risk of injury. For this reason, freestanding flexible climbers will continue to be not recommended for preschool age children.

The perimeter of net openings specified in Figure 13 is based on the perimeters of the small torso probe and large head probe (Figures B7 and B8, respectively) and is used to evaluate such openings to prevent head entrapment incidents. This information is added to the section 5.3.2.3.

Comment: A safety consultant and NPPAS recommended adding more information on seated track/trolley rides instead of directing the consumer to ASTM F1487. NPPAS recommended that equipment use zones for trolleys and other moving equipment should be addressed in the Handbook. IPEMA recommended clarifying that only the manufacturer's intended parts should ever be tied or attached to any moving part of the ride, rather than “nothing.”

Response: The Commission concludes that the reference to ASTM F1487 is appropriate due to the many technical considerations included therein for the safety of seated track/trolley rides. The topic of equipment use zones and clearance zones or areas around the equipment that should remain clear of people or other equipment while in use spans multiple types of playground equipment which could span multiple sections of the Handbook, if addressed. These topics could be addressed in future editions of the Handbook, as the balance between technical and non-technical safety information is reconsidered. The Commission agrees with IPEMA's suggested clarification regarding manufacturer's intended parts and has removed “nothing” and replaced it with “only the intended equipment.” The Commission, however, cautions that manufacturer's intended parts should not be hazardous, as described in section 3 of the Handbook and elsewhere in ASTM F1487.

Comment: NRPA and IPEMA recommended changing “Merry-go-rounds/Spinners” to “Rotating Equipment” for consistency with ASTM standards. Richter Spielgeräte GmbH and IPEMA stated that maximum requirements for platform heights in section 5.3.4 should not be required because there are design types that allow access for both preschool and school age children. These commenters also said that hand supports are not required for seat designs where the seating adequately secures children. Both commenters also asserted that the rotation speed formula in the draft Handbook may not be accurate for all rotating equipment. In addition, IPEMA recommended removing the term “clearance zone” because it lacks a clear definition in the Handbook and has a specific use in ASTM F1487.

Response: Most consumers colloquially understand or use the terms “merry-go-round” and “spinner.” Therefore, for ease of use, those terms will continue to be used in the Handbook. The Commission will retain the platform height recommendations because the platform height can affect both child access and fall height. The Commission agrees that some seat designs, such as sufficiently concave or contained seating, can be used without hand supports because such seats are designed to contain children's bodies at the maximum rotational speed of the equipment, and has revised section 5.3.4 of the Handbook accordingly. The Commission also agrees that the rotation speed formula added in the draft Handbook is not accurate for all rotating playground equipment. Therefore, the formula is removed in section 5.3.4.1. The maximum recommended rotation speed, however, is retained. The Commission agrees to remove the term “clearance zone” because clearance zones are not currently defined in the Handbook.

Comment: IPEMA recommended that designers should determine whether footrests are necessary to include on spring-centered seesaws.

Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter. Some spring seesaws will move horizontally, like spring rockers and unlike fulcrum seesaws, and therefore should have footrests to assist users to stay on the equipment. Other spring seesaws will swing up and down like a fulcrum seesaw, in which case a footrest would be a potential crush hazard. This distinction is clarified in section 5.3.5.2.

Comment: NPPAS requested an illustration for safety signage or labels and an illustration for embankment slides to clarify the recommended maximum height of 12 inches above the underlying ground surface. IPEMA recommended that the slide exit slope be harmonized with ASTM (0-10 degrees below horizontal) to get proper drainage. A safety consultant agreed with the existing slope recommendation (0-4 degrees below horizontal). IPEMA suggested harmonizing the recommendations for slide exit clearance zones with ASTM F1487. The safety consultant recommended that the entanglement hazard on slides in section 5.3.6.7 should be described as a “narrowing gap” because “that is where a drawstring gets hung up.”

Response: Generally, signage and labeling recommendations are addressed in the Signage and/or Labeling section, 2.2.6, and example strangulation warnings are addressed in the Strings, Straps, and Ropes section 3.2.1, which includes an illustration with a slide. The recommendations for embankment slides to have a maximum height of 12 inches above the underlying ground surface are clearly expressed and therefore the Commission finds that an additional illustration is unnecessary.

The Handbook's existing slide exit slope recommendation of 0-4 degrees below horizontal reduces the risk of injury from falls related to children exiting the slide too fast. CPSC is unaware of incident data which demonstrates that water at slide exits poses a risk of injury, and the Handbook's slide exit slope recommendations overlap with ASTM F1487's slide exit slope requirements. Therefore, the slide exit slope recommendations remain unchanged.

As described in other comment responses, “clearance zones” are not currently addressed as a specific topic in the Handbook. However, Figure B13 in the appendix describes recommended areas to test for slide entanglement protrusions and may address the commenter's concerns.

The Commission concludes that gaps at the tops of slides where the slide chute connects with the platform do not need to be “narrowing” to pose a strangulation hazard on slides, and that the recommendation to remove gaps that can entangle clothing or strings is adequate; therefore, the entanglement hazard description remains unchanged.

Comment: IPEMA recommended that all swing seats should be impact tested per ASTM F1487, the use of the term “belt seats” should be changed to be “swing seats” in section 5.3.8.3., general to-fro swing seats should be allowed to be multi-user, bucket swing pivot point height recommendations should only apply to swings intended for toddlers, and a play area with only a single swing bay be allowed to have a full bucket seat with other seat types in the same bay. A safety consultant recommended that section 5.3.8.4 on multi-axis swings include other types of dish or saucer swings, not just tire swings.

Response: The Commission agrees that all swing seats should be impact tested in accordance with ASTM F1487 to reduce the severity of injury from swings impacting people on their paths; this is added in section 5.3.8.

The Commission concludes that the suggested change from “belt seat” to “swing seats” would require additional changes throughout the Handbook to adequately address safety issues. For instance, the examples of age-appropriate equipment in Table 1 describe the appropriateness of belt swings; Table 7 describes minimum clearance dimensions for belt swings; and the use zone for belt swings is described in section 5.3.8.3.3. Removing specific recommendations for belt swings in section 5.3.8.3.1 would raise a question about the specific mention of belt swings in these sections. Generalizing the recommendations in these other sections is not always logical. Therefore, the change will not be made. The Commission also rejects the recommendation to allow general to-fro swing seats to be multi-user because section 5.3.8.3.1 addresses belt seats only, and belt seats can only accommodate a single user safely.

In addition, the Commission will maintain the current pivot point height recommendations for bucket seats to ensure toddlers are protected from potentially hazardous falls because caregivers are unlikely to distinguish full bucket seats intended for toddlers from full bucket seats intended for older pre-school age children.

The Commission agrees that small playgrounds with only a single swing bay may include different types of swings in the same bay with reduced risk, the corresponding change is made in section 5.3.8.3.2 to state that “when possible,” full bucket seat swings should be in separate structures or bays. Section 5.3.8.4 on multi-axis swings is also revised to include all types of multi-axis swings, including tire swings.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and recommendations concerning the following EM site-specific issues: clean-up activities and environmental restoration; waste and nuclear materials management and disposition; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship. The Board may also be asked to provide advice and recommendations on other EM program components. The Board also provides an avenue to fulfill public participation requirements outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Federal Facility Agreements, Consent Orders, Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements.

Tentative Agenda: (agenda topics are subject to change; please contact Zachary Boyarski for the most current agenda)

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public and public comment can be given orally or in writing. Fifteen minutes are allocated during the meeting for public comment and those wishing to make oral comment will be given a minimum of two minutes to speak. Written comments received at least two working days prior to the meeting will be provided to the members and included in the meeting minutes. Written comments received within two working days after the meeting will be included in the minutes. For additional information on public comment and to submit written comment, please contact Zachary Boyarski at Zachary.Boyarski@pppo.gov . The EM SSAB, Paducah, welcomes the attendance of the public at its meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Zachary Boyarski at least seven days in advance of the meeting.

Meeting conduct: The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Questioning of board members or presenters by the public is not permitted.

Minutes: Minutes will be available at the following website: https://www.energy.gov/pppo/pgdp-cab/listings/meeting-materials .

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 8, 2025, by David Borak, Committee Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and recommendations concerning the following EM site-specific issues: clean-up activities and environmental restoration; waste and nuclear materials management and disposition; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship. The Board may also be asked to provide advice and recommendations on other EM program components. The Board also provides an avenue to fulfill public participation requirements outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Federal Facility Agreements, Consent Orders, Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements.

Tentative Agenda: (agenda topics are subject to change; please email orssab@orem.doe.gov for the most current agenda).

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public and public comment can be given orally or in writing. Fifteen minutes are allocated during the meeting for public comment and those wishing to make oral comment will be given a minimum of two minutes to speak. Written comments received at least two working days prior to the meeting will be provided to the members and included in the meeting minutes. Written comments received within two working days after the meeting will be included in the minutes. For additional information on public comment and to submit written comment, please email orssab@orem.doe.gov. The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the attendance of the public at its meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Melyssa P. Noe at least seven days in advance of the meeting.

Meeting Conduct: The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Questioning of board members or presenters by the public is not permitted.

Minutes: Minutes will be available at the following website: https://www.energy.gov/orem/listings/oak-ridge-site-specific-advisory-board-meetings.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 8, 2025, by David Borak, Committee Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2024 (the Act) establishes a pilot program authorizing the Administrator of the EPA, among other things, to grant up to 15 Good Samaritan permits for low-risk projects designed to remediate abandoned hardrock mine sites. The Administrator may grant a permit only if, among other considerations, the applicant for that permit has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the applicant has, or has access to, the financial resources to complete the project or has established a third-party financial assurance mechanism. In the event a Good Samaritan does not complete permit requirements, financial assurance funds secured under a third-party mechanism are intended to provide funding to complete the permitted work and for the purpose of carrying out the Act without the use of taxpayer funds.

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: 3060-1022.

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.

Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. requires each agency to establish one or more PRBs. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the final rating authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

The persons named below have been selected to serve on the FLRA's PRB.

PRB Chairman:

PRB Members:

Section 3393(b) of Title 5, U.S.C. requires each agency to establish one or more ERBs. ERBs sha conduct merit staffing processes for career appointees, including reviewing the executive qualifications of each candidate for a position to be filled by a career appointee; and making written recommendations to the appropriate appointing authority concerning such candidates.

The persons named below have been selected to serve on the FLRA's ERB.

ERB Chairman:

ERB Members:

Title: Mortgage Acts and Practices—Advertising (Regulation N), 12 CFR part 1014.

OMB Control Number: 3084-0156.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The FTC and the CFPB generally share enforcement authority for Regulation N and thus the two agencies share burden estimates for Regulation N. 1 Regulation N's recordkeeping requirements constitute a “collection of information” for purposes of the PRA. 2 The Rule does not impose a disclosure requirement.

Regulation N requires covered persons to retain: (1) copies of materially different commercial communications and related materials, regarding any term of any mortgage credit product, that the person made or disseminated during the relevant time period; (2) documents describing or evidencing all mortgage credit products available to consumers during the relevant time period; and (3) documents describing or evidencing all additional products or services (such as credit insurance or credit disability insurance) that are or may be offered or provided with the mortgage credit products available to consumers during the relevant time period. A failure to keep such records would be an independent violation of the Rule.

Commission staff believes the recordkeeping requirements pertain to records that are usual and customary and kept in the ordinary course of business for many covered persons, such as mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers; real estate brokers and agents; home builders, and advertising agencies. 3 As to these persons, the retention of these documents does not constitute a “collection of information,” as defined by OMB's regulations that implement the PRA. 4 Certain other covered persons such as lead generators and rate aggregators may not currently maintain these records in the ordinary course of business. 5 Thus, the recordkeeping requirements for those persons would constitute a “collection of information.”

The information retained under the Rule's recordkeeping requirements is used by the Commission to substantiate compliance with the Rule and may also provide a basis for the Commission to bring an enforcement action. Without the required records, it would be difficult either to ensure that entities are complying with the Rule's requirements or to bring enforcement actions based on violations of the Rule.

Likely Respondents: Lead generators and rate aggregators.

Estimated Annual Hours Burden: 1,500 hours.

• Derived from 1,000 likely respondents × approximately 3 hours for each respondent per year to do these tasks = 3,000 hours.

• Since the FTC shares enforcement authority with the CFPB for Regulation N, the FTC's allotted PRA burden is 1,500 annual hours.

Estimated Annual Labor Cost Burden: $31,515, which is derived from 1,500 hours × $21.01 per hour.

As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in Regulation N.

Estimated total annual hours burden: 1,500 hours (for the FTC).

Commission staff estimates that the Rule's recordkeeping requirements will affect approximately 1,000 persons  6 who would not otherwise retain such records in the ordinary course of business. As noted, this estimate includes lead generators and rate aggregators that may provide commercial communications regarding mortgage credit product terms. 7 Although the Commission cannot estimate with precision the time required to gather and file the required records, it is reasonable to assume that covered persons will each spend approximately 3 hours per year to do these tasks, for a total of 3,000 hours (1,000 persons × 3 hours). Since the FTC generally shares enforcement authority with the CFPB for Regulation N, the FTC's allotted PRA burden is 1,500 annual hours. 8

Estimated labor costs: $31,515.

Commission staff derived labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. Staff further assumes that office support file clerks will handle the Rule's record retention requirements at an hourly rate of $21.01. 9 Based upon the above estimates and assumptions, the total annual labor cost to retain and file documents, for the FTC's allotted burden, is $31,515 (1,500 hours × $21.01 per hour).

Absent information to the contrary, staff anticipates that existing storage media and equipment that covered persons use in the ordinary course of business will satisfactorily accommodate incremental recordkeeping under the Rule. Accordingly, staff does not anticipate that the Rule will require any new capital or other non-labor expenditures.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information.

For the FTC to consider a comment, we must receive it on or before October 14, 2025. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the https://www.regulations.gov website.

You can file a comment online or on paper. Due to heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the https://www.regulations.gov website.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Regulation N, PRA Comment, P085405,” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580.

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

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must (1) be filed in paper form, (2) be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and (3) comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted publicly at www.regulations.gov, we cannot redact or remove your comment unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before October 14, 2025. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy .

Title of Collection: Mail, internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR or Rule), 16 CFR part 435.

OMB Control Number: 3084-0106.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses engaged in the sale of merchandise by mail, internet or telephone.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 4,003,250 hours [(68,358 established businesses × 50 hours) + (2,545 new entrants × 230 hours)].

Estimated Annual Labor Costs: $104,084,500 (4,003,250 hours × $26.00/hour). 1

Estimated Annual Non-Labor Costs: $0.

Abstract: Generally, the MITOR requires a seller (or merchant) to: (1) have a reasonable basis for any express or implied shipment representation made in soliciting the sale (if no express time period is promised, the implied shipment representation is 30 days); (2) notify the buyer (or consumer) and obtain the buyer's consent to any delay in shipment; and (3) make prompt and full refunds when the buyer exercises a cancellation option or the seller is unable to meet the Rule's other requirements.

On April 25, 2025, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 90 FR 17436 (Apr. 25, 2025) (“April 2025 Notice”). The Commission received one germane comment. The commenter suggested that the OMB control number for this collection was improperly changed in violation of OMB's regulations. However, the OMB control number (3084-0106) for this collection has not changed since it was initially approved. In regard to the commenter's statement that “The Federal Trade Commission is not part of the rule making process in the OMB system as well,”  2 the Commission notes that E.O. 14215  3 requires all agencies, including independent agencies, to submit their proposed and final significant regulatory actions to OMB for review before they are published in the Federal Register . This E.O. does not apply retroactively to previously published FTC rulemaking documents or notices requesting comment on PRA collections. Thus, the commenter's concerns regarding the OMB control number for this collection (3084-0106) and the FTC's participation in E.O. 12866's OMB review process are unfounded.

This commenter also referenced contractual burdens created by the need for consent from telephone orders, and the cost to taxpayers created by these burdens since 1995. The specific relevance of this comment in the context of renewing the Rule's Paperwork Reduction Act clearance is unclear. To the extent this commenter suggests MITOR's information collection requirements related to telephone sales create unique circumstances because of the “need for consent,” the Rule does not require extra consent just because orders are placed over the phone. It does, however, require consent to delays and post-sale changes—which applies equally to mail, phone, and online orders. 4 Therefore, telephone orders do not create exceptional circumstances that would impact the FTC's analysis seeking renewal of pre-existing clearance for the Rule.

Pursuant to OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule. For more details about the Rule's requirements and the basis for the calculations summarized above, see 90 FR 17436.

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

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Part D Electronic Prescribing Tools (42 CFR 423.128(d)(4)-(5) and 423.160(b)(1)); Use: The NCPDP SCRIPT standard is utilized to electronically transmit prescriptions for Part D drugs for Part D eligible individuals, as required at 42 CFR 423.160(b)(1). This standard also includes a series of transactions which enable ePA to take place when the electronically prescribed drug requires PA. The ePA transactions within the NCPDP SCRIPT standard enable the secure exchange of information relevant to ePA between the prescriber's electronic health record (EHR) and the insurer, specifically providing standardized information fields that are relevant for medication use, mandatory questions, transaction messaging, and standardized ePA data elements exchanging the PA questions and answers between prescribers and payers.

Beneficiaries can access the real-time benefit tools (RTBTs) online or by phone from the plan's call center. Although a goal of requiring a beneficiary RTBT is to ensure beneficiaries can readily access their formulary and benefit information, we retained a requirement for Part D sponsors to provide the same information by phone for beneficiaries who are less comfortable with computer or mobile access to their plan information.; Form Number: CMS-10755 (OMB control number: 0938-1396); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private and Businesses or other for-profits; Number of Respondents: 1,001; Total Annual Responses: 700,865; Total Annual Hours: 11,880. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Craig Miner at 410-786-7937 or craig.miner@cms.hhs.gov. )

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Independent Renal Dialysis Facility Cost Report; Use: Under the authority of sections 1815(a) and 1833(e) of the Act, CMS requires that providers of services participating in the Medicare program submit information to determine costs for health care services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. CMS requires that providers follow reasonable cost principles under 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Act when completing the Medicare cost report (MCR). Regulations at 42 CFR 413.20 and 413.24 require that providers submit acceptable cost reports on an annual basis and maintain sufficient financial records and statistical data, capable of verification by qualified auditors.

ESRD facilities participating in the Medicare program submit these cost reports annually to report cost and statistical data used by CMS to determine reasonable costs incurred for furnishing dialysis services to Medicare beneficiaries and to affect the year-end cost settlement for Medicare bad debts. Form Number: CMS-265-11 (OMB control number: 0938-0236); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, Business or other for-profits, State, Local, or Tribal Governments); Number of Respondents: 7,329; Total Annual Responses: 7,329; Total Annual Hours: 483,714. (For questions regarding this collection contact Keplinger, Jill C. at 410-786-4550.)

Information Collection Request Title: Nurse Corps Loan Repayment Program, OMB No. 0915-0140—Revision.

Abstract: The Nurse Corps Loan Repayment Program (LRP) assists in the recruitment and retention of professional Registered Nurses (RNs), including Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs), by decreasing the financial barriers associated with pursuing a nursing education. RNs in this instance include APRNs ( e.g., nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified nurse-midwives, and clinical nurse specialists) dedicated to working at eligible health care facilities with a critical shortage of nurses ( i.e., a Critical Shortage Facility) or working as nurse faculty in eligible, accredited schools of nursing. The Nurse Corps LRP provides loan repayment assistance to these nurses to repay a portion of their qualifying educational loans in exchange for a minimum of 2 years of full-time service at a public or private Critical Shortage Facility or in an eligible, accredited school of nursing.

A 60-day notice published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2025, vol. 90, No. 93; pp. 20679-80. There were no public comments. After publication of the 60-day notice, HRSA determined that the Disadvantaged Background Form is not needed for purposes of this information collection request. This determination was made because the Nurse Corps LRP Application already verifies that at least 50 percent of students enrolled in the school where nurse faculty participants will serve are from a disadvantaged background. Removing this form will decrease applicant burden and prevent confusion about program requirements. The estimated burden table below has been revised accordingly.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: Individuals must submit an application in order to participate in the program. The application asks for personal, professional, educational, and financial information required to determine the applicant's eligibility to participate in the Nurse Corps LRP. An Employment Verification Form verifies the applicant's name and address of the Critical Shortage Facility or eligible school of nursing where they will serve their service commitment, which must be completed by the appropriate official or authorized point of contact at the Critical Shortage Facility or school of nursing. This information collection is used by the Nurse Corps program to make award decisions about Nurse Corps LRP applicants and to monitor a participant's compliance with the program's service requirements. The Nurse Corps LRP is requesting a revision and is seeking to use the previously approved forms. There is a decrease in the estimated annual burden due to the elimination of the Disadvantaged Background Form and fewer anticipated respondents among Nurse LRP applicants.

Likely Respondents: Professional RNs or APRNs who are interested in participating in the Nurse Corps LRP, and official representatives at their service sites.

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

The estimates of reporting for applicants are as follows:

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

Information Collection Request Title: Substance Use Disorder Treatment and Recovery Loan Repayment Program and the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program, OMB No. 0906-0058—Revision.

Abstract: The Substance Use Disorder Treatment and Recovery (STAR) Loan Repayment Program (LRP) is authorized by section 781 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295h). This program allows HRSA to provide the repayment of eligible education loans to individuals working in an eligible full-time substance use disorder treatment job that involves direct treatment or recovery support of patients with or in recovery from a substance use disorder and which is located in either a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) designated for Mental Health, or a county (or municipality, if not contained within any county) where the average drug overdose death rate per 100,000 people over the past 3 years for which official data is available from the State, is higher than the most recent available national average overdose death rate per 100,000 people, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Pediatric Specialty LRP is authorized by section 775 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295f). This program allows HRSA to provide the repayment of education loans to eligible providers working full-time in or serving a HPSA, medically underserved area (MUA), or medically underserved population (MUP).

The Department of Health and Human Services agrees to make payment of up to $250,000 for the repayment of eligible educational loans in return for 6 years of obligated service through the STAR LRP, and up to $100,000 in return for 3 years of obligated service through the Pediatric Specialty LRP.

Eligible disciplines for the STAR LRP include, but are not limited to physicians, psychologists, psychiatric nurses, marriage and family therapists, social workers, counselors, and substance use disorder counselors. The Pediatric Specialty LRP may make awards to applicants participating in an accredited pediatric medical subspecialty, pediatric surgical specialty, and child and adolescent mental health subspecialty residency or fellowship employed as a pediatric medical subspecialist, pediatric surgical specialist, or child and adolescent mental health professional.

Eligible facilities or sites for the STAR LRP and Pediatric Specialty LRP include, but are not limited to: School-Based Clinics, Community Health Centers, Inpatient Programs/Rehabilitation Centers, Federally Qualified Health Centers, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-approved Critical Access Hospitals, American Indian Health Facilities (Indian Health Service Facilities, Tribally-Operated 638 Health Programs, and Urban Indian Health Programs), inpatient rehabilitation centers, and psychiatric facilities. STAR LRP facilities must be located in a mental health HPSA or a county where the average drug overdose death rate exceeds the national average, as described above. Pediatric Specialty LRP sites must provide pediatric medical subspecialty care, pediatric surgical specialty care, or child and adolescent mental and behavioral health care in or to a HPSA, MUA, or MUP. HRSA will approve and activate sites for the Pediatric Specialty LRP if:

(1) The facility is already approved for the National Health Service Corps, Nurse Corps, or STAR LRP and located in or serves a HPSA, MUA or MUP; or

(2) During the Pediatric Specialty LRP application cycle, the facility submits to HRSA the site type and the point of contact(s) to PS_LRP_Sites@hrsa.gov .

HRSA will review and approve eligible new facilities during the respective application cycle for the STAR LRP and the Pediatric Specialty LRP, or upon request by a STAR LRP participant. New facilities must submit to HRSA the facility type and the recruitment contact(s). HRSA will use the information collected to determine eligibility of the facility for participants in the respective program. Note: Despite the similarity in the titles, the STAR LRP is not the existing National Health Service Corps Substance Use Disorder Workforce LRP (OMB #0915-0127), which is authorized under Title III of the Public Health Service Act. The STAR LRP is authorized under Title VII of the Public Health Service Act and has different service requirements, loan repayment protocols, and authorized employment facilities.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The need and purpose of this information collection is to obtain information that is used to assess an applicant's eligibility and qualifications for the STAR LRP and the Pediatric Specialty LRP, and to obtain information for eligible facilities or sites. Clinicians interested in participating in the STAR LRP or the Pediatric Specialty LRP must apply to the applicable program to participate. The forms utilized by the STAR LRP and the Pediatric Specialty LRP include the following: the STAR LRP or Pediatric Specialty LRP Application, respectively, the Authorization for Disclosure of Loan Information form, the Privacy Act Release Authorization form, and the electronic Employment Verification form, if applicable. The forms collect information needed for selecting participants and repaying eligible educational loans.

Additionally, health care facilities located in high overdose death rate areas or mental health HPSAs must submit the facility type and the site point(s) of contact(s) for HRSA to determine the facility's eligibility to participate in the STAR LRP. Similarly, sites located in or serving a HPSA, MUA, or MUP must submit the site type and the site point(s) of contact(s) for HRSA to determine the sites' eligibility to participate in the Pediatric Specialty LRP. The STAR LRP and the Pediatric Specialty LRP application asks for personal, professional, and financial information needed to determine the applicant's eligibility to participate in either of the programs. In addition, applicants must provide information regarding the loans for which repayment is being requested.

Likely Respondents: Licensed medical, mental, and behavioral health providers who are employed or seeking employment and are interested in serving underserved populations; and health care facilities or sites interested in becoming approved for the STAR LRP and/or the Pediatric Specialty LRP.

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

On January 24, 2025, the President established the Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council through Executive Order 14180, “Council to Assess the Federal Emergency Management Agency.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/council-to-assess-the-federal-emergency-management-agency.

Notice of this meeting is given under Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 117-286 (5 U.S.C. Ch. 10), which requires each advisory committee meeting to be open to the public unless the President, or the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports, determines that a portion of the meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).

Agenda: The Council will meet in an open session from 11:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The meeting will include: (1) Remarks and updates from Council leadership; (2) open panel discussion.

Meeting instructions for virtual attendance: Members of the public may register to participate in this Council meeting under the following procedures. Each individual can register to attend by entering their full legal name and email address into forms link by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Wednesday, August 27, 2025. To receive the link please email Patrick Powers, Designated Federal Officer of the President's Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council at FEMAreviewcouncil@hq.dhs.gov. Members of the public who have registered to participate will be provided the agenda, draft report, and virtual link. For more information about the Council, please visit our website: https://www.dhs.gov/federal-emergency-management-agency-review-council.

The Council is committed to ensuring all participants have equal access regardless of disability status. If you require a reasonable accommodation due to a disability to fully participate, please contact Patrick Powers at FEMAreviewcouncil@hq.dhs.gov as soon as possible.

Jobs Plus promotes economic empowerment in low-income areas by providing funding to PHAs to develop locally-based, job-driven approaches to increase earnings and advance employment outcomes of public housing residents through work readiness, employer linkages, job placement, educational advancement, technology skills, and financial literacy. The Jobs Plus model relies on three components: (1) employment-related services; (2) community support for work; and (3) a financial incentive ( i.e., rent incentive), which currently excludes from the family rent calculation 100 percent of a participating resident's incremental earned income for a period of up to 48 months or the end of the grant term (whichever is sooner). The rent incentive is the focus of the notice and removes a major disincentive to employment by neutralizing any rent increase due to increasing earned income.

Congress first appropriated funds for the program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, (Pub. L. 113-76, approved January 17, 2014), and continued to appropriate funds for the program in each subsequent fiscal year. The most recent appropriation is the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 119-4, approved March 14, 2025). Each year, the appropriations act provisions pertaining to Jobs Plus have remained substantially similar and provide HUD the authority to waive rent and income limitation requirements under sections 3 and 6 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, (the Housing Act), (42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437d), and provide alternative requirements implementing the Jobs Plus rent incentive.

As part of the implementation of the Jobs Plus program, HUD has published two prior Federal Register notices to announce waivers and alternative requirements for Jobs Plus, specifically concerning the rent incentive. The first notice, “Jobs-Plus Pilot Initiative program,” was published on March 13, 2015 at 80 FR 13415 (the 2015 notice). The 2015 notice was replaced by a second notice, “Waivers and Alternative Requirements for the Jobs Plus Initiative Program,” which was published on March 29, 2018 at 83 FR 13506 (the 2018 notice). Under the 2015 and 2018 notices, the Jobs Plus Earned Income Disregard (JPEID) was largely established by HUD waiving section 3(d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a) and its implementing regulations at 24 CFR 960.255. The 2018 notice continues to apply to FY2023-2024 and prior Jobs Plus grantees (as described below) but not to FY2025 and subsequent FY Jobs Plus grantees.

This notice, referred to as the 2025 notice, is essential to comply with the statutory requirements established by the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) (Pub. L. 114-201, 13 Stat. 782) (approved July 29, 2016). HOTMA removed the standard public housing Earned Income Disregard (EID), which was the foundation for JPEID and the 2015 and 2018 notices. Specifically, section 102(a)(2) of HOTMA eliminated section 3(d) of the Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 1437a(d)), which allowed for the exclusion of earned income increases from annual income calculations for a limited time period for determining rent. Due to the removal of the EID provision, the Jobs Plus incentive will no longer be applicable for grants in FY2025 and subsequent fiscal years. As a result, HUD is using the authority granted in the most recent authorization, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 119-4, approved March 14, 2025), to waive sections 3 and 6 of the Housing Act, as explained in Appendix 2, to establish a new Jobs Plus rent incentive for FY2025 and subsequent FY grants.

Subsequently, HUD implemented HOTMA via the “Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016: Implementation of Sections 102, 103, and 104”, 88 FR 9600 (Feb. 14, 2023) (HOTMA final rule) revising 24 CFR 960.255(e)(2) (Self-sufficiency incentives), effective January 1, 2024. The final rule permits families “eligible to receive the Jobs Plus program rent incentive pursuant to the Jobs Plus FY2023 notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) or earlier appropriations and distributed through prior Jobs Plus NOFOs,” to continue to receive the disallowance of increase in annual income ( i.e., they may continue to use the rent incentive structure associated with those years, which is the JPEID). The FY2023 Jobs Plus NOFO was reopened on December 12, 2023, to include FY 2024 funds, solicit additional applications under the FY2023 NOFO, and to obligate the bulk of FY2023 and FY2024 Jobs Plus funding within the fiscal year.

Accordingly, HUD's implementation of HOTMA as explained above applies to grants (and the families they serve) awarded under the reopened FY2023 NOFO and prior years' NOFOs, as described in Appendix 1 of this notice. However, families eligible to receive the Jobs Plus rent incentive in connection with FY2025 and future appropriations/NOFOs and grants awarded thereunder are subject to the new rent incentive, the Jobs Plus Deduction (JPD), as described in Appendix 2 of this notice.

HUD will announce any other revisions to waivers and alternative requirements for Jobs Plus in future Federal Register notices.

This Notice involves administrative and fiscal requirements related to income limits and exclusions regarding the calculation of rental assistance which do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this Notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

The lessees agreed to the new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $20 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year, and 20 percent respectively. The lessees paid the required $500 administrative fee for lease reinstatement and the $151 cost of publishing this notice. The lessees met the requirements for reinstatement of the leases per sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Minerals Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). Additionally, in accordance with the requirements of IM 2018-010, the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office associated with this lease has reviewed conformance with the existing resource management plan and supported the Field Office decision to reinstate, informed by an environmental assessment.

The BLM proposes to reinstate the leases referenced below, effective with their respective termination dates, under the original terms and conditions of the leases and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

The BLM will consider authorizing Gold Standard Ventures (US) Inc.'s Plan of Operations for the South Railroad Mine Project located in the Piñon Range, approximately 25 miles southwest of Elko, Nevada, in Elko County. The Proposed Action would include construction, operation, reclamation, and closure of a new gold and silver mine and its associated facilities.

The Plan of Operations boundary would include approximately 8,548 acres, of which, approximately 4,624 acres are on BLM-administered lands and approximately 3,924 acres are on private lands. The total life of the Proposed Action is estimated to be 16.5 years.

The BLM's purpose for the action is to respond to Gold Standard Ventures (US) Inc.'s proposal as described in their Plan of Operations for the South Railroad Mine Project and to analyze the potential environmental effects associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives to the Proposed Action, consider reasonable alternatives, and develop and consider mitigation when necessary to mitigate environmental effects. The BLM's need for the action is established by its responsibilities under section 302 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act and the BLM Surface Management Regulations at 43 CFR subpart 3809, and by the BLM's responsibility to ensure that operations under the General Mining Law of 1872 prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.

The Proposed Action is to construct, operate, reclaim, and close a new gold and silver mine from which ore would be extracted using conventional surface mining techniques and associated facilities. The Plan of Operations boundary would cover approximately 8,548 acres on approximately 4,624 acres of BLM-administered lands and approximately 3,924 acres of private land.

The access road would include a portion of Lucky Nugget 2 Road, BLM Road 1119, County Road 720 (Bullion Road), and BLM Road 1053.

The proposed life of the Project is approximately 16.5 years and includes construction for approximately 1.5 years, mine operations for approximately 10 years, and reclamation and closure for approximately 5 years. Monitoring would continue, as necessary. Construction is estimated to employ up to 600 people, and mine operations would employ approximately 300 people.

The Proposed Action facilities include:

• Four open pits (Dark Star North, Dark Star Main, Pinion North, Pinion Main), 2 of which would require dewatering and result in pit lakes after mine closure;

• Three Waste Rock Disposal Facilities;

• A limestone quarry;

• An ore crushing and conveying system;

• Lime and cement silos and ore agglomeration facility;

• Ore, clay, and growth media stockpiles;

• An on-site power plant and substation;

• A heap leach facility with solution channels, associated process solution tanks, and ponds;

• A water supply and dewatering system;

• Stormwater diversion ditches and stormwater sediment basins;

• A water treatment plant;

• Processing facilities composed of pumps and pipelines; adsorption, desorption, and recovery plant; refinery; and an assay laboratory;

• Access and haul roads;

• Ancillary facilities composed of the following: ready line; maintenance area; reagent and fuel storage; storage and laydown yards; explosive magazines; meteorological station; warehouse; truck maintenance shop; truck wash; offices; workshop; changing and lunch facilities; administration and security building; and solid and hazardous waste management facilities; and

• Evapotranspiration cells developed during reclamation and closure.

Existing surface disturbance associated with the previously authorized South Railroad Exploration Plan of Operations would be overlapped by the proposed mine features within the mine area. As such, the existing disturbance would be incorporated into the Proposed Action. The South Railroad Exploration Plan of Operations would remain authorized for up to 500 acres of exploration disturbance.

While the proposed Plan of Operations boundary would cover approximately 8,548 acres, the proposed surface disturbance within that boundary for mine facilities and access would result in 1,770 acres of surface disturbance. Of this, approximately 931 acres are on BLM-administered lands and approximately 839 are on private land. Approximately 1,267 acres of the surface disturbance would be temporary/reclaimed and 503 acres of permanent disturbance would remain when the mine is closed.

The BLM welcomes comments on all preliminary alternatives as well as suggestions for additional alternatives.

The analysis in the EIS will focus on potential effects to air quality; cultural resources; water resources; hazardous materials and solid waste; livestock grazing; noise and vibration; recreation and wilderness; social and economic values; soils and reclamation; transportation and access; vegetation resources; visual resources; threatened and endangered species; wildlife resources; paleontology; geology and minerals; lands and realty; and Native American traditional values.

The following bullet points summarize some of the anticipated impacts:

• Cultural Resources: There are 35 sites that are eligible or unevaluated under the National Register of Historic Places and may be affected by the Proposed Action; 18 of them are within the physical area of potential effects and 17 are within the visual, auditory, and atmospheric area of potential effects.

• Water Resources: The Proposed Action involves groundwater pumping (dewatering) to allow mining below the water table at the Dark Star North Pit and Dark Star Main Pit and would result in 2 pit lakes forming. No dewatering requirements are anticipated for the Pinion North Pit and Pinion Main Pit, mining of these pits would occur entirely above the natural water table and as a result pit lakes are not expected to form after closure. Potential impacts to seep, spring, and stream flow may occur within the maximum extent of 10-foot drawdown from the proposed dewatering operations if the source of the water is connected to the regional aquifer feeding these surface water features. Additionally, during years two through five of mine operations, dewatering rates are predicted to exceed consumptive demands and excess water would be treated and released to the unnamed tributary that flows into Dixie Creek. Groundwater pumping for pit dewatering and the release of excess water to the unnamed tributary would end in year five of mine operations and groundwater would only be extracted to support consumptive use from that point forward. A monitoring and mitigation plan will be developed to address impacts. Sedimentation and erosion may also occur due to Project-related disturbance, but this would be addressed through appropriate mine design requirements.

• Livestock Grazing: The Proposed Action would result in an impact to available acres of land for livestock to graze within the El Jiggs, Pine Mountain, Dixie Flats, White Flats FFR, Emigrant Springs, River, Tonka, and Indian Springs allotments. The eight allotments total 136,709 acres of BLM grazing lease acreage, with 30,715 permitted Animal Unit Months (18,543 active Animal Unit Months). Effects to livestock grazing would include a potential reduction in Animal Unit Months by 446 during operations and 87 post-closure due to a loss of forage availability from surface disturbance and reduced access to a portion of an allotment from fencing.

• Transportation and Access: Approximately 17 miles of the proposed access road is comprised of existing roads; however, approximately 0.2 miles of new road would be constructed where the access road enters the Plan of Operations boundary. The primary access route would start by traveling southeast on State Route 227, then south on State Route 228, west on an unnamed road, northwest on Lower South Fork Road, west and north on County Road 715B (Casway Road, Sherman Avenue, Lucky Nugget Road), and southwest on BLM Road 1119, County Road 720 (Bullion Road), and BLM Road 1053. Approximately seven miles of the primary access route near South Fork Reservoir would pass through residential areas near the South Fork State Recreation Area. The Proposed Action includes the maintenance, improvement, and realignment of the access road. Improvement and maintenance of the access road would be conducted by Gold Standard Ventures (US) Inc. and/or its contractors, in coordination with the Elko County Road Department via a required agreement with Elko County. The Proposed Action includes, where necessary, improving and widening the access road to accommodate two travel lanes, and installation of culverts and other drainage management features along the access road. The Proposed Action would add an estimated 86 total vehicle trips per day to the transportation system within the area of analysis during mine operations. Traffic during the construction and reclamation period is expected to be greater than traffic levels during the mine operations period due to increased deliveries, construction traffic, and equipment removal.

• Threatened and Endangered Species: Federally listed species that have been documented or may be present in the Project Area include Lahontan cutthroat trout and whitebark pine. No impacts to whitebark pine are anticipated. Impacts to Lahontan cutthroat trout and its habitat are expected due to increased sediment input into the Dixie Creek, changes to water quantity and quality due to discharge of pumped water during dewatering activities, and loss of riparian areas from the disturbance area and dewatering activities. Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code 1536) will be required to address potential impacts to the Lahontan cutthroat trout and its habitat.

• Wildlife Resources: Impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat are expected to include 892 acres (586 temporary, 306 permanent) of priority habitat removal; 18 leks impacted by noise from construction, mine operations, reclamation, and closure; and 1 inactive lek from surface disturbance associated with the access road. Gold Standard Ventures (US) Inc. would participate in the required Nevada Conservation Credit System, implement required design features from the 2015 Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Greater Sage-Grouse, and include applicant-committed environmental protection measures in its Plan of Operations to mitigate habitat impacts from the Proposed Action to ensure an overall net conservation gain for the species, while allowing for mine development.

Consistent with the NEPA process, the BLM anticipates the final EIS will be released winter 2025-2026 with a record of decision during winter 2025-2026.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping period. The BLM will be holding two in-person public scoping meetings on the following dates at the following locations: September 3, 2025, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. PST and again on the same date from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. PST. Both meetings will be in-person and will occur at the California Trail Center, 1 Interpretive Way, Elko, NV 89801. The date(s) and location(s) of any additional scoping meetings will be announced in advance through local newspaper publications and the BLM National NEPA Register Project page at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2038636/510.

Jared M. Bybee, District Manager, Elko District Office

The BLM's decision relative to the EIS that will be prepared for the South Railroad Mine Project will consider the following: (1) approval of the proposed Plan of Operations to authorize the proposed activities without modifications or additional mitigation measures; (2) approval of the proposed Plan of Operations with additional mitigation measures that the BLM deems necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands; (3) approval of the Plan of Operations with one of the alternatives analyzed in the EIS; or (4) denial of the proposed Plan of Operations and associated activities.

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

The BLM will consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Indian Tribal Nations and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed South Railroad Mine Project that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Scope. —For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as “articles of soda-lime-silica glass that are manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin (or another liquid metal with a density greater than molten glass), cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, and cutting it to appropriate dimensions. For purposes of the investigation, float glass products have an actual thickness of at least 2.0 mm (0.0787 inches) and an actual surface area of at least 0.37 square meters (4.0 square feet).

The country of origin of each float glass product is determined by the location where the soda-lime-silica glass is first manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin and cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, regardless of the location of any downstream finishing or fabrication operations.

Prior to being subjected to further treatment, finishing, or fabrication, float glass products meet the requirements of Type I under ASTM-C1036 of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Float glass products may be clear, stained, tinted, or coated with one or more materials. Examples of coated float glass products include Low-E architectural glass ( i.e., glass with a low emissivity coating to limit the penetration of radiant heat energy) and frameless mirrors ( i.e., flat glass with a silver, aluminum, or other reflective layer) such as mirror stock sheet.

Float glass products may be annealed, chemically strengthened, heat strengthened, or tempered to achieve a desired surface compression, pursuant to ASTM-C1048, ASTM-C1422/C1422M, or other similar specifications.

Float glass products include tub and shower enclosures ( i.e., doors and panels) made of tempered glass, which may be sold with attached or unattached hardware. In such cases, the scope covers only the tempered glass, to the exclusion of any non-glass hardware.

The only float glass product assemblies included within the scope are: (1) articles consisting of two of more sheets of float glass that are bonded together using a polymer interlayer ( i.e., laminated glass); (2) insulating glass units (IGUs), which consist of two or more sheets of float glass separated by a spacer material and hermetically sealed together at the edge in order to create a thermal barrier using air or one or more gases but excluding any non-float glass components (other than the spacer and insulating materials) that may be mounted within the space between sheets of float glass ( e.g., blinds, wrought iron cores, and camed patterned glass), as such non-float glass components are deemed outside the scope and not subject to duties; and (3) LED mirrors ( i.e., float glass mirrors with one or more light-emitting diodes attached to or integrated with the mirror, as well as framed float glass mirrors with one or more light emitting diodes attached to or integrated with the mirror or the mirror frame, but without other electronic functionality such as digital or video displays or audio circuitry).

Float glass products covered by the scope may meet one or more of the ASTM-C162, ASTM-C1036, ASTM-C1048, ASTM-C1172, ASTM-C1349, ASTM-C1376, ASTM-C1422/C1422M, ASTM-C1464, ASTM-C1503, ASTM-C1651, ASTM-E1300, and ASTM-E2190 specifications, definitions, and/or standards.

Float glass products may be further worked, including, but not limited to, operations such as: cutting; beveling; edging; notching; drilling; etching; bending; curving; chipping; embossing; engraving; surface grinding; or polishing; and sandblasting ( i.e., using high velocity air to stream abrasive particles and thereby impart a frosted aesthetic to the glass surface). A float glass product which undergoes further work remains within the scope so long as the soda-lime-silica glass originally satisfied the requirements of ASTM-C1036 Type I and was first manufactured in a subject country, regardless of where it is further worked.

Excluded from the scope are: (1) wired glass ( i.e., glass with a layer of wire mesh embedded within); (2) patterned flat glass ( i.e., rolled glass with a pattern impressed on one or both sides) meeting the requirements of Type II under ASTM-C1036, including greenhouse glass and patterned solar glass ( i.e., photovoltaic glass with a textured surface); (3) safety glazing materials for vehicles certified to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z26.1; (4) vacuum insulating glass (VIG) units, which consist of two or more sheets of float glass separated by a spacer material, with at least one hermetically sealed compartment that uses a gas-free vacuum as a thermal barrier; (5) framed mirrors without any LEDs integrated with the mirror or the mirror frame; (6) unframed “over-the-door” mirrors that are ready for use as imported without undergoing after importation any processing, finishing, or fabrication; and (7) heat-strengthened washing machine lid glass with an actual surface area less than 6.0 square feet (0.56 square meters).

Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) soda-lime-silica glass containing less than 0.01 percent iron oxide by weight, annealed with a surface compression less than 3,500 pounds per square inch (PSI), having a transparent conductive oxide base coating ( e.g., tin oxide), and with an actual thickness less than or equal to 4.0 mm (0.1575 inches) ( i.e., “coated solar glass”); and (2) heat treated soda-lime-silica glass with a surface compression between 3,500 and 10,000 PSI, containing two or more drilled holes, and having an actual thickness less than 2.5 mm (0.0984 inches) ( i.e., “clear back solar glass”). Solar glass products (also known as photovoltaic glass) are designed to facilitate the conversion of solar energy into electricity.

Also excluded are metal-camed glass products ( i.e., panels of glass joined together with metal banding) where the constituent glass panels would otherwise be excluded by reason of their size ( e.g., an actual surface area less than 0.37 square meters, or 4.0 square feet) and/or by reason of consisting of patterned flat glass ( i.e., rolled glass with a pattern impressed on one or both sides) meeting the requirements of Type II under ASTM-C1036.

Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are any products already covered by the scope of any extant antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders, including Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011), and Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011).”

Background. —The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of § 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China and Malaysia of float glass products, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of § 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on November 21, 2024, by Vitro Flat Glass, LLC, Cheswick, Pennsylvania, and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC, Cochranton, Pennsylvania (“Vitro”).

For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, 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 C (19 CFR part 207).

Participation in the investigations and public service list. —Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

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.

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 the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report. —The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on November 10, 2025, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing. —The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on November 25, 2025. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before November 19, 2025. Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the investigation, may in their discretion for good cause shown, grant such a request. Requests to appear as remote witness due to illness or a positive COVID-19 test result may be submitted by 3 p.m. the business day prior to the hearing. Further information about participation in the hearing will be posted on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/calendarpad/calendar.html.

A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on November 21, 2025. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on November 20, 2025. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions. —Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of § 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is November 18, 2025. Parties shall also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of § 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is December 2, 2025. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before December 2, 2025. On December 15, 2025, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before December 18, 2025, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of the Commission's rules. 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.

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall 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 §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's 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.

Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

Scope. —For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as active anode material, which is an anode grade graphite material with a graphite minimum purity content of 90 percent carbon by weight, whether containing synthetic graphite, natural graphite, or a blend of synthetic and natural graphite; with or without coating. Subject merchandise may be in the form of powder, dry, liquid, or block form and is covered irrespective of the form in which it enters. Subject merchandise typically has a maximum size of 80 microns when in powder form. Subject merchandise has an energy density of 330 milliamp hours per gram or greater and a degree of graphitization of 80 percent or greater, where graphitization refers to the extent of the graphite crystal structure.

Subject merchandise is covered regardless of whether it is mixed with silicon based active materials, e.g., silicon-oxide (SiOx), silicon-carbon (SiC), or silicon, or additives such as carbon black or carbon nanotubes. Subject merchandise is covered regardless of the combination of compounds that comprise the graphite material. Subject merchandise is covered regardless of whether it is imported independently, as part of a compound, in a battery, as a component of an anode slurry, or in a subassembly of a battery such as an electrode. Only the anode grade graphite material is covered when entered as part of a mixture with silicon based active materials, as part of a compound, in a battery, as a component of an anode slurry, or in a subassembly of a battery such as an electrode.

Background. —The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of § 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China of active anode material, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of § 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on December 18, 2024, by the American Active Anode Material Producers, the members of which are Anovion Technologies, Sanborn, New York; Syrah Technologies LLC, Vidalia, Louisiana; NOVONIX Anode Materials LLC, Chattanooga, Tennessee; Epsilon Advanced Materials, Leland, North Carolina; and SKI US, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.

For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, 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 C (19 CFR part 207).

Participation in the investigations and public service list. —Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

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.

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 the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report. —The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on November 14, 2025, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing. —The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on December 4, 2025. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before November 24, 2025.

Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the investigation, may in their discretion for good cause shown, grant such a request. Requests to appear as remote witness due to illness or a positive COVID-19 test result may be submitted by 3:00 p.m. the business day prior to the hearing. Further information about participation in the hearing will be posted on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/calendarpad/calendar.html .

A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on December 3, 2025. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on December 3, 2025. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions. —Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of § 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is November 21, 2025. Parties shall also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of § 207.25 of the Commission's rules.

The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is December 11, 2025. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before December 11, 2025. On December 29, 2025, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before December 31, 2025, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of the Commission's rules. 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.

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall 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 §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's 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.

Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

Background. —On July 7, 2025, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (90 FR 14378, April 1, 2025) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

For further information concerning the conduct of this review 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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Staff report. —A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review has been placed in the nonpublic record, and will be made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review on September 4, 2025. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

Written submissions. —As provided in § 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, 2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before 5:15 p.m. on September 9, 2025 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by September 9, 2025. However, should the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must 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 review must be served on all other parties to the review (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.

Determination. —The Commission has determined this review is extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Act; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of JUUL Labs, Inc. on August 8, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain vaporizer devices, cartridges used therewith, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: NJOY, LLC of Scottsdale, AZ; NJOY Holdings, Inc. of Scottsdale, AZ; Altria Group, Inc. of Richmond of VA; Altria Group Distribution Company of Richmond, VA; and Altria Client Services LLC of Richmond, VA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. Any written submissions on other issues must also be filed by no later than the close of business, eight calendar days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Complainant may file replies to any written submissions no later than three calendar days after the date on which any initial submissions were due, notwithstanding § 201.14(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. No other submissions will be accepted, unless requested by the Commission. Any submissions and replies filed in response to this Notice are limited to five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3843”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. ( See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures  1 ). 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. Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary at EDIS3Help@usitc.gov .

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, 2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. 3

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

All participants of Applied Remote Sensing Training program (ARSET) trainings will be invited to complete an online survey. Participation is optional and no personal identifiers are collected. The follow-up survey will be used to assess participant perceptions of the long-term benefits of training in earth observation tools and data, improve understanding how remote sensing data and tools are used by stakeholders, identify barriers to data and tool use, and gather suggestions for training improvement, including future training needs.

This data collection supports the Earth Action program within the Earth Science Division. NASA is committed to effectively performing the Agency's communication function in accordance with the Space Act Section 203 (a)(3) to “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof,” and to enhance public understanding of, and participation in, the nation's aeronautical and space program in accordance with the NASA Strategic Plan.

Online survey.

Title: NASA Applied Remote Sensing Training Program Follow-Up Survey.

OMB Number: 2700-xxxx.

Type of Review: New collection of information.

Affected Public: Individuals.

Estimated Annual Number of Activities: 17.

Estimated Number of Respondents per Activity: 106.

Annual Responses: 1,812.

Estimated Time per Response: 17 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 512 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.

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

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

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.

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

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

1. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1600 and K2025-1592; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service Contract 85 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 8, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Samuel Robinson; Comments Due: August 18, 2025.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1605 and K2025-1597; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 917 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 8, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Jennaca Upperman; Comments Due: August 18, 2025.

3. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1606 and K2025-1598; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 1399 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 8, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Kenneth Moeller; Comments Due: August 18, 2025.

None. See Section II for public proceedings.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

On August 8, 2025, pursuant to their authority under 39 U.S.C. 3632, the Governors of the Postal Service established time-limited price changes for competitive products. The Governors' Decision and the record of proceedings in connection with such decision are reprinted below in accordance with section 3632(b)(2). Mail Classification Schedule language containing the new prices can be found at www.prc.gov.

The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 7, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service Contract 88 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1599 and K2025-1591.

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.

OMB Control Number: 2120-0806.

Title: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Competitive Grant Project Information.

Form Numbers: 5100-144.

Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.

Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on May 23, 2025 (90 FR 22151). The FAA uses this collection to solicit the information necessary to evaluate and select airport projects for funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed on November 15, 2021. The IIJA provides about $1,020,000,000 annually, for five years, to award competitive grants for airport terminal and tower development. Of this amount, about $1,000,000,000 annually, for five years, is for the Airport Terminal Program; $20,000,000 annually, for five years, is for an Airport-owned Contract Tower Program. Additionally, the IIJA directs funds that are unobligated at the end of the fourth fiscal year after first made available under the Airport Infrastructure Grant (AIG) program to be converted to a new competitive funding program for the fifth and final fiscal year of availability. Of the amounts converted, the first $100,000,000 is set aside to augment the IIJA's Airport-owned Contract Tower Program grant program. Funds exceeding $100,000,000 are then awarded through the new competitive grant program, called the Airport Infrastructure Grant Funding Reallocation Program (AFR). The information collected is based on grant considerations and priorities outlined in the IIJA. Project consideration areas include increasing terminal capacity and passenger access; replacing aging infrastructure; achieving compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. ); improving airport access for historically disadvantaged populations; improving energy efficiency; improving airfield safety through terminal relocation; encouraging actual and potential competition; impact on the National Airspace System; reducing emissions; reducing noise impact to the surrounding community; reducing dependence on the electrical grid; and providing general benefits to the surrounding community. The information FAA is collecting will include general airport information, a project overview, and narratives on project consideration areas as outlined in the IIJA. Airport owners and managers who want to pursue funding and obtain benefits from the IIJA Programs will submit information via FAA Form 5100-144 to compete for grants. Approximately 3,075 airports are eligible to compete for this funding, but, based on previous-year submissions, the FAA expects only a small subset of eligible airports to submit project information through this competitive grant process.

Respondents: Approximately 655 airports.

Frequency: Annually.

Estimated Average Burden per Response: 6 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,930 hours for all respondents.

A copy of the Guidance is available for download and public inspection through www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval assistance and guidelines are also available at www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document also may be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at: www.FederalRegister.gov and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's website at: www.GovInfo.gov.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Public Law 117-58, established the NEVI Formula Program. The Program was authorized under paragraph (2) under the Highway Infrastructure Program heading in title VIII of division J of the IIJA.

The Program provides $5 billion of funding to States to deploy electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, access, and reliability. Initially, funding under the Program is directed to infrastructure acquired or installed along designated electric vehicle (EV) Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs). When the State determines and the Secretary certifies that AFCs in a State are fully built out, funding may be used for EV charging infrastructure on any public road or in other publicly accessible locations.

Since the passage of the IIJA, FHWA has issued a number of guidance documents to implement the NEVI Formula, including but not limited to:

Consistent with President Trump's commitment to ending unlawful, unnecessary, and onerous requirements, FHWA is reviewing its existing regulations and guidance documents for alignment with law and Administration priorities. This Interim Final Guidance aligns with Executive Order 14154 “Unleashing American Energy,” to eliminate previous mandates for EV charging infrastructure and potential burdens. In addition, per the January 29, 2025, memorandum from the Secretary of Transportation on the Implementation of Executive Orders Addressing Energy, Climate Change, Diversity, and Gender, this Guidance rescinds previous guidance and policy that is not required by clear and express statutory language. FHWA believes that this Interim Final Guidance provides flexibility to the States for implementation of the program.

FHWA made several changes to the previously released NEVI guidance document dated June 11, 2024. Changes include, but are not limited to:

• Minimizing the content required in State plans to statutory and regulatory requirements.

• Simplifying the plan approval process.

• Aligning community engagement requirements with regulatory requirements and reducing the consultation requirements to advance projects.

• Providing States with the flexibility to determine the appropriate distance between stations along alternative fuel corridors to allow for reasonable travel.

• Minimizing requirements for States to consider electric grid integration, renewable energy, and alignment with electric distribution interconnection processes, except where required by regulation.

• Encouraging selection of charging locations where the charging station owners are also the site host to accelerate project delivery.

• Eliminating requirements for States to address consumer protections, emergency evacuation plans, environmental siting, resilience and terrain considerations.

• Providing States with more flexibility in determining when their system is built out allowing NEVI funds to be used on public roads statewide.

Although the Interim Final Guidance is effective immediately, FHWA invites comments on this Guidance, which is available in the docket for this notice. FHWA will consider substantive comments received on the Interim Final Guidance and will consider whether any further changes are needed based on comments received.

Authority: Public Law 117-58, title VIII of division J.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), a Federal agency must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from the public and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces that the following information collection request will be submitted OMB.

Title: Investigation-Based Crash Data Studies.

OMB Control Number: 2127-0706.

Form Number: Form 1278, 1280, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, HS Form 433D.

Type of Request: Request for extension with modification of a currently approved information collection.

Type of Review Requested: Regular.

Length of Approval Requested: 3 years from date of approval.

Summary of the Collection of Information: NHTSA is authorized, under 49 U.S.C. 30182 and 23 U.S.C. 403 to collect data on motor vehicle traffic crashes to aid in the identification of issues and the development, implementation, and evaluation of motor vehicle and highway safety countermeasures. For decades, NHTSA has been investigating crashes and collecting crash data through its Investigation-Based Crash Data Studies, namely the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS), Special Crash Investigation (SCI), and specific issue-based Special Study data collection studies. Although each of these systems satisfy different purposes and collect data in different manners, they all utilize the same core variables ( e.g., forms), procedures and protocols for data collection.

On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) was signed into law. The Crash Data section (section 24108) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to use funds to enhance the collection of data under CISSS by, among other things, including additional data collection sites and data collection types. NHTSA is seeking approval to modify the existing information collection to: (1) Increase the number of data collection sites to 73; (2) Expand the type of crashes investigated to include non-motorists, motorcycles and large vehicles (over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) for 2025 and future years. NHTSA has also adjusted estimates to include the burden incurred by tow yards, hospitals, and law enforcement agencies in responding to the collections from the currently approved 56 to 73 data collection sites over the next three years. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requested that the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) expand the number of data collection sites; include more crash types (non-motorists, motorcycles and large vehicles) and explore on-scene response. The current approval for Investigation-Based Crash Data Studies collection indicated a total annual 12,063 burden hours; this request increases the total annual burden hours to 17,521. The combined impact is an increase of 5,458 hours overall total annual burden from the currently approved information collection.

The CISS is a nationally representative sample of passenger vehicle crashes which focus on detailed investigation of passenger vehicle crashes, pedestrian crashes and motor-cycle crashes. It provides nationally representative data on fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle, pedestrian and motorcycle crashes for use in developing and evaluating federal motor vehicle safety standards and other safety countermeasures. The CISS began implementation in 2015 and by 2024 was collecting crash data from forty (40) fully operational sites. In 2024 the CISS started collecting data on pedestrian crashes. The CISS will start collecting data on motorcycle crashes in 2025 and large vehicle crashes in 2026. The CISS collects data at both the crash level through scene analysis and vehicle level through vehicle damage assessment together with injury source evidence and standardized coding.

The SCI Program is used to provide NHTSA with the most in-depth and detailed level of crash investigation data collected by the Agency. Generally, SCI investigations are conducted for crashes of special interest, such as those involving new or emerging safety technologies ( e.g., those involving vehicles equipped with crash avoidance technologies or Automated Driving Systems (ADS)), school buses, motorcoaches, alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles, adaptive control equipped vehicles, fires, child restraints, and those relevant to safety defect investigations. The crash investigations are conducted to document crash circumstances, identify injury sources, evaluate safety countermeasure effectiveness and support Agency rulemaking actions. Investigations are also conducted to provide early detection of alleged or potential vehicle safety defects. Reports are generated from investigations and all are made available to the public. The crashes chosen for SCI investigation may be chosen throughout the year as they arise, or be part of a planned effort to look into a particular type of crash (such as crashes involving air bag deployment-related fatalities and injuries).

In addition to the above-referenced CISS and SCI data collections, NHTSA also conducts investigation-based special studies using the CISS and SCI infrastructure to answer questions on a specific topical aspect of vehicle and highway safety. In the special study cases, data is typically gathered remotely where documents and investigation details are requested from investigating agencies and the data is compiled, coded, and reported on collectively in a summary report detailing the issue. These special studies will utilize the same infrastructure CISS and SCI, as well as the same core variables ( e.g. forms) and procedures and protocols. The cases may be selected from an agency's data set ( i.e., CISS, SCI, or Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)) or through other means ( i.e., internet searches, news articles, and public notification). The cases may or may not be selected to provide a nationally representative sample of crashes. In the past, using the National Automotive Sampling System-Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) infrastructure, NHTSA conducted several investigation-based special studies, including studies on child occupant protection, air bag effectiveness, and pedestrian safety among others. NASS-CDS, operated from 1979 through 2015, and was the predecessor to CISS. Two recently completed special studies collected information on crashes that involved medium-duty trucks (trucks between 10,001 and 26,000 lbs.), pedestrians or pedalcyclists, and one in-progress special study is on first responders or construction or maintenance workers struck while performing official duties on the road.

NHTSA will also use the information collected through the CISS infrastructure to support NHTSA's Non-Traffic Surveillance (NTS). CISS Technicians review over a hundred and fifty thousand crash reports each year, and some of these reports are not applicable to the CISS program, but they may be applicable to the NTS data collection. NTS is a virtual data collection system designed to provide counts and details regarding fatalities and injuries that occur in non-traffic crashes and in non-crash incidents. Non-traffic motor vehicle crashes are a class of crashes that occur off the public trafficways. These crashes, subsequently referred to as “non-traffic crashes,” are mostly single-vehicle crashes on private roads, two vehicle crashes in parking facilities, or collisions with pedestrians in driveways. In addition, there are non-traffic incidents such as a vehicle falling on a person underneath or an unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning inside the vehicle. Non-traffic crash data is obtained through NHTSA's CISS, SCI, Crash Reporting Sampling System (CRSS), and FARS.

For the standard investigation-based crash data studies acquisition process, once a crash has been selected for investigation, crash technicians locate, visit, measure, and photograph the crash scene; locate, visit, inspect, and photograph involved vehicle(s); conduct a telephone or personal interview with the involved individuals or a surrogate (another person who can provide occupant or crash information, such as parents for a minor or parent or spouse for a deceased individual); and obtain and record crash injury information received from various medical data sources. These data are used to describe and analyze circumstances, mechanisms, and consequences of a cross section of towed, light passenger motor vehicle crashes in the United States. The collection of interview data aids in this effort.

For the special studies, the data is typically gathered following similar procedures, but is targeted to a specific issue ( e.g., child occupant protection, crash causation factors) as opposed to an entire investigation. Special Studies investigations also typically only involve obtaining information from law enforcement, who provide access to and a copy of the crash report where the data is not electronic. They do not involve interviewing people involved in crashes, obtaining medical records or inspecting the vehicles. Each special study has specific requirements ( i.e., types of crashes and/or data collected); however, the gathering of crash reports for these studies is similar to the gathering of crash reports in the CISS and SCI programs.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the Information: NHTSA investigates real-world crashes and collects detailed crash data through CISS, SCI, and Special Studies data collection programs to identify the primary factors related to the source of crashes and their injury outcomes. These detailed factors are utilized to develop and evaluate effective safety countermeasures including the establishment and enforcement of motor vehicle regulations that reduce the severity of injury and property damage caused by motor vehicle crashes. The data collected also give motor vehicle researchers an opportunity to specify areas in which improvements may be possible, design countermeasure programs, and evaluate the effects of existing and proposed safety measures.

60-Day Notice: A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments on the following information collection was published on April 10, 2025 (90 FR 15384). NHTSA received comments from four individuals/entities on the 60-day notice. None of the comments necessitate a revision of the scope of the information collection or the estimates of the annual cost or burden hours.

An anonymous commenter recommended collecting comprehensive data on all motorized, non-motorized, and autonomous vehicles, with thorough scrutiny for all manufacturers. NHTSA replied that it is expanding data collection to cover a broader range of vehicle types and applies consistent scrutiny across all vehicle technologies.

Jocelyn Crowell endorsed expanding crash data collection to more sites and crash types, emphasizing its importance for traffic safety, addressing rising fatalities—particularly pedestrian deaths—and enabling better policymaking. NHTSA responded, noting the expansion aligns with IIJA requirements and will improve data for safety initiatives.

The comments from David Viano were highly critical of the CISS program and did not, in the agency's opinion, reflect the current program or its operations. CISS offers vast improvements over its predecessor program in many areas such as sample design, IT infrastructure, and injury data. Additionally, CISS delivers stakeholders more precise scene and vehicle information, which was one of the major requests of modernizing our data systems. The commenter's observations are addressed in detail below.

The commenter observed that “[s]ampling frequencies for crash selection are incorrect,” asserting that the current CISS crash sampling frequencies underrepresent older vehicles. Sampling is based on vehicle age (10% new, 6% mid-aged, 6% old) rather than injury severity, which the commenter alleges leads to database-wide bias. The commenter suggested that an alternative distribution—5%:5%:12%—would better capture crashes involving older vehicles, which he argues are critical for understanding the influence of socioeconomic status and driver behavior.

NHTSA's Response: Prior to the planned CISS expansion, the sampling frame covered all towed passenger vehicle crashes involving newer or older vehicles and resulting in all levels of injures or no injuries. The CISS target sample allocations (sampling frequencies) were valid prior to the program's expansion and remain so after adjustments required by the addition of new crash types. It was determined based on the data needs from the agency and outside stakeholders. Prior to the development of CISS, NHTSA completed a data needs assessment which included seeking input from the agency and outside stakeholders through the Federal Register and conducting a listening session to gain additional insight (see NHTSA-2012-0084 at www.regulations.gov ). The feedback received from the assessment indicated high interests in crashes involving newer vehicles and/or serious injuries which are rare in the crash population. Please refer to NHTSA's Review of the National Automotive Sampling System: Report to Congress for more information. 1 To meet these analytic objectives, NHTSA established ten analysis domains and the target sample allocation that oversamples crashes involving newer vehicles and/or serious injuries. The original target sample allocation was 10%, 6%, 6% for domains 2, 5, and 8, respectively. This allocation was revised to 8%, 6%, 6% in 2020 because NHTSA increased the number of sampled cases per site, but crash population for domain 2 did not have enough cases to be selected. For more detailed information on the target sample allocation, refer to the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) 2023 Analytical User's Manual. 2 To account for the unequal selection probabilities and other complex sample design features such as stratification and clustering, NHTSA applies a multi-step weighting process to produce unbiased, nationally representative estimates. For more information on the CISS sample design and weighting, please refer to Crash Investigation Sampling System: Sample Design and Weighting. 3

The commenter asserts that “[w]eighting factors for serious injury are incorrect, particularly for some multi-vehicle crashes,” pointing out that NHTSA gives the same weight to all vehicles in a crash, even if the injury severity is very different. The commenter argues that doing so can overrepresent minor injuries in newer cars and underrepresent serious injuries in older ones.

NHTSA's Response: CISS selects cases (crashes) through a three-stage sample design. The case weight is calculated by taking the inverse of the selection probability for each sampled case. The case weights are used to make nationally representative estimates for CISS crashes as well as the vehicles and persons involved in those crashes. Therefore, all vehicles and persons involved in a crash have the same case weight.

The high case weights are valid. CISS has a small sample size (~3,000 cases) and uses an unequal selection probability sample design. The weight is determined by the police crash report (PCR) selection probability, which includes the oversampling factor, as well as other stage sampling components such as the primary sampling unit (PSU) selection probability and police jurisdiction (PJ) selection probability. For cases with extremely high case weights, NHTSA implements truncation adjustment in the weighting process. The example provided would be a domain 3 case. Typically, crashes in this domain do not have high weights. In 2023 CISS, the highest case weight for domain 3 is about 3,000. The maximum case weight in the 2023 CISS is around 20,000.

The commenter stated that “NASS-CDS estimates of fatalities do not match census counts in FARS,” and asserted that the same problems presumably exist with CISS.

NHTSA's Response: NHTSA is seeking approval only for the data collections specified in this request. NASS-CDS is not a data collection within this ICR. This assertion regarding NASS-CDS falls outside the scope of this ICR.

The purpose of CISS is to support in-depth analysis of crashes involving towed passenger vehicles nationwide. Correspondingly, the CISS target population represents crashes where at least one passenger vehicle is towed from the scene (for any reason). NHTSA achieves this representation by calibrating CISS case weights to the population crash counts by the ten analysis domains (domain 1: fatal crashes, domain 2, 5, 8: serious injury crashes, domain 3, 6, 9: injury crashes, 3, 7, 10: no injury crashes) to address potential coverage errors or bias due to the small sample size. These population crash counts are collected from all police jurisdictions (sampled or non-sampled) in the sampled PSUs.

NHTSA's decision to stop investigating older vehicles in 2009 was made in relation to the NASS-CDS, a legacy system that is no longer operational. CISS makes effort to access and inspect all vehicles involved in the sampled cases regardless of the vehicle age and towed reason.

The commenter argues that the complex statistical methods used, like Pareto sampling and Jackknife weights, lack proper validation especially at the PSU level. He believes these methods rely on unproven assumptions and are applied without a practical understanding of real-world crash deaths and serious injuries.

NHTSA's Response: CISS uses a complex sample design that is based on valid methods such as multi-stage clustering, stratification, and unequal selection probability sampling. The PSU sample is selected by stratified probability proportion to size (PPS) sampling which is the most common and validated sampling method. The PSU sample is a scalable sample which has allowed NHTSA to seamlessly expand data collection sites, as specified in the IIJA legislation. Please refer to the Crash Investigation Sampling System: Sample Design and Weighting  4 for more detailed information on the CISS PSU sample.

NHTSA calibrates PSU weights to the U.S. residential population count to address the population shifts. The second stage (PJ) sample is selected using a stratified Pareto sampling. The Pareto sampling method is approximately PPS and provides flexibility to address annual PJ frame changes. The third stage (Police Crash Report) sample also uses Pareto sampling method to select replacement cases when NHTSA is unable to access the vehicle for investigation. Replacement case selection framework greatly increases the vehicle acquisition rates thereby producing more useful cases for analysis in CISS.

For variance estimation, NHTSA provides the adjusted Jackknife replicate weights to capture the gain in efficiency due to the weight adjustments. Users can also use the Taylor Series method, Jackknife method, or other variance estimation methods provided in statistical software such as SAS. Please refer to the Crash Investigation Sampling System: Design Overview, Analytic Guidance, and FAQs  5 for more information on using other variance estimation methods.

The commenter claims that CISS “[m]ethods lack common sense validation of sampling methods, procedures and results,” asserting that these methods haven't been compared to known data sources—like matching CISS or NASS-CDS fatality estimates with FARS data or comparing serious injury estimates with hospital records. He argues that these checks should have been done both nationwide and at individual PSU sites.

NHTSA's Response: NHTSA's sampling methods used to select a nationally representative sample of towed passenger vehicle crashes are valid. NHTSA also uses statistically sound methodology to produce weights and estimates. CISS case weights are calibrated to the CISS population crash counts by the ten analysis domains (domain 1: fatal crashes, domain 2, 5, 8: serious injury crashes, domain 3, 6, 9: injury crashes, 3, 7, 10: no injury crashes) to address potential coverage errors or bias due to the small sample size. The population crash counts are collected from all police jurisdictions (sampled or non-sampled) within the sampled PSUs.

The commenter claims that CISS produces “[p]oorer quality case investigations compared to the earlier NASS-CDS,” stating that “CISS cases fail to: (a) adequately photograph vehicle structural damage, (b) measure intrusion at the seating area of injured occupants, (c) adequately photograph interior contact points for each injured occupant and (d) describe the precrash movements of vehicles, violations of traffic signs/signal. Overall, CISS cases are a degradation from NASS-CDS case files. There is large variability in quality among different PSU sites, demonstrating a lack of oversight and quality assurance across PSUs.”

NHTSA's Response: Each of the items in this part of comment will be addressed below. In response to claims that “CISS cases fail to . . .”

(a) adequately photograph vehicle structural damage: The CISS crash investigations publish much more highly detailed information than the NASS-CDS, relying on program protocols developed with input from law enforcement and salvage yards. Highly trained investigators make every effort to document crash-involved vehicles and produce high-quality images whenever they are accessible. Furthermore, documenting vehicle structural damage is not permitted as investigators are prohibited from removing or altering vehicle components during their inspections.

(b) measure intrusion at the seating area of injured occupants: CISS measures intrusion, defined as any inward displacement of the internal boundary surface of the passenger compartment caused by direct or indirect damage resulting from external crushing forces applied to the vehicle, on all available vehicles. Intrusions measuring less than three centimeters are not considered significant and are therefore excluded from documentation.

When a CISS-applicable vehicle is towed from the crash scene, a thorough interior inspection is required. This inspection must include intrusion documentation for all sectors of the vehicle's interior, as well as an overall intrusion value for adjacent cargo areas. Seat positions are not used to define intrusion sectors (although seats are contained within these sectors); instead, each row is divided into equidistant zones, allowing for the assessment of areas that may lack a designated seat position ( e.g., center zone of the first row).

Intrusion measurements are recorded for each sector along the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical axes. In cases where law enforcement imposes restrictions—such as prohibiting technicians from touching or entering the vehicle—estimated intrusions are determined as accurately as possible dependent on unique circumstances.

(c) adequately photograph interior contact points for each injured occupant: The prevention of deaths and reduction of injuries are the primary goals of the CISS program—identifying occupant contact points within vehicles is a critically important part of this process. Identifying contact points and injury involved physical components provide valuable insight into which body regions may have sustained injuries during crashes.

When crash technicians identify evidence that occupant contact points/injury involved physical components, these vehicle components are carefully documented and photographed. Established CISS protocols emphasize thorough inspections of photographs of vehicle interiors to locate all potential occupant contact points.

Accurately identifying occupant contact evidence is a specialized skill developed over time. This process can be complicated by factors such as post-crash extrication, lag times between the crash and inspection dates, and vehicle storage practices at salvage yards.

(d) describe the precrash movements of vehicles, violations of traffic signs/signals: CISS crash data collections capture detailed information about vehicle movement leading up to a crash, using the following precrash variables:

These precrash variables are designed to identify the following:

i. What was this vehicle doing just prior to the critical precrash event?

ii. What made this vehicle's situation critical?

iii. What was the avoidance response, if any, to this critical situation?

iv. What was the movement of the vehicle just prior to impact?

It is important to note that CISS does not assess driver culpability. While some scenarios may suggest fault, any such implication is coincidental and not intentional within the design of the program.

Sub comment in part (d): Overall, CISS cases are a degradation from NASS-CDS case files. There is large variability in quality among different PSU sites, demonstrating a lack of oversight and quality assurance across PSUs.

Data quality remains NHTSA's priority and CISS represents a significant advancement over NASS-CDS across several key program areas:

1. Statistical Improvement: CISS features improved statistical methodologies, including better weighting due to the larger number of sites. Additionally, all collected data is incorporated into the SAS file, with many more datasets available. In contrast, NASS often collected more data, but a substantial portion was not included in the statistical files. More comprehensive explanations of the sample design and statistical methods used in CISS are provided in the responses to the commenter's above assertions. Additional details regarding the CISS sample design and weighting methodology are also available online. 6 7

2. Enhanced Data Collection: The acquisition rates for towed vehicles and Event Data Recorder (EDR) data are significantly improved, leading to less missing data and more comprehensive datasets overall.

3. More Detailed Injury Coding: CISS implements a more complex and refined injury coding scheme, offering a greater level of detail and accuracy in injury classification. 8

4. Advanced Field Data Collection: CISS employs superior data collection techniques, such as total station measurements, replacing the older methods of roller wheels and tape measures. This enhances both the precision and reliability of field data. 9

5. Expanded EDR Manufacturer Support: CISS supports a broader range of EDR manufacturers, including Hyundai/Kia and Tesla, which were not available in NASS. This enables more comprehensive data collection across different vehicle models.

IMMI, a manufacturer of passive safety products for heavy vehicles, supports NHTSA's expansion of crash data collection to include heavy vehicle crashes. IMMI highlights the importance of this data for improving occupant safety by better understanding crash dynamics and injury causes. NHTSA acknowledges and agrees with IMMI that expanded data collection for heavy vehicles is essential for advancing safety and understanding injury mechanisms specific to these crashes.

Affected Public: People involved in select motor vehicle crashes, law enforcement jurisdictions that provide access to and a copy of the crash report where the data is not electronic; hospitals that provide a copy of the injured occupant's medical treatment of injuries; and tow or salvage lot facilities that provide access to the storage facility to inspect the vehicle.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 37,157.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Estimated Number of Responses: 92,095 (32,850 + 21,424 + 1,550 + 21,763 + 14,508).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,245 hours (10,950 + 1,071 + 388 + 3,627 + 1,209).

The CISS crash data acquisition system includes 5 information collections. The first information collection covers the collection of information from individuals involved in crashes via interview. The estimated number of interview respondents is obtained by multiplying the approximate number of crashes investigated each year by the average number of interviews per crash. Based on existing data, each CISS crash involves an average of approximately 2.25 individuals. NHTSA estimates that CISS conducts investigations on 14,600 crashes per year. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that there will be 32,850 respondents per year (14,600 crashes × 2.25 respondents per crash).

The respondents are contacted only once; however, in rare circumstances follow-up questions may be needed to clarify data. The interview requires approximately 20 minutes of a respondent's time on average. CISS conducts interviews for approximately 14,600 crashes per year, which NHTSA estimates takes about 45 minutes per crash (2.25 respondents × 20 minutes). Therefore, the estimated total annual burden hours for the collection of information from individuals involved in crashes for CISS is 10,950 hours ((14,600 crashes × 45 minutes) ÷ 60 minutes/hour).

In addition to interviews, crash technicians and investigators must obtain official records to initiate and complete the cases. These records include police crash reports and medical records. The second information collection under CISS is for the collection of crash records from sampled police jurisdictions. NHTSA estimates that there are 412 sample police jurisdictions annually. To estimate the burden to sampled police jurisdictions, NHTSA multiplied the average number of visits per year by the average burden per visit and the number of police jurisdictions. On average, each of the 412 sampled police jurisdictions are queried weekly (or 52 times per year) and each query is estimated to take 3 minutes. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total annual burden for sampled police jurisdictions to be 2.6 hours per respondent (3 minutes × 52 visits) and 1,071 hours for all respondents (2.6 hours × 412 police jurisdictions = 1,071.2 hours).

The third information collection under CISS is for the collection of crash records from non-sampled police jurisdictions. Based on existing CISS data, there are 775 non-sampled jurisdictions annually. To estimate the burden to non-sample police jurisdictions, NHTSA multiplied the average number of visits per year by the average burden per visit and the number of non-sampled police jurisdictions. On average, each of the 775 non-sampled police jurisdictions are visited twice annually and each query is estimated to take 15 minutes. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total burden for non-sampled police jurisdictions to be 30 minutes per respondent (15 minutes × 2 visits) and 388 hours for all respondents ((30 minutes × 775 non-sampled police jurisdictions) ÷ 60 minutes/hour) = 388 hours).

The fourth information collection under CISS is for the collection of medical records from hospitals. Based on existing data, CISS collects an average of 21,763 records each year from an average of 628 hospitals. NHTSA estimates that a hospital spends 10 minutes for each record requested. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total annual burden to be 3,627 hours ((21,763 records × 10 minutes) ÷ 60 minutes/hour) and estimates that each hospital will, on average, spend 5.78 hours providing the requested information each year (3,627 hours ÷ 628 hospitals).

The fifth information collection under CISS is for the collection from tow yards necessary to gain access to and locate a vehicle that was involved in a crash. Typically, a tow facility operator just needs to give the crash technician permission to enter the yard to inspect the vehicle and involves approximately 5 minutes of staff time. CISS data shows an average of 14,508 visits to tow facilities per year, and NHTSA estimates 2,510 tow facilities will be visited annually. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total annual burden to be 1,209 hours ((14,508 visits × 5 minutes) ÷ 60 minutes/hour) and estimates that each tow facility will, on average, spend 28.91 minutes providing the requested information each year ((1,209 hours × 60 minutes) ÷ 2,510 facilities).

Accordingly, NHTSA estimates that the total burden associated with the CISS data acquisition system is 17,245 hours (10,950 + 1,071 + 388 + 3,627 + 1,209).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0.

There are no capital, start-up, or annual operation and maintenance costs involved in this collection of information. The respondents would not incur any reporting costs from the information collection beyond the opportunity or labor costs associated with the burden hours. The respondents also would not incur any recordkeeping burden or recordkeeping costs from the information collection.

Affected Public: People involved in select motor vehicle crashes, law enforcement jurisdictions that provide access to and a copy of the crash report where the data is not electronic; hospitals that provide a copy of the injured occupant's medical treatment of injuries; and tow or salvage lot facilities that provide access to the storage facility to inspect the vehicle.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

Frequency: On occasion (typically once per year).

Estimated Number of Responses: 500 (200 + 100 + 100 + 100).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 109 hours (67 + 17 + 17 + 8).

The SCI crash data acquisition system includes 4 information collections. The first information collection covers the collection of information from individuals involved in crashes via interview. The estimated number of interview respondents is obtained by multiplying the approximate number of crashes investigated each year by the average number of interviews per crash. Based on existing data, each SCI crash involves an average of approximately 2 individuals. NHTSA estimates that SCI conducts investigations on approximately 100 crashes per year. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that there will be 200 respondents per year (100 crashes × 2 respondents per crash).

The respondents are contacted only once; however, in rare circumstances follow-up questions may be needed to clarify data. The interview requires approximately 20 minutes of a respondent's time on average. SCI conducts interviews for approximately 100 crashes per year, which NHTSA estimates takes about 40 minutes per crash (2 respondents × 20 minutes). Therefore, the estimated total annual burden hours for the collection of information from individuals involved in crashes for SCI is approximately 67 hours ((100 crashes × 40 minutes) ÷ 60 minutes/hour = 66.67).

In addition to interviews, crash technicians and investigators must obtain official records to initiate and complete the cases. These records include police crash reports and medical records. The second information collection under SCI is for the collection of crash records from police jurisdictions. The SCI investigators contact an estimated 100 police jurisdictions once per year and require approximately 10 minutes of staff time per police jurisdiction. To estimate the burden to these police jurisdictions, NHTSA multiplied the average number of visits per year by the average burden per visit and the number of police jurisdictions. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total annual burden for police jurisdictions to be 10 minutes per respondent (10 minutes ×1 query per year) and 17 hours for all respondents ((10 minutes × 100 police jurisdictions) ÷ 60 minutes/hour = 16.67 hours).

The third information collection under SCI is for the collection of medical records from hospitals. Based on existing data, SCI collects an average of 100 records each year from 100 hospitals (1 request per hospital per year). NHTSA estimates that a hospital spends 10 minutes for each record requested. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total annual burden to be 17 hours ((100 records × 10 minutes) ÷ 60 minutes/hour = 16.67 hours) and estimates that each hospital will, on average, spend 10 minutes providing the requested information each year (10 minutes × 1 record request per year).

The fourth information collection under SCI is for the collection from tow yards necessary to gain access to and locate a vehicle that was involved in a crash. Typically, a tow facility operator just needs to give the crash technician permission to enter the yard to inspect the vehicle and involves approximately 5 minutes of staff time. SCI conducts approximately 100 visits to tow facilities per year, and NHTSA estimates that 100 tow facilities will be visited annually (1 request per facility per year). Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total annual burden to be 8 hours ((100 visits × 5 minutes) ÷ 60 minutes/hour = 8.33 hours) and estimates that each tow facility will, on average, spend 5 minutes providing the requested information each year.

Accordingly, NHTSA estimates that the total burden associated with the SCI data acquisition system is 109 hours (67 + 17 + 17 + 8).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0.

There are no capital, start-up, or annual operation and maintenance costs involved in this collection of information. The respondents would not incur any reporting costs from the information collection beyond the opportunity or labor costs associated with the burden hours. The respondents also would not incur any recordkeeping burden or recordkeeping costs from the information collection.

Affected Public: Law enforcement jurisdictions that provide access to and a copy of the crash report where the data is not electronic.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Frequency: On occasion (typically once per year).

Estimated Number of Responses: 1,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 167 hours.

There is only one information collection for Special Studies in this ICR. This ICR only covers special studies involving remote-level investigations. 10 Accordingly, these remote-level investigations do not involve interviews of individuals involved in crashes, collection of medical records from hospitals, or visits to tow facilities. Instead, these special studies only involve the collection of information from police jurisdictions.

NHTSA estimates that the special studies will involve, on average, 1,000 police jurisdictions each year and require approximately 10 minutes of staff time per police jurisdiction. The total annual hour burden on jurisdictions for special studies information is estimated to be 167 hours (1 visit × 10 minutes × 1,000 jurisdictions ÷ 60 minutes/hour = 166.67).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0.

There are no capital, start-up, or annual operation and maintenance costs involved in this collection of information. The respondents would not incur any reporting costs from the information collection beyond the labor costs associated with the burden hours. The respondents also would not incur any recordkeeping burden or recordkeeping costs from the information collection.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours All Programs: 17,521 hours.

The total estimated annual burden hours to all respondents for this ICR is 17,521 hours. The table below provides a summary of the estimated annual burden hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost All Programs: $0.

There is no capital, start-up, or annual operation and maintenance costs involved in this collection of information. The respondents would not incur any reporting costs from the information collection beyond the labor costs associated with the burden hours. The respondents also would not incur any recordkeeping burden or recordkeeping costs from the information collection.

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of this information collection, including (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 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.

Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations section 1320.8(d), requires the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies the opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests before they are submitted to OMB for approval. In accordance with this regulation, on December 17, 2020 PHMSA published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on its intent to revise the instructions for Form PHMSA F 7100.2 INCIDENT REPORT—GAS TRANSMISSION, GAS GATHERING, AND UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS STORAGE FACILITIES which is under OMB Control Number 2137-0635.

The proposed revisions included changes to the instructions to Form PHMSA F 7100.2 to remove the requirement for operators to report relief valve lifts and compressor station emergency shutdown (ESD) events when the systems function as expected. In a subsequent 30-day notice, published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2021, PHMSA decided to delay proposed revisions and consider the comments in a future information collection change.

PHMSA is again proposing to revise to the instructions for Form PHMSA F 7100.2 to clarify how operators should treat the reporting of intentional gas releases. The current instructions state that the intentional and controlled release of gas for the purpose of maintenance or other routine operating activities is not to be reported. However, the instructions for Section A7, specify “When ESDs or relief valves are activated as the result of a safety condition that has occurred, the volume released should be included in the “unintentional” category, even if safety equipment performed as designed . . .” In the December 2020 notice, PHMSA proposed to revise the instructions to indicate that when gas is released through a relief valve or a compressor station during an ESD event, and devices open and close at the specified set points, the release of gas is considered intentional.

One of the commenters (the Associations)  1 to the December 2020 notice suggested that the proposed language be clarified to specify that a relief valve or ESD system need not “close” at the specified setpoint for the event to be considered intentional, because a relief device may not perfectly “close” ( i.e., reseat) completely following a relief event. The Associations specified that if the relief valve or ESD opens at the specified set point and relieves gas through the intended pathway, then the relief valve has functioned as designed. The Associations also suggested that PHMSA clarify that when determining whether a relief valve opened at the specified setpoint, the operator should consider the relief valve manufacturer's specified tolerances. The Associations noted that relief valves are commonly designed to begin partially opening before the set point is reached to reduce the risk of overpressure. The Associations also noted that ESD systems may be designed to activate in response to a “condition” rather than a “set point” ( e.g., gas detection). The Associations concluded by specifying that it is illogical to classify manual ESD activations as unintentional since such events are intentional actions taken by trained operator personnel.

The Associations proposed the following language for the general instructions, “When gas is released through a relief valve or a compressor station has an emergency shutdown (ESD) system and devices open at the specified set points (considering the manufacturer's specified tolerances) or conditions, release of gas is considered intentional.”

The Associations proposed the following language for the A7 instructions, “The volume released during a relief valve activation is considered intentional when the device opens at the specified setpoint, considering the manufacturer's specified tolerances. The volume released during an emergency shutdown (ESD) that is activated by a station safety device is considered intentional. The volume released during an ESD in which one or more valves in the release pathway do not properly open is considered unintentional.”

PHMSA acknowledges the concerns of the Associations and, based on the additional information provided, agrees with the proposed revisions. PHMSA does not intend to collect data on events that are not associated with equipment failure or malfunctions as those events do not represent safety risks to the public. The elimination of this data will provide a more accurate representation of the safety of gas transmission pipelines, allowing both operators and regulators to better identify and address safety concerns.

While PHMSA is proposing that the release of gas from a relief valve or ESD device is not a reportable incident as defined by pipeline safety regulations, it may qualify as an abnormal operation or safety related condition. Section 192.605 requires the operator's operations and maintenance manual to include procedures for the handling of abnormal operations. Under § 192.605(c)(1)(iv), operators are required to respond to, investigate, and correct the cause of the operation of any safety device. Under § 191.23(a)(10), operators of gas transmission pipelines are also required to submit a safety related condition report for each exceedance of the maximum allowable operating pressure that exceeds the margin (build-up) allowed for operation of pressure-limiting or control devices as specified in the applicable requirements of §§ 192.201, 192.620(e), and 192.739.

PHMSA notes that relief device activations may also be subject to reporting under other Federal or state laws. (See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, 40 CFR 98 subpart W).

As section 1320.8(d) of Title 5 of the CFR requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies the opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests before they are submitted to OMB for approval, this notice identifies an information collection request that PHMSA will submit to OMB for revision.

The following information is provided for this information collection request: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection.

PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for this information collection activity. PHMSA requests comments on the following information:

Title: “Incident Reports for Natural Gas Pipeline Operators”.

OMB Control Number: 2137-0635.

Current Expiration Date: 06/30/2026.

Abstract: Operators of natural gas pipelines, underground natural gas storage (UNGS), and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities are required to report incidents to PHMSA per the requirements in 49 CFR part 191. This mandatory information collection covers the collection of incident report data from natural gas pipeline, UNGS, and LNG operators. The reports contained within this information collection support the Department of Transportation's strategic goal of safety. This information is an essential part of PHMSA's overall effort to minimize failures on natural gas transmission, gathering, and distribution pipelines, and UNGS and LNG facilities. PHMSA proposes to revise the instructions for Form PHMSA F 7100.2 INCIDENT REPORT—GAS TRANSMISSION, GAS GATHERING, AND UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS STORAGE FACILITIES to provide clarity on reporting the intentional release of gas through relief valves and emergency shutdown devices.

Affected Public: Operators of certain PHMSA-regulated pipelines, UNGS facilities, and LNG facilities.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

Total Annual Responses: 840.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,927.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Comments are invited on:

(a) The need to review and revise these collections of information for the proper performance of Agency functions, including whether the information will have practical utility.

(b) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden required to collect information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.

The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections described below, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Comments submitted in response to this document will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments.

We invite comments on: (a) Whether an information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the requested information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information has a valid OMB control number.

Currently, we are seeking comments on the following forms, letterhead applications or notices, recordkeeping requirements, questionnaires, or surveys:

Title: Formula and Process for Wine.

TTB Form Number: TTB F 5120.29.

Abstract: In addition to imposing Federal excise taxes on wines produced or imported into the United States, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) places formula requirements on certain wines and authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to issue regulations regarding the production of wines. This includes 26 U.S.C. 5386, which requires special natural wine to be made pursuant to an approved formula, and 26 U.S.C. 5361, 5362(d), 5387, and 5388(b), which authorize the Secretary to issue regulations governing the production of wines other than natural wines.

Under those IRC authorities, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) regulations in 27 CFR parts 24 and 26 require proprietors intending to produce special natural wine, agricultural wine, other than standard wine, or nonbeverage wine to submit, and obtain TTB's prior approval of, the formula by which the product is to be made. While TTB has issued a form for use for any beverage alcohol formula, TTB continues to allow in its regulations the use of a separate form, TTB F 5120.29, for submitting formulas for wine.

TTB uses the collected information to ensure that the relevant tax provisions of the IRC are appropriately applied and to determine whether the products comply with production, labeling, and ingredient safety requirements.

Current Actions: There are no program changes or adjustments to this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 30.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 5.

• Number of Responses: 150.

• Average Per-response Burden: 2 hours.

• Total Burden: 300 hours.

Title: User's Report of Denatured Spirits.

TTB Form Number: TTB F 5150.18.

Abstract: The IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5214 allows the tax-free withdrawal of denatured distilled spirits from a distilled spirits plant (DSP), while 26 U.S.C. 5275 requires persons that procure, deal in, or use specially denatured (SDS), or that recover specially denatured or completely denatured distilled spirits, to maintain records and file reports as the Secretary requires by regulation. Under this IRC authority, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 20 require persons who use or recover SDS or articles, or who use recovered completely denatured spirits or articles, to file a report once annually, or when discontinuing business, using TTB F 5150.18 to account for their use of such denatured spirits in specific approved formulas. The collected information accounts for the use of untaxed distilled spirits and is necessary to ensure that the tax provisions of the IRC are appropriately applied.

Current Actions: There are no program changes or adjustments associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 650.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 650.

• Average Per-response Burden: 18 minutes.

• Total Burden: 195 hours.

Title: Power of Attorney.

TTB Form Number: TTB F 5000.8.

Abstract: The IRC at 26 U.S.C. 6061 provides that persons must sign any return, statement, or document submitted under the IRC's provisions in accordance with forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. In addition, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) at 27 U.S.C. 204(c) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe the manner and form of applications for permits issued under the Act. Under those authorities, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR chapter I require individuals to have specific authority to sign documents and forms filed with TTB on behalf of an applicant or principal. To delegate such authority to an individual and report that delegation to TTB, respondents complete form TTB F 5000.8, Power of Attorney. TTB uses the collected information to determine who legally represents a person doing business with TTB.

Current Actions: There are no program changes associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only. As for adjustments, due to changes in agency estimates, TTB is decreasing the number of annual respondents, responses, and total burden hours associated with this collection, but is increasing the average number of responses per respondent.

TTB notes that it has received OMB approval of two non-substantive changes to TTB F 5000.8, Power of Attorney, form to better identify the appointed attorney and their redelegation authority, if any. Specifically, TTB has revised Item 6 on the form to include separate data fields for the appointed attorney's name, telephone number, and email address, and TTB is adding a data field for the appointed attorney's date of birth. The TTB is making this change to separate the collected information for clarity and to better identify the appointed attorney, particularly in cases of persons with the same or similar names. In Item 8a, the power of attorney designation, TTB has added two check boxes to allow the principal to clearly state if the appointed attorney does or does not have power to redelegate their designated authorities. TTB believes that these minor changes to its Power of Attorney form do not affect its per-respondent or total annual burden.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 3,690.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 2.071.

• Number of Responses: 7,642.

• Average Per-response Burden: 20 minutes.

• Total Burden: 2,547 hours.

Title: Certificate of Tax Determination—Wine.

TTB Form Number: TTB F 5120.20.

Abstract: The IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5062 authorizes drawback (refund) of the Federal excise tax on distilled spirits and wines exported from the United States, under regulations requiring evidence of the product's tax payment or determination and exportation. Under that authority, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 28 require drawback claims filed by wine exporters to be accompanied by the producer's or bottler's certification, filed on TTB F 5120.20, that the listed wines were tax determined upon withdrawal or taxpaid upon receipt for bottling. The collected information is necessary to ensure that the tax provisions of the IRC are appropriately applied, as it assists in preventing the payment of unverified drawback claims or in supporting enforcement, as needed, after claims have been paid.

Current Actions: There are no program changes or adjustments associated with this information collection at this time, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 22.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 300.

• Number of Responses: 6,600.

• Average Per-response Burden: 0.5 hour.

• Total Burden: 3,300 hours.

Title: Distilled Spirits Plants—Excise Taxes (TTB REC 5110/06).

TTB Recordkeeping Number: TTB REC 5110/06.

Abstract: Under chapter 51 of the IRC, distilled spirits produced or imported into the United States are subject to Federal excise tax, which is determined at the time the spirits are withdrawn from bond and which is paid by return, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary. In addition, a credit may be taken against that tax for the portion of a distilled spirits product's alcohol content derived from wine or flavors. The TTB regulations in 27 CFR parts 19 and 26 require distilled spirits excise taxpayers to keep certain records in support of the information provided on their excise tax returns, including information on the distilled spirits removed from their premises and the products' applicable tax rates, as well as records related to nontaxable removals, shortages, and losses. TTB uses the collected information to ensure that the relevant provisions of the IRC are appropriately applied, verify claims for refunds or remission of tax, and account for the transfer of certain distilled spirits excise taxes to the governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Current Actions: There are no program changes associated with this information collection at this time, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only. As for adjustments, due to changes in agency estimates resulting from continued growth in the number of distilled spirits plants in the United States, TTB is increasing the number of annual respondents, responses, and total burden hours associated with this collection.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 5,672.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 9.

• Number of Responses: 51,048.

• Average Per-response Burden: 1 hour.

• Total Burden: 51,048 hours.

Title: Distilled Spirits Plant Denaturation Records, and Monthly Report of Processing (Denaturing) Operations.

TTB Form Number: TTB F 5110.43.

TTB Recordkeeping Number: TTB REC 5110/04.

Abstract: The IRC, at 26 U.S.C. 5207, requires DSP proprietors to maintain records and submit reports of their production, storage, denaturation, and processing activities, and, at 26 U.S.C. 5214, the IRC authorizes the withdrawal of denatured distilled spirits from a DSP tax-free for certain specified uses, all subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Under those authorities, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 19 require DSP proprietors to keep certain records regarding their production, receipt, loss, transfer, and withdrawal of denatured spirits. Those regulations also require DSP proprietors to submit a monthly report of their daily denaturing (processing) activities to TTB using form TTB F 5110.43. Because DSP proprietors may remove denatured spirits free of tax, a full accounting of their denaturation operations is necessary to ensure that the tax provisions of the IRC are appropriately applied and prevent diversion of untaxed spirits to taxable uses.

Current Actions: There are no program changes associated with this information collection at this time, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only. As for adjustments, due to changes in agency estimates, TTB is increasing the number of annual respondents, responses, and total burden hours associated with this collection.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 490.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 12.

• Number of Responses: 5,880.

• Average Per-response Burden: 1 hour.

• Total Burden: 5,880 hours.

Title: Letterhead Applications and Notices Relating to Tax Free Alcohol.

TTB Recordkeeping Number: TTB REC 5150/4.

Abstract: While the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5001 generally imposes a Federal excise tax on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States, 26 U.S.C. 5214 provides for the tax-free withdrawal of distilled spirits from DSPs for nonbeverage purposes, including for use by educational institutions, laboratories, and medical facilities, and by State, local, and tribal governments. At 26 U.S.C. 5271-5275, the IRC also sets permit, bond, formula submission, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for the use of tax-free distilled spirits, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Under those authorities, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 22 require users of tax-free alcohol to submit certain letterhead applications and notices, which serve as qualifying documents for specific regulated activities or as amendments to previously filed documents. The collected information is necessary to ensure that the provisions of the IRC related to tax-free distilled spirits are appropriately applied.

Current Actions: There are no program changes associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only. As for adjustments, due to changes in agency estimates, TTB is increasing the number of annual respondents, responses, and total burden hours associated with this collection.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; Not for profit institutions; State, local, and tribal governments.

• Number of Respondents: 320.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 320.

• Average Per-response Burden: 0.5 hours.

• Total Burden: 160 hours.

Title: Retail Liquor Dealers Records of Receipts of Alcoholic Beverages and Commercial Invoices (TTB REC 5170/03).

TTB Recordkeeping Number: TTB REC 5170/03.

Abstract: Under the authority of the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5122, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 31 require retail alcohol beverage dealers to keep records showing the quantities of all distilled spirits, wines, and beer received, including information on from whom and when the products were received. Those regulations also require dealers to keep records of all alcohol beverage sales of 20 or more wine gallons made to the same person at the same time. At the respondent's discretion, those records may consist of usual and customary business records such as commercial invoices, unless the respondent prefers maintaining the information by other means, maintained at their place of business or at an alternate location under the dealer's control approved by TTB. Additionally, under the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5123, the TTB regulations require retail dealers to maintain those records for at least 3 years, available for TTB inspection during business hours. TTB uses the required information to ensure that the relevant provisions of the IRC are appropriately applied.

Current Actions: There are no program changes associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only. As for adjustments, due to a change in agency estimates, TTB is increasing the estimated number of respondents and responses to this collection. However, there is no corresponding increase in the burden hours for this collection as it consists of usual and customary business records, which impose no additional burden on respondents per the OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 480,000.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 480,000.

• Average Per-response and Total Burden: None. Per the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), regulatory requirements to keep usual and customary business records impose no added burden on respondents.

Title: Wholesale Alcohol Dealer Recordkeeping Requirement Variance Requests and Approvals.

TTB Recordkeeping Number: TTB REC 5170/6.

Abstract: Under the authority of the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5121, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 31 require wholesale alcohol dealers to keep daily records of their receipt and disposition of distilled spirits. Specific to this information collection, and as authorized by the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5555, the TTB regulations in part 31 allow wholesale alcohol dealers to submit letterhead applications to TTB requesting approval of variations in the type and format of such records, and for variations in the place of retention for those records. TTB review of such applications is necessary to determine that such variances would not jeopardize the revenue, be contrary to any provisions of law, or unduly hinder the effective administration of the relevant TTB regulations.

Current Actions: There are no program changes or adjustments associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 130.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 130.

• Average Per-response Burden: 0.5 hour.

• Total Burden: 65 hours.

Title: Records of Operations—Manufacturer of Tobacco Products or Processed Tobacco (TTB REC 5210/1).

TTB Recordkeeping Number: TTB REC 5210/1.

Abstract: The IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5741 requires manufacturers of tobacco products, cigarette papers or tubes, or processed tobacco to keep records as the Secretary prescribes by regulation. Under that authority, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 40 require such manufacturers to keep daily records regarding products manufactured, removed, returned, consumed, transferred, destroyed, lost, or disclosed as shortages. Those regulations provide that manufacturers may use usual and customary commercial records, where possible, to keep and maintain the required data, which must be maintained for 3 years, subject to TTB inspection upon request. TTB uses the required information to ensure compliance with the tax provisions of the IRC regarding tobacco products and processed tobacco.

Current Actions: There are no program changes or adjustments associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; and Individuals or households.

• Number of Respondents: 235.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 235.

• Average Per-response Burden: 2 hours.

• Total Burden: 470 hours.

Title: Tobacco Export Warehouse—Records of Operations (TTB REC 5220/1).

TTB Recordkeeping Number: TTB REC 5220/1.

Abstract: In general, chapter 52 of the IRC imposes Federal excise tax on all tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes manufactured in, or imported into, the United States, while exempting such products removed for export, as well as all processed tobacco, from that tax. Export warehouses receive and store such non-taxpaid products until they are removed without payment of tax for export to a foreign country, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, or for consumption beyond the internal revenue laws of the United States. As authorized by the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5741, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 44 require export warehouse proprietors to keep usual and customary business records showing the date, kind, quantity, and manufacturer of all tobacco products, cigarette papers and tubes, and processed tobacco received, removed, transferred, destroyed, lost, or returned to the manufacturer or to a customs bonded warehouse proprietor. TTB uses the collected information to ensure untaxpaid products are accounted for to detect diversion of untaxed products.

Current Actions: There are no program changes associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only. As for adjustments, due to a change in agency estimates, TTB is decreasing the estimated number of respondents and responses to this collection. However, there is no change in the burden hours for this collection as it consists of usual and customary business records, which impose no burden on respondents per the OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 65.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 65.

• Average Per-response and Total Burden: None. Per the OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), regulatory requirements to keep usual and customary business records impose no additional burden on respondents.

Title: Alternate Methods or Procedures and Emergency Variations from Requirements for Exports of Liquors.

TTB Recordkeeping Number: TTB REC 5170.7.

Abstract: The IRC at 26 U.S.C. 7805 authorizes the Secretary to issue all needful regulations to implement the IRC. Under that authority, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 28 allow alcohol exporters to apply for TTB approval of proposed alternate methods or procedures to, or emergency variances from, the requirements of that part, other than the giving of a bond or the payment of tax. Such applications provide alcohol exporters with operational flexibility and allow such exporters to meet emergency circumstances. TTB review of such applications is necessary to determine that the proposed alternative or variance would not jeopardize the revenue, be contrary to any provisions of law, or unduly hinder the effective administration of the relevant TTB regulations.

Current Actions: There are no program changes associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only. As for adjustments, due to changes in agency estimates, TTB is decreasing the number of annual respondents, responses, and total burden hours associated with this collection.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 200.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 200.

• Average Per-response Burden: 36 minutes.

• Total Burden: 120 hours.

Title: Notices Relating to Payment of Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax by Electronic Funds Transfer.

Abstract: Under the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 6302, TTB collects the firearms and ammunition excise tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 4181 on the basis of a return that taxpayers file on a quarterly basis. That section also authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations concerning the payment of taxes by electronic funds transfer (EFT). Under the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 53, persons who elect to begin or discontinue payment of firearms and ammunition excise taxes by EFT must submit a written notice to TTB regarding such actions. TTB uses those notifications to administer the firearms and ammunition excise tax payment provisions related to the use of EFT.

Current Actions: There are no program changes or adjustments associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 10.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 10.

• Average Per-response Burden: 24 minutes.

• Total Burden: 4 hours.

Title: Applications, Notices, and Permits Relative to Importation and Exportation of Distilled Spirits, Wine and Beer, Including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Abstract: Chapter 51 of the IRC imposes Federal excise taxes on alcohol beverages imported into the United States, while exports of such products are not generally subject to tax. In addition, the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 7652 applies an equal tax to such products from Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands imported into the United States, but that section also requires deposit of most of the collected taxes to the Treasuries of those islands' governments. As a result, the TTB regulations in 27 parts 26, 27, and 28 require persons exporting or importing alcohol beverages from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to file certain letterhead applications and notices, and to keep certain records, regarding such activities. The collected information is necessary to ensure that the tax provisions of the IRC related to Puerto Rican and U.S. Virgin Islands products are appropriately applied.

Current Actions: There are no program changes or adjustments associated with this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; and Individuals or households.

• Number of Respondents: 20.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 20.

• Average Per-response Burden: 9 hours.

• Total Burden: 180 hours.

Title: Record of Operations—Importer of Tobacco Products or Processed Tobacco.

Abstract: The IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5741 requires all manufacturers and importers of tobacco products, processed tobacco, and cigarette papers and tubes, and all export warehouse proprietors to keep records as the Secretary prescribes by regulation. Under that authority, the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 41 require importers of tobacco products or processed tobacco to maintain the usual and customary business showing the receipt and disposition of imported tobacco products or processed tobacco. TTB uses the collected information to ensure that importers' activities comply with the IRC and that processed tobacco, which is not taxed, is not diverted to taxable tobacco product manufacturing.

Current Actions: There are no program changes to this information collection, and TTB is submitting it for extension purposes only. As for adjustments, due to a change in agency estimates, TTB is increasing the estimated number of respondents and responses to this collection. However, there is no corresponding increase in the burden hours for this collection as it consists of usual and customary business records, which impose no additional burden on respondents per the OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profits.

• Number of Respondents: 3,445.

• Average Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

• Number of Responses: 445.

• Average Per-response and Total Burden: None. Per the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), regulatory requirements to keep usual and customary business records impose no added burden on respondents).