8356 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 / Notices 

assumptions of liability, is February 18, 

2021. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper, using the 

FERC Online links at http://

www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic 

service, persons with internet access 

who will eFile a document and/or be 

listed as a contact for an intervenor 

must create and validate an 

eRegistration account using the 

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling 

link to log on and submit the 

intervention or protests. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

may mail similar pleadings to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 

20426. Hand delivered submissions in 

docketed proceedings should be 

delivered to Health and Human 

Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

In addition to publishing the full text 

of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

ferc.gov) using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. At this 

time, the Commission has suspended 

access to the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, due to the 

proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued 

by the President on March 13, 2020. For 

assistance, contact the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Dated: January 29, 2021. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02421 Filed 2–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9055–2] 

Environmental Impact Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information 202– 

564–5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements (EIS) 

Filed January 25, 2021 10 a.m. EST 

Through February 1, 2021 10 a.m. 

EST 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice 

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: https://

cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/ 

action/eis/search. 

EIS No. 20210013, Final, USAF, NM, 

Special Use Airspace Optimization to 

Support Existing Aircraft at Holloman 

Air Force Base, New Mexico, Review 

Period Ends: 03/08/2021, Contact: 

Robin Divine 210–925–2730. 

EIS No. 20210014, Final, USAF, VA, 

Fifth Generation Formal Training Unit 

Optimization, Review Period Ends: 

03/08/2021, Contact: Nolan Swick 

210–925–3392. 

EIS No. 20210015, Final, USFS, OR, 

Government Camp—Cooper Spur 

Land Exchange, Review Period Ends: 

04/06/2021, Contact: Michelle 

Lombardo 971–303–2083. 

EIS No. 20210016, Draft, FHWA, OR, 

Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge, 

Comment Period Ends: 03/22/2021, 

Contact: Emily Cline 503–316–2547. 

Amended Notice 

EIS No. 20200210, Draft, STB, UT, Uinta 

Basin Railway, Comment Period Ends: 

02/12/2021, Contact: Joshua Wayland 

202–245–0330. 

Revision to FR Notice Published 12/ 

18/2020; Extending the Comment Period 

from 01/28/2020 to 02/12/2021. 

Dated: February 1, 2021. 

Cindy S. Barger, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02412 Filed 2–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[WC Docket No. 20–89; DA 21–14; FRS 

17428] 

Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks 

Comment on Covid-19 Telehealth 

Program Application Evaluation 

Metrics 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

seeks comments on the metrics the 

Commission should use to evaluate 

applications for funding and how the 

Commission should treat applications 

filed during the funding rounds for 

awards from the COVID–19 Telehealth 

Program using amounts appropriated 

under the CARES Act. 

DATES: Comments were initially due by 

January 19, 2021. The Bureau will 

continue to accept comments on the 

metrics at any time. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 20–89, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Æ Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street, NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Æ Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

• People with Disabilities: To request

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Minnock, Assistant Division 

Chief, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, stephanie.minnock@fcc.gov or 

202–418–7400 or TTY: 202–418–0484. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 / Notices 8357 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Public 

Notice in WC Docket No. 20–89; DA 21– 

14 released January 6, 2021. Due to the 

COVID–19 pandemic, the Commission’s 

headquarters will be closed to the 

general public until further notice. The 

full text of this document is available at 

the following internet address: https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21- 

14A1.pdf. The proceeding shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule § 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

I. Introduction 

1. Telehealth is a critical tool in the 

fight against the ongoing COVID–19 

pandemic. It can allow medical 

professionals to monitor non-critical 

COVID patients in a non-clinical setting, 

reduce demands on hospital staff and 

supplies, and avoid potential exposure 

to the coronavirus for patients seeking 

treatment for other conditions. The 

Commission’s COVID–19 Telehealth 

Program awarded $200 million Congress 

previously appropriated for that 

purpose, targeting applications from 

providers in the hardest hit areas that 

would have the greatest impact on the 

pandemic. However, demand for the 

program significantly exceeded 

available funding. 

2. To build on the success of the 

Commission’s COVID–19 Telehealth 

Program, in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021 Congress 

appropriated an additional $249.95 

million for the Program. The Act 

requires the Commission to seek 

comment on ‘‘the metrics the 

Commission should use to evaluate 

applications for funding’’ and ‘‘how the 

Commission should treat applications 

filed during the funding rounds for 

awards from the COVID–19 Telehealth 

Program using amounts appropriated 

under the CARES Act . . . .’’ Through 

the Public Notice, the Bureau seeks 

comments on these matters, as well as 

how to meet the Act’s other 

requirements for the COVID–19 

Telehealth Program and other 

improvements to the application, 

review, and invoicing process. 

II. Request for Comment 

3. Prioritizing Round 2 Funding. The 

Act directs the Commission to seek 

comment on the metrics used to 

evaluate applications for Round 2 

Program funding. During Round 1, the 

Bureau evaluated the Program 

applications on a rolling basis, targeting 

funding to areas that were hardest hit by 

COVID–19 and where the support 

would have the most impact on 

addressing health care needs. Although 

Round 1 funding was not targeted 

toward specific medical conditions, 

patient populations, or geographic areas, 

the Commission strongly encouraged 

applicants to target the funding received 

to high-risk and vulnerable patients to 

the extent practicable. The Commission 

encouraged applicants under preexisting strain (e.g., providing care for a 

large underserved or low-income patient 

population, facing health care provider 

shortages, or dealing with rural hospital 

closures) to document such factors in 

their applications. The Commission 

directed the Bureau to select as many 

applicants as reasonably possible within 

the funding appropriated by the CARES 

Act. To ensure that as many applicants 

as possible receive available funding, 

the Commission did not anticipate 

awarding more than $1 million to any 

single applicant. 

4. The Bureau seeks comments on 

whether to continue to target funding to 

health care providers in areas ‘‘hardest 

hit’’ by COVID–19 at the time of the 

funding decision. During Round 1, the 

pandemic impacted some regions much 

more severely than others, thus allowing 

the Bureau to identify particular 

hotspots that were ‘‘hardest hit’’ in 

comparison to other parts of the country 

by referencing data published and 

collected by Johns Hopkins. Given the 

broader infection rate currently in the 

U.S., should the Bureau continue to 

target funding to hardest hit areas? If so, 

how should the ‘‘hardest hit’’ areas be 

defined? 

5. Similarly, in Round 1 the 

Commission targeted funding to health 

care providers under pre-existing strain, 

which included health care providers 

that were facing difficulty providing 

telehealth services prior to the 

pandemic. In Round 2, what weight 

should the Bureau give pre-existing 

strain faced by applicant health care 

providers? Should pre-existing strains 

be distinguished from pandemic-related 

strains many providers now face? 

6. During Round 1 of the Program, the 

Commission ‘‘did not anticipate 

awarding more than $1 million’’ per 

applicant to ensure that as many 

applicants as possible receive funding. 

Should the Bureau maintain this 

approach? How should the Bureau 

address applications filed by statewide 

entities, large health care providers or 

health care provider systems with 

numerous sites? 

7. Are there other equitable 

limitations that will help the Program 

spread funding to a greater number of 

health care providers without sacrificing 

the needs of larger health care providers 

struggling to treat patients during the 

pandemic? Should applicants from 

Round 1 that did not receive $1 million 

be eligible to receive additional 

funding? Should applicants from Round 

1 that did receive $1 million be eligible 

to receive additional support in Round 

2? 

8. Are there any other metrics the 

Bureau should use to prioritize 

applications during the evaluation 

process? Should the Bureau prioritize 

health care providers serving a large 

percentage of COVID–19 patients? Are 

there specific types of telehealth and 

connected care services that should be 

prioritized? Should the Bureau 

prioritize applications from health care 

providers that seek funding to treat 

specific at-risk populations, such as 

Tribal, low-income, or rural 

communities? If so, how should those 

populations be defined? Should these 

applicants be prioritized only if a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
8358 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 / Notices 

certain percentage of their patient base, 

i.e., the total amount of patients who 

visited a facility in a year, is at-risk? 

What percentage would be reasonable to 

achieve the goal of prioritizing funding 

for at-risk populations? Are there other 

criteria the Bureau should prioritize? 

9. Ensuring Nationwide Distribution 

of Funding. The Act directs the 

Commission, to the extent feasible, to 

ensure ‘‘that not less than 1 applicant in 

each of the 50 States and the District of 

Columbia has received funding’’ from 

the Program since the program’s 

inception, ‘‘unless there is no such 

applicant eligible for assistance in a 

State or in the District of Columbia.’’ To 

fulfill this requirement, the Bureau 

proposes accepting Round 2 

applications and establishing an 

application filing window rather than 

accepting applications on a rolling 

basis. Although accepting and 

evaluating applications on a rolling 

basis allowed the Bureau to quickly 

review applications and issue funding 

commitments for the funding 

appropriated by the CARES Act, this 

evaluation method will not ensure that 

funding will be available for applicants 

in each State and the District of 

Columbia. Establishing an application 

filing window would allow the Bureau 

to prioritize applications using predefined evaluation metrics and ensure 

that funding is provided, to the extent 

feasible, to at least one applicant in each 

of the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. This approach would also 

provide all applicants the same period 

of time to prepare and file applications. 

The Bureau seeks comments on this 

approach. If an application filing 

window is established, how long should 

the window remain open? 

10. Is there an alternative approach 

that would ensure that the Commission 

meets this legislative provision? Should 

the Bureau instead continue to accept 

applications on a rolling basis, but set 

aside a portion of funding, e.g., $1 

million for each state and the District of 

Columbia, to ensure that an applicant 

from each State and the District of 

Columbia receive Round 2 funding? 

11. Treatment of Round 1 

Applications. The Act directs the 

Commission to seek comment on ‘‘how 

the Commission should treat 

applications filed during’’ Round 1 of 

the Program. The Act also requires the 

Commission to allow an applicant who 

filed an application during Round 1 

‘‘the opportunity to update or amend 

that application as necessary.’’ 

12. The Bureau proposes to require 

applicants to update and resubmit 

applications that were filed during 

Round 1 if they want them to be 

considered for Round 2. The Bureau 

proposes that Round 1 applications that 

are not resubmitted during the filing 

window will not be considered for 

Round 2. The Bureau makes this 

proposal because many of the remaining 

Round 1 applications need to be 

refreshed and some require substantial 

amendments. From April to June 2020, 

the Commission received thousands of 

applications for Round 1, and 

committed funding to 539 applicants 

before the available funding was 

exhausted. Many of the remaining 

applications are from ineligible entities 

or require substantial supplementation 

to be considered materially complete. 

Some applicants no longer need funding 

because they received support for 

telehealth services from other sources. 

And, because these applications were 

filed between April and June 2020, all 

the remaining applications contain stale 

information—COVID–19 infection rates 

in many areas were dramatically lower 

at that time than they are today, the 

pandemic was less widespread, and 

health care providers have had time to 

refine their strategies for providing 

services during the pandemic, making it 

likely that these applicants would, given 

the opportunity, request different 

amounts and types of connected devices 

and eligible services. The Bureau seeks 

comments on this approach. 

13. The Bureau also proposes this 

approach because the application 

system used during Round 1 of the 

Program, which was developed quickly 

given the emergency situation, is 

functionally limited, and is not 

designed to let applicants amend or 

update their applications after they have 

been filed. In addition, certain 

information required to comply with the 

Act, such as the new evaluation criteria, 

was not collected in Round 1. Thus, it 

would be less burdensome for both 

Round 1 applicants and Commission 

staff to have Round 1 applicants submit 

new applications during the Round 2 

filing window than to update Round 1 

applications in the existing portal. 

Requiring Round 1 applicants to submit 

new applicants will increase the speed 

at which Commission or Universal 

Service Administrative Company 

(USAC) staff are able to process and 

award Round 2 funding. Therefore, the 

Bureau proposes requiring Round 1 

applicants that continue to seek funding 

to update or amend their applications 

by submitting a new application for 

Round 2. 

14. Should the Bureau review Round 

2 applications filed by Round 1 

applicants before evaluating 

applications from new entities during 

the Round 2 review process? Should the 

Bureau prioritize funding applications 

submitted during Round 2 by applicants 

that applied, but did not receive any or 

all of the requested funding, during 

Round 1? Relatedly, how should the 

Bureau treat applicants for Round 2 

funding that received the full amount of 

their requested funding during Round 

1? 

15. Additional Program 

Improvements. During the process of 

standing up this Program, the Bureau 

learned valuable lessons about the 

unique needs of connected care and 

health care providers. To build on the 

lessons learned during Round 1, the 

Bureau proposes updating the Program’s 

application and invoicing processes and 

seeks comments on implementing these 

proposed improvements during Round 

2. Specifically, the Bureau proposes 

using the Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC) to 

assist in administering the remaining 

work necessary to complete Round 1 of 

the Program as well as Round 2. The 

Bureau further proposes directing USAC 

to update the portal that will be used by 

Round 2 applicants, including Round 1 

applicants that wish to renew their 

request for funding under the Program, 

to submit applications for the funding 

appropriated by the Act; to conduct an 

initial review of Round 2 invoices; and 

to provide outreach and guidance about 

the application process to applicants. 

Updating the portal will ensure that all 

applicants provide the information 

needed for review under the updated 

Round 2 application evaluation metrics, 

facilitate program administration, and 

reduce administrative burdens on both 

applicants and Commission staff. 

However, under this approach 

Commission staff would make final 

funding determinations, subject to the 

requirements of the Act. The Bureau 

seeks comments on this approach. 

16. During Round 1, applicants were 

required to file FCC Forms 460 to obtain 

eligibility determinations for all 

participating health care provider sites. 

As part of the eligibility determination 

process, health care provider sites 

seeking an eligibility determination 

were assigned a health care provider 

number by USAC. The Bureau found 

that requiring health care providers to 

file FCC Forms 460 for each site delayed 

our ability to move quickly on many 

applications, especially those 

applications with a large number of sites 

in need of eligibility determinations. 

Using a different method to determine 

whether a site is eligible could reduce 

the administrative burden on 

applications, the Commission, and 

USAC during the application review 

process. Accordingly, the Bureau seeks 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 / Notices 8359 

comments on directing USAC to include 

eligibility review as part of the 

application process, but not requiring 

applicants to file FCC Forms 460. Are 

there other means of identifying health 

care providers and determining their 

eligibility for support in the program 

that should be considered? 

17. Finally, are there additional 

improvements the Bureau should 

consider making to the application, 

review, and invoicing processes? For 

example, during the Round 1 

application process, applicants were 

required to submit documentation 

demonstrating that funding requests 

were for equipment and services eligible 

for Program support, and funding 

commitments were made based on the 

anticipated costs of the eligible services 

requested on their applications. After 

receiving Round 1 commitments, 

however, some health care providers 

seeking support for eligible services and 

equipment experienced supply chain 

disruptions and equipment shortages, 

while other health care providers 

determined that, due to shifting 

pandemic response strategies, they 

needed different services or equipment 

than those requested in their 

application. Anticipating these issues, 

the Commission gave health care 

providers flexibility to respond to 

changing circumstances by not requiring 

health care providers that received 

funding commitments to purchase only 

the services and connected devices 

identified in their applications. 

Accordingly, health care providers that 

received funding commitments may 

have been allowed to substitute 

vendors, eligible services, and/or 

eligible connected devices as long as the 

substituted items are eligible and the 

total amount sought for reimbursement 

does not exceed the commitment 

amount. 

18. Should the Bureau maintain this 

flexibility, but streamline the 

application process by requiring 

applicants demonstrate the eligibility of 

the connected devices and services 

purchased using Round 2 support only 

during the invoicing process? Are health 

care providers still experiencing supply 

chain delays or noticing shortages of 

certain connected devices? Have health 

care providers’ pandemic response 

strategies solidified to the point where 

they will be able to accurately identify 

the telecommunication services, 

information services, or connected 

devices needed on their application for 

Round 2? If the Bureau does not require 

applicants to demonstrate the eligibility 

of the services and connected devices 

for which they seek funding on their 

applications during Round 2, what 

documentation or demonstration should 

the Bureau require the applicant to 

submit to demonstrate that they will use 

the funding requested for services and 

devices that are eligible for support? 

What safeguards should the Bureau 

consider implementing to ensure that 

this proposal does not lead to waste, 

fraud, or abuse of Program funding? 

Should additional certifications be 

required on applications and for each 

invoice to ensure applicants/awardees 

understand what is expected of them 

and the potential penalties for waste, 

fraud, or abuse? Relatedly, should a list 

of eligible and ineligible equipment and 

services to provide applicants with 

specific guidance on what may be 

requested for reimbursement be 

published? 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Cheryl L. Callahan, 

Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02255 Filed 2–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 9000–0018; Docket No. 

2020–0053; Sequence No. 18] 

Submission for OMB Review; Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Part 3: 

Improper Business Practices and 

Personal Conflicts of Interest 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division has 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) a request to review 

and approve a revision and extension of 

a previously approved information 

collection requirements regarding 

improper business practices and 

personal conflicts of interest. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

March 8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for this information 

collection should be sent within 30 days 

of publication of this notice to 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. 

Additionally, submit a copy to GSA 

through https://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions on the site. 

This website provides the ability to type 

short comments directly into the 

comment field or attach a file for 

lengthier comments. 

Instructions: All items submitted 

must cite ‘‘OMB Control No. 9000–0018, 

Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 3: 

Improper Business Practices and 

Personal Conflicts of Interest.’’ 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check https://www.regulations.gov 

approximately two-to- three days after 

submission to verify posting. If there are 

difficulties submitting comments, 

contact the GSA Regulatory Secretariat 

Division at 202–501–4755 or 

GSARegSec@gsa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Hawes, Procurement Analyst, at 

telephone 202–969–7386, or 

jennifer.hawes@gsa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. OMB Control Number, Title, and any 

Associated Form(s) 

9000–0018, Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Part 3: Improper Business 

Practices and Personal Conflicts of 

Interest. 

B. Need and Uses 

DoD, GSA, and NASA are combining 

OMB Control Nos. for the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) by FAR 

part. This consolidation is expected to 

improve industry’s ability to easily and 

efficiently identify burdens associated 

with a given FAR part. The review of 

the information collections by FAR part 

allows improved oversight to ensure 

there is no redundant or unaccounted 

for burden placed on industry. Lastly, 

combining information collections in a 

given FAR part is also expected to 

reduce the administrative burden 

associated with processing multiple 

information collections. 

This justification supports the 

revision and extension of OMB Control 

No. 9000–0018 and combines it with the 

previously approved information 

collections under OMB Control No. 

9000–0091, with the new title ‘‘Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Part 3: Improper 

Business Practices and Personal 

Conflicts of Interest.’’ Upon approval of 

this consolidated information 

collection, OMB Control No. 9000–0091 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES