33240 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written 

Submissions: Submit comments by 

mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division 

of the Secretariat, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone: (301) 504–7479; 

email: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this notice. CPSC may post 

all comments received without change, 

including any personal identifiers, 

contact information, or other personal 

information provided, to: https://

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

electronically: Confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If you wish to submit such 

information, please submit it according 

to the instructions for mail/hand 

delivery/courier written submissions. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: https:// 

www.regulations.gov, insert Docket No. 

CPSC–2021–0018 into the ‘‘Search’’ box, 

and follow the prompts. A copy of the 

proposed survey is available at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

CPSC–2021–0018, Supporting and 

Related Material. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Gillham, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East-West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 

504–7991, or by email to: cgillham@

cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal 

agencies must obtain approval from 

OMB for each collection of information 

they conduct or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of 

information’’ is defined in 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and 

includes agency proposed surveys. 

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal 

agencies to provide a 60-day notice in 

the Federal Register concerning each 

proposed collection of information 

before submitting the collection to OMB 

for approval. Accordingly, CPSC is 

publishing notice of the proposed 

collection of information set forth in 

this document. 

A. Warning Label Comprehension 

Survey 

CPSC is authorized under section 5(a) 

of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2054(a), to conduct 

studies and investigations relating to the 

causes and prevention of deaths, 

accidents, injuries, illnesses, other 

health impairments, and economic 

losses associated with consumer 

products. Section 5(b) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2054(b), further provides that 

CPSC may conduct research, studies, 

and investigations on the safety of 

consumer products, and develop 

product safety test methods and testing 

devices. 

In 2020, we conducted an Online 

Shopping Focus Group with 40 

participants, which was approved under 

OMB Control No. 3041–0136. In-depthinterviews were conducted with 

primary caregivers (parent or guardian) 

of young children ages 3–6 years old, to 

gather feedback on the caregivers’ 

understanding, perceptions, and 

attitudes toward online toy safety 

messaging. Caregiver responses in the 

focus group study indicated that 

typically, they do not look for warning 

labels on web pages when shopping for 

toys on e-commerce websites. Some of 

the reasons for the failure to look for the 

warning labels may be the lack of 

prominent visibility of the safety 

information on consumer web pages, or 

because the warning labels were not 

particularly noticeable, or easy to find. 

These findings suggest that improving 

the location or design of warning labels 

may help caregivers become more aware 

and informed about the potential safety 

risks associated with products intended 

for young children. 

CPSC seeks to learn more about 

caregivers’ understanding and 

awareness of warning labels for toys 

intended for children 2 to 6 years old. 

This proposed survey will augment the 

work conducted in the focus group, 

through an online survey with 250 

participants. The proposed survey will 

be directed to caregivers who have 

purchased a toy from an e-commerce 

website for a 2- to 6-year-old child, and 

assess how these caregivers interpret 

and adhere to safety warnings when 

purchasing toys for their child. CPSC 

will use this information to develop 

strategies and best-practice approaches 

for recommending where and how 

safety warnings for children’s products 

should be displayed to get caregivers’ 

attention when shopping online for 

children’s toys or products. 

CPSC has contracted with Fors Marsh 

Group, LLC, to develop and execute this 

project for CPSC. Information obtained 

through this survey is not intended to be 

considered nationally representative. 

CPSC intends to use findings from this 

survey, with findings from other 

research and activities, to assist with 

providing recommendations for refining 

and enhancing warning labels in the 

future, to convey critical information 

effectively about product safety 

warnings for online sellers. 

B. Burden Hours 

We estimate the number of 

respondents to the survey to be 250. The 

online survey for the proposed study 

will take approximately 15 minutes 

(0.25 hours) to complete. We estimate 

the total annual burden hours for 

respondents to be 62.50 hours. The 

monetized hourly cost is $38.60, as 

defined by total compensation for all 

civilian workers, U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation, as of December 2020. 

Accordingly, we estimate the total cost 

burden to be $2,412.50 (62.50 hours × 

$38.60). The total cost to the federal 

government for the contract to design 

and conduct the proposed survey is 

$152,712. 

C. Request for Comments 

CPSC invites comments on these 

topics: 

• Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of CPSC’s estimate of 

the burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques, 

when appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13325 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Record of Decision for the Long Range 

Discrimination Radar Operations at 

Clear Air Force Station, Alaska 

AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency, 

Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA), as lead agency, and the 

Department of the Air Force (DAF), as 

a cooperating agency, are issuing this 

joint Record of Decision (ROD) to 

implement changes in operational 

concept for the Long Range 

Discrimination Radar (LRDR) located at 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33241 

1Note: This EIS was ongoing prior to the 14 

September 2020 effective date of the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) final rule updating 

its regulations for implementing the procedural 

provisions of NEPA. Accordingly, the revised CEQ 

regulations were not used for this action pursuant 

to 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 1506.13. 

Clear Air Force Station (CAFS), Alaska. 

This decision includes modification of 

the LRDR operational requirements and 

procedures to reflect continuous 

operations in response to emerging 

threats. This action will enable the MDA 

to meet its congressional mandate to 

fully support the primary mission of the 

layered Missile Defense System (MDS) 

to provide continuous and precise 

tracking and discrimination of longrange missile threats launched against 

the United States (U.S.). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the LRDR CAFS 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) or this ROD, please contact Mr. 

Ryan Keith, MDA Public Affairs, at 256– 

450–1599 or by email at lrdr.info@

mda.mil. Downloadable electronic 

versions of the Final EIS and ROD are 

available on MDA’s website at https://

www.mda.mil/system/lrdr. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ROD 

documents the following: 

• The decision; 

• The alternatives considered in 

reaching the decision and the 

alternative considered to be 

environmentally preferable; 

• Relevant factors that were 

considered among the alternatives and 

how those factors entered into the 

decision; and 

• Whether all practicable means to 

avoid or minimize environmental 

impacts resulting from the selected 

alternative have been adopted, and if 

not, why they were not. 

A. MDA and DAF Decision 

The MDA and the DAF are issuing 

this ROD, selecting the Proposed Action 

as described in the LRDR CAFS EIS to 

operate the LRDR on a continuous basis. 

The operational concept would change 

from the initial concept to maintain the 

LRDR in a readiness posture with 

limited operations and no additional 

airspace restrictions. The change in 

LRDR operations will create a hazard in 

areas of the National Airspace System 

where high-intensity radiated fields 

(HIRF) will exceed Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) certification 

standards for aircraft electrical and 

electronic systems. Therefore, the DAF, 

on behalf of the MDA, requested the 

FAA to expand the existing restricted 

airspace at CAFS, as described in the 

LRDR CAFS Final EIS, to address this 

hazard. 

B. FAA Role 

The FAA is a cooperating agency on 

the LRDR CAFS EIS because it has 

special expertise and jurisdiction by 

law, pursuant to 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 

§ 40101 et seq., for aviation and 

regulation of air commerce in the 

interests of aviation safety and 

efficiency. The MDA will request the 

FAA, as a cooperating agency, to 

consider and adopt, in whole or in part, 

the Final EIS as the required National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documentation to support FAA 

decisions on the establishment of 

Restricted Areas. The airspace 

associated with the Proposed Action 

and alternative lies within the 

jurisdiction of the FAA Anchorage Air 

Route Traffic Control Center. 

FAA proposes to establish six new 

restricted areas and make related 

changes in airspace management. FAA 

will issue a separate ROD addressing its 

actions related to restricting the flight of 

aircraft. 

C. Background 

Within the DoD, MDA is responsible 

for developing, testing, and fielding an 

integrated, layered MDS to defend the 

U.S. and its deployed forces, allies, and 

friends against all ranges of enemy 

missile threats in all phases of flight. 

The layered MDS is a defensive system 

consisting of land-, sea-, space-, and airbased weapon, sensor, communications, 

and command and control elements that 

are used to detect and defeat incoming 

missile threats. As part of the layered 

MDS, the LRDR will be the lead sensor 

in a new class of radars optimized to 

identify threat objects in complex, dense 

target environments, and to enhance 

efficient deployment of MDS weapons 

to intercept such threats. 

In response to the congressional 

mandate to deploy the LRDR, MDA 

completed a siting analysis that selected 

CAFS out of 50 candidate Department of 

Defense installations in Alaska. In June 

2016, MDA and DAF prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) to 

evaluate the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the 

construction and operation of the LRDR 

at CAFS. The 2016 EA resulted in a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), and construction of the LRDR 

began in July 2017. The operational 

concept for the LRDR analyzed in the 

2016 EA and FONSI was to maintain the 

LRDR in a readiness posture. Since that 

time, due to emerging threats, MDA 

identified a need to modify the LRDR 

operational requirements and 

procedures to reflect continuous 

operations. 

D. NEPA Process 

The LRDR CAFS EIS complies with 

NEPA, as amended; the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations for 

implementing NEPA; and agencyspecific NEPA-implementing policies 

and procedures for the MDA, DAF, and 

FAA.1

The MDA initiated a 45-day formal 

scoping period by publishing a Notice of 

Intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal 

Register on May 17, 2019. The MDA 

held public scoping meetings in 

Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Anderson, 

Alaska. Forty-two formal comments 

were received during the scoping 

comment period. The scoping 

comments focused primarily on aviation 

navigational safety; added flight times 

and expense; human safety; and 

potential impacts on private airstrips, 

Clear Airport, and the U.S. Air Force 

Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol Alaska Wing 

Glider Academy (CAP Glider Academy) 

for youth. These topics were addressed 

in the Draft EIS. 

The Notice of Availability (NOA) for 

the LRDR CAFS Draft EIS was published 

in the Federal Register on October 28, 

2020, announcing a 52-day comment 

period beginning October 30, 2020. 

During this time, public comment 

meetings were held virtually and 

consisted of an online open house and 

a telephone public meeting. The MDA 

received comments on the Draft EIS 

from 10 parties, which included 

individuals, agencies, and 

organizations. Commenters requested 

changes to the proposed Restricted 

Areas, more information about 

communication methods if Restricted 

Areas are activated at unscheduled 

times, and mitigation for climate change 

and air quality impacts. The comments 

were taken into consideration during 

preparation of the Final EIS. The NOA 

for the LRDR CAFS Final EIS was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 7, 2021 (86 FR 24599–24600). This 

ROD is the culmination of the NEPA 

process. 

E. Alternatives Considered 

1. Proposed Action—Continuous LRDR 

Operation and FAA Actions 

The Proposed Action consists of both 

MDA and FAA actions. Due to emerging 

threats, the MDA proposes to modify the 

LRDR operational requirements and 

procedures to reflect continuous 

operations. The operational concept 

would change from the initial concept 

to maintain the LRDR in a readiness 

posture with limited operations and no 

additional airspace restrictions. Because 

of the proposed changes to LRDR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33242 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 

operations, airspace restrictions at CAFS 

are necessary to ensure that aircraft 

would not encounter HIRF resulting 

from the LRDR operations that exceed 

FAA’s HIRF certification standards for 

aircraft electrical and electronic 

systems. The proposed airspace 

restrictions include expanding the 

existing Restricted Area (R–2206) at 

CAFS by adding six new Restricted 

Areas. If necessary, the FAA would 

implement temporary flight restrictions 

(TFRs) until those Restricted Areas are 

in effect. The FAA also proposes 

changes to federal airways and 

instrument flight procedures to 

accommodate the new Restricted Areas. 

2. No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the 

MDA would operate the LRDR in a 

manner that would contain HIRF within 

the existing R–2206 such that the FAA 

would not need to take new actions to 

limit aircraft flight. 

3. Two-Tier Alternative 

Under the two-tier alternative, the 

existing R–2206 would be expanded 

with two new Restricted Areas. The 

two-tier alternative was presented 

during the scoping process but was 

eliminated from further analysis. 

F. Environmental Impacts 

The LRDR CAFS EIS analyzed the 

impacts of the Proposed Action and No 

Action Alternative within 14 

environmental categories: Airspace 

management; air quality; biological 

resources; climate; hazardous materials, 

solid waste, and pollution prevention; 

historical, architectural, archaeological, 

and cultural resources; land use; natural 

resources and energy supply; noise and 

compatible land use; safety; 

socioeconomics and environmental 

justice; subsistence; visual effects; and 

water resources. The potential for 

cumulative impacts was also evaluated 

in the EIS. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the 

MDA would operate the LRDR in such 

a way that would contain HIRF within 

the existing R–2206, except during a 

national security crisis. No new actions 

would be taken to limit use of affected 

airspace, with the exception of 

temporary measures during a national 

security crisis. The No Action 

Alternative would not result in any new 

impacts associated with the 

environmental categories. However, the 

LRDR would not meet current 

operational requirements for the MDS 

and would not have the ability to adapt 

to rapidly evolving adversary tactics and 

technologies. 

MDA’s proposed change in LRDR 

operations would have no impact or 

negligible adverse impacts on all of the 

environmental categories except 

airspace management, which would 

have negligible to minor adverse 

impacts. The change to continuous 

LRDR operations would create a hazard 

in areas of the National Airspace System 

where the HIRF would exceed FAA 

certification standards for aircraft 

electrical and electronic systems, 

necessitating the FAA to take actions to 

restrict the flight of aircraft in this 

airspace. 

The proposed changes related to 

restricting the flight of aircraft would 

have no impact or negligible adverse 

impacts on all environmental categories 

except airspace management and 

socioeconomics, which would have 

minor adverse impacts. Although 

overall adverse impacts on 

socioeconomics would be negligible to 

minor, relocation of the CAP Glider 

Academy from Clear Airport to another 

airport would result in moderate 

adverse impacts, based on currently 

available information and conservative 

assumptions. 

The following is a brief summary of 

the Proposed Action’s impacts on 

airspace management and 

socioeconomics. 

1. Airspace Management 

The primary impact of MDA’s 

continuous operation of the LRDR 

would be to increase the airspace at 

CAFS where the HIRF would exceed 

FAA certification standards for aircraft 

electrical and electronic systems. To 

address this hazard, the FAA would 

expand the existing Restricted Area (R– 

2206) by adding six new Restricted 

Areas (R–2206B through R–2206G) to 

create a total of seven Restricted Areas 

at CAFS. Four of the Restricted Areas 

would be active continuously. The 

remaining three (R–2206D, R–2206E, 

and R–2206F) would be active only 

from 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. local Alaska 

time every Tuesday, Thursday, and 

Saturday; at other prescheduled times 

by Notice to Airmen; and as necessary 

in response to national security events. 

Based on current air traffic and 

accounting for growth of aviation 

activity, the FAA estimates up to five 

daily (1,825 annual) instrument flight 

rule (IFR) flights would be affected by 

the proposed Restricted Areas. Those 

five flights are calculated from 

accumulated daily activity across the 

following: Airway J–125, airway V–436, 

and direct flights that depart Anchorage 

headed toward Deadhorse, Alaska. Up 

to an estimated 10 daily (3,650 annual) 

visual flight rule (VFR) flights would be 

affected. If TFRs are necessary before 

Restricted Areas are in effect, the 

affected IFR flights would be rerouted 

by air traffic control, VFR aircraft would 

detour to avoid the TFRs, some 

instrument flight procedures would not 

be available, and air traffic control 

would need to manually direct the 

affected IFR flights. Once the amended 

procedures and redesigned airways are 

established, air traffic control would 

cease to manually direct IFR flights 

through the area. Some flight paths 

would be longer, resulting in slight 

increases in flight times and operation 

costs as well as slight increases in air 

emissions and fuel use. 

The lowest floor of the proposed 

Restricted Areas would be 400 feet 

above ground level (AGL) (1,000 feet 

mean sea level at CAFS). VFR aircraft 

would be able and allowed to fly 

beneath the proposed Restricted Areas, 

although aircraft are allowed to fly 

below 500 feet AGL only if taking off or 

landing. The six privately owned 

airstrips beneath the proposed 

Restricted Areas would remain 

accessible. Pilots would still be able to 

use Windy Pass for transiting between 

Interior Alaska and Southcentral Alaska. 

Additionally, except for the periods 

during which R–2206D, R–2206E, and 

R–2206F would be active, aircraft would 

be able to navigate along Parks 

Highway, which is used as a visual 

navigation aid, as long as they stay 

below an altitude of 2,600 feet AGL 

(3,200 feet mean sea level) within 0.5 

nautical mile of the highway. 

Access to Clear Airport would 

normally be unavailable from the north 

and west during the times when R– 

2206D, R–2206E, and R–2206F are 

active. While prescheduled restrictions 

would be unlikely to affect users, 

provisions would be in place to allow 

emergency aircraft and medical 

evacuation flights, as well as aircraft in 

emergency circumstances, into and out 

of Clear Airport during these times. The 

MDA is also working with the DoD, 

FAA, and DAF to identify appropriate 

notification procedures to alert aircraft 

when Restricted Areas are activated 

outside of prescheduled periods, 

including methods of rapidly notifying 

pilots of changes in Restricted Area 

status. Potential notification options 

being considered include a combination 

of radio broadcast on a common traffic 

advisory frequency and high-intensity 

warning lights. This notification process 

would be addressed in a Letter of 

Procedure. 

2. Socioeconomics 

FAA’s actions related to restricting 

the flight of aircraft would result in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33243 

slightly increased flight times, which 

would result in increased costs to 

aircraft operators both during the 

interim phase, if necessary, and once 

the redesigned airways are established. 

These economic impacts would be 

spread across the entire potentially 

affected aviation industry in Alaska. 

FAA’s actions would not affect the 

provision of public services associated 

with aviation in the study area 

communities. 

The CAP Glider Academy could no 

longer conduct its glider instruction at 

Clear Airport due to the proposed 

Restricted Areas and would have to 

relocate to another airport such as Ladd 

Army Airfield or Fort Greely. The 

impacts of relocation would be 

minimized if the Civil Air Patrol is able 

to negotiate a long-term arrangement for 

operation of the Glider Academy that 

provides participants with no-cost 

lodging or camping options and 

discounted meal service. Arrangements 

for relocating the CAP Glider Academy 

have not been completed, and costs 

associated with the new location are not 

known. 

G. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring 

Since development of the initial 

concept for expanding the restricted 

airspace at CAFS, as described in the 

LRDR CAFS Final EIS, the design of the 

proposed Restricted Areas has been 

refined to further minimize impacts on 

the aviation community based on 

feedback from pilot associations, public 

safety organizations and first 

responders, and airspace user groups. 

The MDA did not identify any 

significant environmental impacts 

arising from the Proposed Action and, 

therefore, is not identifying specific 

mitigation measures. All practicable 

means to mitigate impacts associated 

with the decision have been considered. 

H. Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative 

Based on the findings of the EIS, the 

No Action Alternative would be the 

environmentally preferred alternative 

because the existing Restricted Area at 

CAFS would not need to be expanded. 

The operations at Clear Airport would 

not be affected, and FAA’s proposed 

modifications to federal airways and 

instrument flight procedures would not 

be necessary. However, the LRDR would 

not meet current operational 

requirements for the layered MDS and 

would not have the ability to adapt to 

rapidly evolving adversary tactics and 

technologies, nor would it satisfy the 

purpose or need for the Proposed 

Action. 

I. Decision 

In accordance with NEPA, we have 

considered the information contained 

within the LRDR CAFS EIS, comments 

from the public, input from regulatory 

agencies, LRDR system capabilities, the 

analysis of the missile threat to the U.S., 

layered MDS performance and 

operational effectiveness, and other 

relevant factors in deciding whether to 

operate the LRDR continuously at 

CAFS. 

We have decided to select the 

Proposed Action over the No Action 

Alternative. Although the No Action 

Alternative would have fewer 

environmental impacts, it would not 

fully support the primary mission of the 

layered MDS to provide continuous and 

precise tracking and discrimination of 

missile threats launched against the U.S. 

The LRDR would not meet current 

operational requirements for the MDS 

and would not have the ability to adapt 

to rapidly evolving adversary tactics and 

technologies. 

Dated: June 11, 2021. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13406 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2021–OS–0026] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request; Correction 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 

Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Information collection notice; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: On April 26, 2021, the DoD 

published a document that provided 

notice of a proposed public information 

collection titled Workplace and Gender 

Relations Survey of DoD Civilians; OMB 

Control Number 0704–WGRC. 

Subsequent to publication of the notice, 

DoD is making a correction to the 

contact information listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

An incorrect telephone number was 

listed. The correct telephone number is 

831–236–9631. 

DATES: This correction will be effective 

on June 24, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Toppings, 571–372–0485. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

26, 2021 (86 FR 22036–22037), the DoD 

published the information collection 

notice cited in the SUMMARY section with 

an incorrect telephone number. 

Subsequent to publication of the notice, 

DoD is correcting the telephone number. 

The correct telephone number is 831– 

236–9631. All other information in the 

notice of April 26, 2021 remains the 

same. 

Dated: June 16, 2021. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13480 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket No.: ED–2021–SCC–0093] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Comment Request; Higher 

Education Emergency Relief Fund 

(HEERF) I, II and III Data Collection 

Form 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education (OPE), Department of 

Education (ED). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is 

proposing a revision of a currently 

approved collection. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before August 

23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: To access and review all the 

documents related to the information 

collection listed in this notice, please 

use http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching the Docket ID number ED– 

2021–SCC–0093. Comments submitted 

in response to this notice should be 

submitted electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov by selecting the 

Docket ID number or via postal mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery. 

If the regulations.gov site is not 

available to the public for any reason, 

ED will temporarily accept comments at 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please include the 

docket ID number and the title of the 

information collection request when 

requesting documents or submitting 

comments. Please note that comments 

submitted by fax or email and those 

submitted after the comment period will 

not be accepted. Written requests for 

information or comments submitted by 

postal mail or delivery should be 

addressed to the PRA Coordinator of the 

Strategic Collections and Clearance 

Governance and Strategy Division, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Ave. SW, LBJ, Room 6W208D, 

Washington, DC 20202–8240. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES