23888 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Notices 

2022. The purpose of the STOP Formula 

Grant Program is to promote a 

coordinated, multi-disciplinary 

approach to improving the criminal 

justice system’s response to violence 

against women. It envisions a 

partnership among law enforcement, 

prosecution, courts, and victim 

advocacy organizations to enhance 

victim safety and hold offenders 

accountable for their crimes of violence 

against women. The Department of 

Justice’s Office on Violence Against 

Women (OVW) administers the STOP 

Formula Grant Program funds which 

must be distributed by STOP state 

administrators according to statutory 

formula (as amended in 2000, 2005, 

2013, and 2022). 

OVW is submitting this revision to a 

currently approved collection to reflect 

changes made to the statutorily 

mandated certifications for grantees 

under the STOP Formula Grant 

Program. To be eligible for funds, 

applicants must certify that they are in 

compliance with relevant requirements 

under 28 CFR part 90 and 34 U.S.C. 

10441 through 10451. 

The Violence Against Women Act 

Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law 

117–103, div. W, 136 Stat. 49, 840–962 

(VAWA 2022), enacted on March 15, 

2022, improves and expands legal tools 

and grant programs addressing domestic 

violence, dating violence, sexual 

assault, and stalking. VAWA 2022 

reauthorized critical grant programs 

created by the original Violence Against 

Women Act and subsequent legislation, 

established new programs, and 

strengthened Federal laws as well as 

adding additional certification 

requirements for the STOP Formula 

Grant Program. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond/reply: It is estimated that it will 

take the approximately 56 respondents 

(state administrators from the STOP 

Formula Grant Program) less than one 

hour to complete a Certification of 

Compliance with the Statutory 

Eligibility Requirements of the Violence 

Against Women Act, as amended. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total annual hour burden 

to complete the Certification is less than 

56 hours. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E, 405B, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: April 18, 2022. 

Melody Braswell, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08529 Filed 4–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FX–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

Notice of Listening Sessions and 

Request for Information 

AGENCY: Office of Management and 

Budget. 

ACTION: Notice of listening session(s) 

and request for information. 

SUMMARY: The Build America, Buy 

America Act (‘‘the Act’’), enacted as part 

of the Infrastructure Investment and 

Jobs Act (IIJA) on November 15, 2021, 

provides for the application of domestic 

preference requirements to 

infrastructure projects funded by 

Federal financial assistance and also 

includes requirements to standardize 

and simplify application of the Buy 

American Act in government contracts. 

The Act directs the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to issue 

guidance that will assist agencies as 

they apply the new requirements. OMB 

seeks input from the public concerning 

the Act’s requirement that any 

infrastructure projects funded with 

Federal financial assistance use only 

construction materials ‘‘produced in the 

United States.’’ The Act also requires 

the Federal Acquisition Regulatory 

Council (FAR Council) to provide a 

definition for ‘‘end product 

manufactured in the United States.’’ To 

that end, OMB also seeks input, as a 

member of the FAR Council, on a 

definition for ‘‘end product 

manufactured in the United States,’’ for 

incorporation into the FAR, as required 

by the Act. 

DATES: Written submissions must be 

received on or before 11:59 p.m. May 

23, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit any written 

comments electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://

regulations.gov. Go to https://

regulations.gov and select ‘‘Office of 

Management and Budget’’ from the 

agency menu to submit or view public 

comments. 

Please note that all public comments 

received are subject to the Freedom of 

Information Act and will be posted in 

their entirety, including any personal 

and/or business confidential 

information provided. Do not include 

any information you would not like to 

be made publicly available. All 

statements received, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, are part of the public record 

and subject to public disclosure. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. 

In addition to receiving written 

comments, OMB plans to hold two 

public listening sessions, addressing the 

themes specified, on the following 

dates: 

Listening Session 1—April 25 (10:30 

a.m.–12:00 p.m. EDT). This listening 

session will focus on non-ferrous metals 

and plastic and polymer-based products 

(including polyvinylchloride, composite 

building materials, and polymers used 

in fiber optic cables). 

To register for Listening Session 1, 

visit: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/ 

public-listening-session-request-forinformation-on-construction-materialstickets-321722569867. 

Listening Session 2—April 28 (2:00 

p.m.–3:30 p.m. EDT). This listening 

session will focus on glass (including 

optic glass), lumber, drywall, and all 

other products. 

To register for Listening Session 2, 

visit: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/ 

public-listening-session-request-forinformation-on-construction-materialstickets-314863694787. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this RFI, please contact 

Tim Soltis, Office of Management and 

Budget, 202–395–7587, or via email 

(preferred) at Timothy.F.Soltis@

omb.eop.gov. For questions about the 

listening sessions, please email 

MBX.OMB.MadeInAmerica@

omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 15, 2021, President Biden 

signed into law the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 

117–58, which includes the Build 

America, Buy America Act (‘‘the Act’’). 

Public Law 117–58, § 70901–52. By 

strengthening requirements for the use 

of iron, steel, manufactured products, 

and construction materials produced in 

the United States, the Act will bolster 

America’s industrial base, protect 

national security, and support highpaying jobs. 

Construction Materials Acquired Under 

Federal Financial Assistance Programs 

The Act affirms, consistent with 

Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the 

Future Is Made in All of America by All 

of America’s Workers (‘‘the Executive 

Order’’), this Administration’s priority 

to ‘‘use terms and conditions of Federal 

financial assistance awards to maximize 

the use of goods, products, and 

materials produced in, and services 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Notices 23889 

offered in, the United States.’’ (Exec. 

Order No. 14005). Under the Act’s 

requirements, all iron, steel, 

manufactured products, and 

construction materials used in 

infrastructure projects funded at least 

partly by Federal financial assistance 

must be produced in the United States. 

In contrast to the Buy America 

requirement applied to the 2009 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act, the statutory authority provided by 

the Act is not limited to the funds 

appropriated or authorized in the IIJA. 

BABA prohibits the award of Federal 

financial assistance for infrastructure 

unless all of the iron, steel, 

manufactured products, and 

construction materials used in the 

project are produced in the United 

States. 

Waivers traditionally available under 

existing Buy America laws are 

authorized under the Act where (1) 

applying the Buy America requirement 

would be inconsistent with the public 

interest; (2) where the iron, steel, 

manufactured products or construction 

material is not produced in the United 

States in sufficient and reasonably 

available quantities or of a satisfactory 

quality; and (3) where inclusion of the 

domestic products or construction 

materials will increase the cost of the 

overall project by more than 25 percent. 

In addition, Congress directs that the 

Act be applied in a manner consistent 

with U.S. trade agreement obligations 

related to Government procurement. 

The Act empowers OMB’s Made in 

America Office (‘‘MIAO’’) to maximize 

and enforce compliance with legal 

authorities, including the Act itself, 

which establish preferences for goods 

made in the United States. MIAO aims 

to increase reliance on domestic supply 

chains and reduce the need for products 

that are not produced in the United 

States through a strategic process aimed 

at: Achieving consistency across 

agencies; gathering data to support 

decision-making to make U.S. supply 

chains more resilient; bringing 

increased transparency to waivers in 

order to send clear demand signals to 

domestic producers; and prioritizing 

efforts on changes that will have the 

greatest impact. (OMB Memorandum 

M–21–26, Increasing Opportunities for 

Domestic Sourcing and Reducing the 

Need for Waivers from Made in America 

Laws available at: https://

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2020/11/M-21-06.pdf). 

The Act defines construction 

materials to be ‘‘produced in the United 

States’’ if ‘‘all manufacturing processes’’ 

for the materials occurred in the United 

States. The Act directs OMB to issue 

standards that define the term ‘‘all 

manufacturing processes’’ as it applies 

to U.S.-produced construction materials. 

In doing so, OMB must: 

(A) Ensure that the standards require 

that each manufacturing process 

required for the manufacture of the 

construction material and the inputs of 

the construction material occurs in the 

United States; and 

(B) take into consideration and seek to 

maximize the direct and indirect jobs 

benefited or created in the production of 

the construction material. 

To establish standards defining the 

term ‘‘all manufacturing processes’’ in 

the case of construction materials, OMB 

must first determine to which materials 

the standards will apply. The IIJA finds 

that ‘‘construction materials’’ include an 

article, material, or supply—other than 

an item of primarily iron or steel; a 

manufactured product; cement and 

cementitious materials; aggregates such 

as stone, sand, or gravel; or aggregate 

binding agents or additives—that is or 

consists primarily of: Non-ferrous 

metals, plastic and polymer-based 

products (including polyvinylchloride, 

composite building materials, and 

polymers used in fiber optic cables), 

glass (including optic glass), lumber, 

and drywall. 

OMB seeks input on whether to refine 

this list, and requests input on specific 

materials or products or categories of 

materials or products that should be 

added, removed, or clarified, as well as 

advice on how to distinguish 

construction materials from 

manufactured products. Distinguishing 

construction materials from 

manufactured products is particularly 

important given the different standards 

the Act establishes for determining 

whether each is ‘‘produced in the 

United States.’’ A manufactured product 

is produced in the United States if ‘‘the 

manufactured product was 

manufactured in the United States; and 

(ii) the cost of the components of the 

manufactured product that are mined, 

produced, or manufactured in the 

United States is greater than 55 percent 

of the total cost of all components of the 

manufactured product, unless another 

standard for determining the minimum 

amount of domestic content of the 

manufactured product has been 

established under applicable law or 

regulation.’’ See IIJA 70912(6)(B). A 

construction material is produced in the 

United States if ‘‘all manufacturing 

processes for the construction material 

occurred in the United States.’’ See IIJA 

70912(6)(C). 

Insufficient clarity regarding whether 

a particular item is a construction 

material or a manufactured product may 

undermine the goals of the Act. 

OMB also notes that under the Act, 

the term ‘‘construction materials’’ 

cannot include cement and 

cementitious materials, aggregates such 

as stone, sand, or gravel, or aggregate 

binding agents or additives. See IIJA 

70917(c)(1). Further, OMB’s standards 

defining ‘‘all manufacturing processes’’ 

for construction material are prohibited 

from including cementitious materials, 

aggregates such as stone, sand, or gravel, 

or aggregate binding agents or additives 

as inputs of the construction material. 

See IIJA 70917(c)(2). 

End Products Acquired Through 

Federal Procurement 

For Federal procurements, section 

70921(d) of the Act requires the FAR 

Council to provide a definition in the 

FAR for ‘‘end product manufactured in 

the United States,’’ including 

‘‘guidelines to ensure that 

manufacturing processes involved in 

production of the end product occur 

domestically.’’ FAR 25.003 defines end 

product as ‘‘articles, materials, and 

supplies to be acquired for public use’’ 

and further defines ‘‘domestic end 

product’’ as including an end product 

manufactured in the United States if the 

cost of its components mined, 

produced, or manufactured in the 

United States exceeds 55 percent of the 

cost of all components—a content level 

that will increase over time pursuant to 

recent FAR regulatory changes issued in 

accordance with section 8 of the 

Executive Order. See 87 FR 12780. 

However, neither the Buy American Act 

(BAA, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8305), which 

governs domestic preferences for 

Federal procurement of supplies, nor 

Executive Orders that implement the 

BAA, namely Executive Orders 10582, 

13881, or 14005, define the term 

‘‘manufacturing.’’ The FAR also is silent 

on the meaning of this term. 

The Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) and courts have not 

articulated a single standard, but 

generally found during challenges 

arising under the BAA that 

manufacturing involves changes in 

physical character, and therefore actions 

such as testing and packaging are not 

part of the manufacturing process. See 

What Is Manufacturing? Why Does the 

Definition Matter? (Congressional 

Research Service, R44755). 

In the context of helping determine if 

small businesses are manufacturers that 

qualify for set-asides, SBA’s regulations 

state that a manufacturer ‘‘performs the 

primary activities in transforming 

inorganic or organic substances, 

including the assembly of parts and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
23890 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Notices 

components, into the end item being 

acquired. The end item must possess 

characteristics which, as a result of 

mechanical, chemical or human action, 

it did not possess before the original 

substances, parts or components were 

assembled or transformed. The end item 

may be finished and ready for 

utilization or consumption, or it may be 

semi-finished as a raw material to be 

used in further manufacturing. Firms 

which perform only minimal operations 

upon the item being procured do not 

qualify as manufacturers of the end 

item. Firms that add substances, parts, 

or components to an existing end item 

to modify its performance will not be 

considered the end item manufacturer 

where those identical modifications can 

be performed by and are available from 

the manufacturer of the existing end 

item.’’ See 13 CFR 121.406(b)(2). 

OMB seeks feedback, on the FAR 

Council’s behalf, to inform the 

definition and guidance on the meaning 

of manufacturing for purposes of 

determining if an end product is 

manufactured in the United States. On 

its own behalf, OMB seeks information 

from the public on the value of aligning 

the definition of manufacturing for the 

purposes of Federal procurement and 

Federal financial assistance. 

Maximizing the Value of Public 

Feedback 

Responses to this RFI will assist OMB 

in achieving the goals and objectives of 

the Act and the Executive Order in the 

most effective manner possible. 

Therefore, public input is a vital 

component of informed policy making. 

OMB encourages public comment on 

these questions and seek any other 

information commenters believe is 

relevant to OMB’s efforts. The type of 

feedback that would be especially useful 

includes recommendations for specific 

definitions, rules, regulations, and 

policies that will maximize the use of 

goods, materials, and products 

produced in the United States while 

ensuring that infrastructure projects are 

efficient and effective, including by 

working to avoid waste, increase the 

competitiveness of the U.S. economy, 

improve job opportunities through high 

labor standards, advance equity and 

support for underserved and 

disadvantaged communities, and build 

resilient infrastructure that helps 

combat the climate crisis, consistent 

with Executive Order 14052 on 

Implementation of the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act. 

Commenters should identify, with 

specificity, administrative burdens, 

program requirements, or unnecessary 

complexity that may impose unjustified 

barriers in general, or that may have 

adverse effects on equity for all, 

including individuals who belong to 

underserved communities that have 

been denied equitable treatment, such 

as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and 

Native American persons, Asian 

Americans and Pacific Islanders and 

other persons of color; members of 

religious minorities; lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, transgender, and queer 

(LGBTQ+) persons; persons with 

disabilities, including learning 

disabilities; persons who live in rural 

areas; and persons otherwise adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality. 

Commenters should provide, with as 

much detail as possible, an explanation 

why their recommendations advance 

the statutory and regulatory objectives 

of the Act. Additionally, where 

applicable, please provide citations and 

sources that support your 

recommendations. 

If commenters identify benefits, costs, 

burdens, loopholes, or shortcomings of 

particular options for implementing the 

Act, OMB requests that commenters 

provide data and evidence to support 

these conclusions. 

Specific Questions 

(1) Which materials, products, or 

categories of materials or products 

should be included as ‘‘construction 

materials’’ for the purposes of the Act? 

(2) What should ‘‘all manufacturing 

processes’’ mean under Section 

70912(6)(c) of the Act? 

(a) Should the term ‘‘all 

manufacturing processes’’ have the 

same meaning across all construction 

materials, or should the standard be set 

differently for each product, material, or 

category of product or material? 

(b) For example, the equivalent 

standard for iron and steel products is 

‘‘all manufacturing processes, from the 

initial melting stage through the 

application of coatings,’’ which does not 

require the iron ore to be mined in the 

United States, and begins the 

manufacturing process with ‘‘initial 

melting.’’ What should be the equivalent 

first process for ‘‘construction 

materials,’’ and should the description 

be different for lumber, glass, and other 

construction materials? 

(c) If relevant to any construction 

materials, should ‘‘final assembly’’ be 

considered a manufacturing process? Or 

should a manufacturing process be 

limited to processes that alter the 

properties of a material in some way? If 

limited to processes that alter the 

properties of a material, should any 

particular standard apply? Should the 

standard be different for lumber, glass, 

and other construction materials? 

(3) How should agencies distinguish 

‘‘construction materials’’ from 

‘‘manufactured products’’ to provide 

clarity on how to comply with the Act’s 

requirements and ensure efficient and 

effective administration? 

(4) How should OMB take into 

consideration and seek to maximize the 

direct and indirect jobs benefited or 

created in the production of 

construction materials, as required by 

the Act? 

(5) What is the current and projected 

capacity of United States manufacturers 

to supply construction materials that 

meet the Act’s standards? How will this 

capacity be impacted by the standard 

provided for ‘‘all manufacturing 

processes’’ under the Act? Please 

answer this question for any of the 

following materials that you have 

responsive information on: non-ferrous 

metals, plastic and polymer-based 

products (including polyvinylchloride, 

composite building materials, and 

polymers used in fiber optic cables), 

glass (including optic glass), lumber, 

and drywall. Please also answer this 

question for any other material, product, 

or category of product you identified 

under question (1) above. 

(6) Do you anticipate that United 

States manufacturers will be able to 

supply construction materials that meet 

the Act’s standards in sufficient and 

reasonably available quantities and of a 

satisfactory quality to all infrastructure 

projects covered by the Act? Will this 

ability be impacted by the increased 

demand for United States 

manufacturing? Do you foresee supply 

shortages or other issues for any 

material? If so, what Federal policies 

exist that may help alleviate the 

challenges you identified? Please 

answer this question for all materials 

referenced in question (5) above. 

(7) How can the Act’s waiver 

transparency requirements and supplier 

scouting programs be leveraged to 

identify gaps in domestic sourcing and 

inform capital investment planning? 

(8) How else might OMB spur and 

incentivize domestic manufacturing of 

construction materials that meet the 

Act’s standards? 

(9) What additional considerations 

should OMB consider when developing 

guidance and standards for construction 

materials? 

(10) What guidelines should be 

considered by OMB and the FAR 

Council to determine whether an end 

product that might be procured under 

the BAA by a Federal agency has been 

manufactured domestically? 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2022 / Notices 23891 

(a) What is the best way to promote 

a clear and consistent understanding of 

the term ‘‘manufacturing’’ while 

accommodating the range of 

manufacturing processes involved in the 

wide variety of products purchased by 

the Federal Government? 

(b) Should consideration be given to 

the definition of ‘‘manufacturer’’ used in 

SBA’s regulations, as described above? 

(c) Should consideration be given to 

holdings cited by courts or the GAO for 

determining whether an end product is 

domestically manufactured, such as 

whether substantial changes in physical 

character occurred domestically, 

whether the article is completed in the 

form required by the Government 

domestically, or whether the item being 

procured is made suitable for its 

intended use, and its identity is 

established, in the United States? 

(d) What existing sources, in addition 

to those described above, may offer 

relevant definitions or guidelines that 

could be suitable for understanding 

whether an end item has been 

domestically manufactured in the 

context of Federal procurement? 

Celeste Drake, 

Director, Made in America Office. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08491 Filed 4–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2021–0179] 

Alternative Radiological Source Terms 

for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents 

at Nuclear Power Reactors 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft regulatory guide; request 

for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing for public 

comment a draft regulatory guide (DG), 

DG–1389, ‘‘Alternative Radiological 

Source Terms for Evaluating Design 

Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power 

Reactors.’’ This DG is proposed Revision 

1 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183 which 

describes a method that the NRC staff 

considers acceptable in complying with 

regulations for design basis accident 

dose consequence analysis using an 

Alternative Source Term. This guidance 

for light-water reactor (LWR) designs 

includes the scope, and documentation 

of associated analyses and evaluations; 

consideration of impacts on analyzed 

risk; and content of submittals. 

DATES: Submit comments by June 21, 

2022. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods; 

however, the NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website: 

• Federal rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2021–0179. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 

telephone: 301–415–0624; email: 

Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individuals listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• Mail comments to: Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– 

A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, ATTN: Program Management, 

Announcements and Editing Staff. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Eudy, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research, telephone: 301– 

415–3104, email: Michael.Eudy@

nrc.gov; and Mark Blumberg, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 

301–415–1083, email: Mark.Blumberg@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2021– 

0179 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publicly 

available information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2021–0179. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS 

accession number for each document 

referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) 

is provided the first time that it is 

mentioned in this document. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents, 

by appointment, at the NRC’s PDR, 

Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 

(ET), Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

B. Submitting Comments 

The NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website (https://

www.regulations.gov). Please include 

Docket ID NRC–2021–0179 in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at https://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Additional Information 

The NRC is issuing for public 

comment a DG in the NRC’s ‘‘Regulatory 

Guide’’ series. This series was 

developed to describe methods that are 

acceptable to the NRC staff for 

implementing specific parts of the 

agency’s regulations, to explain 

techniques that the staff uses in 

evaluating specific issues or postulated 

events, and to describe information that 

the staff needs in its review of 

applications for permits and licenses. 

The DG, entitled ‘‘Alternative 

Radiological Source Terms for 

Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at 

Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML21204A065) is 

temporarily identified by its task 

number, DG–1389 which is proposed 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1