60-day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices
intended to restrict the feedback that
commenters may provide:
Experiences With Pandemic-Related
Document Examination Flexibilities
1. Did you or your organization use
the flexibilities for remote document
examination for the Form I–9 since
March 20, 2020? If not, why? If so, what
was your experience using the
flexibilities? How did small employers
use these flexibilities?
2. If the employer performed any
remote document examinations since
March 20, 2020:
a. What were your experiences with
internal technical capabilities to
perform remote document examination
(for example, video quality, image
quality, document retention, etc.)?
b. What were your experiences related
to employee-provided digital images or
copies of documents for retention?
c. What were your experiences related
to employees’ remote completion and
submission of Section 1 of the Form I–
9?
d. What processes and/or technology
solutions were typically used to
remotely examine documents (for
example, over video link, fax, or email,
etc.)? Was the process always the same,
or did it vary based on circumstances?
What, if any, internal policies were put
into place related to remote document
examination practices?
e. Were any remotely examined
documents rejected because they did
not relate to the individual presenting
them or did not appear to be genuine?
Were there any instances in which a
document was accepted during remote
examination, but upon subsequent
physical inspection, the employer
determined that the document did not
appear to be genuine or did not relate
to the individual presenting it? If so,
what actions did the employer take?
3. If the employer performed any
remote document examinations since
March 20, 2020, and is enrolled in EVerify:
a. Were any documents examined
remotely for which E-Verify returned an
Employment Authorized result, but
upon subsequent physical examination,
the employer determined that the
documents did not appear to be genuine
or relate to the individual presenting
them? If so, what actions did the
employer take?
b. What, if any, challenges did
employers experience in interpreting
and following the requirements of
participation in the E-Verify program 6
6 E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding:
https://www.e-verify.gov/sites/default/files/everify/
memos/MOUforEVerifyEmployer.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:39 Oct 25, 2021

Jkt 256001

during the period of remote document
examination?
4. What other changes did employers
make to Form I–9 document inspection
procedures during the pandemic? Did
employers increase use of authorized
representatives?
Considerations for Future Remote
Document Examination Procedures
1. What are the direct and indirect
burdens on employees and employers
related to the physical document
examination requirement for Form I–9?
2. What are the direct and indirect
burdens on employees and employers
related to the use of authorized
representatives to meet the physical
document examination requirement?
3. What would be the direct and
indirect benefits of offering a permanent
option for remote document
examination of Form I–9 identity and
work eligibility documents (for
example, allowing some employers to
centralize Form I–9 processing)?
4. What would be the direct and
indirect costs of offering a permanent
option for remote document
examination of Form I–9 identity and
work eligibility documents (for
example, training or technology
acquisition costs)?
5. What would be the direct and
indirect burdens on small employers for
the items listed above? What are the
unique challenges faced by small
employers with this process and these
flexibilities? What kinds of alternatives
should be provided for small employers
in adopting these flexibilities?
6. If employers were allowed a
permanent option for remote document
examination, what types of employers
and/or employees do you anticipate
would be interested in participating or
not interested in participating?
7. How might participation
requirements as a condition of these
flexibilities, such as required enrollment
in E-Verify, document or image quality
or retention requirements, or required
completion of training offered by DHS,
impact an employer’s desire or ability to
utilize such a flexibility?
8. What would be the costs or benefits
associated with making enrollment in EVerify a condition of flexibilities for
you, as an employer?
9. If DHS were to permanently allow
an option for remote document
examination, what technical
considerations would participating
employers have to consider?
10. What impact would a permanent
option for remote document
examination have on employees and
employers, if any? If these flexibilities
are adopted, are there requirements DHS

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

59185

should adopt to ensure employee rights
related to document examination are
protected?
11. Are there solutions that would
enable employers to verify that
documents that are examined remotely
appear to be genuine and to relate to the
individual presenting them? What
actions by DHS would encourage the
commercial development of such
solutions?
12. Should DHS consider changes to
the current lists of acceptable
documents on the Form I–9, in the
context of remote document
examination? What would be the costs
and benefits of such changes?
13. Are there any other factors DHS
should consider related to remote
document examination?
IV. Review of Public Input
This notice is issued solely for
information and program-planning
purposes. Public input provided in
response to this notice does not bind
DHS to any further actions, to include
publishing a formal response or
agreement to initiate a recommended
change. DHS will consider the feedback
and make changes or process
improvements at its sole discretion.
Commenting on this notice is not a
substitute for commenting on other
ongoing DHS rulemaking efforts. To be
considered as part of a specific
rulemaking effort, comments on DHS
rules must be received during the
comment period identified in the
relevant rulemaking published in the
Federal Register, and in the manner
specified therein.
Ur M. Jaddou,
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021–23260 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
[RR03042000, 21XR0680A1,
RX.18786000.1000000; OMB Control
Number 1006–0015]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Diversions, Return Flow,
and Consumptive Use of Colorado
River Water in the Lower Colorado
River Basin
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we,

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM

26OCN1

59186

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices

the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation), are proposing to renew
an information collection.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
December 27, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments on
this information collection request (ICR)
by mail to Jeremy Dodds, Manager,
Water Accounting and Verification
Group, LCB–4200, Boulder Canyon
Operations Office, Interior Region 8:
Lower Colorado Basin, Bureau of
Reclamation, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder
City, NV 89006–1470; or by email to
[email protected] with a courtesy copy
to [email protected]. Please
reference OMB Control Number 1006–
0015 in the subject line of your
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Jeremy Dodds by email
at [email protected], or by telephone at
(702) 293–8164. Individuals who are
hearing or speech impaired may call the
Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339
for TTY assistance. You may also view
the ICR at http://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all
information collections require approval
under the PRA. We may not conduct or
sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we invite the public and other
Federal agencies to comment on new,
proposed, revised, and continuing
collections of information. This helps us
assess the impact of our information
collection requirements and minimize
the public’s reporting burden. It also
helps the public understand our

information collection requirements and
provide the requested data in the
desired format.
We are especially interested in public
comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether or not the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize
the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of response.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. We will include or
summarize each comment in our request
to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.
Abstract: Reclamation delivers
Colorado River water to water users for
diversion and beneficial consumptive
use in the States of Arizona, California,
and Nevada. The Consolidated Decree of
the United States Supreme Court in the
case of Arizona v. California, et al.,
entered March 27, 2006 (547 U.S. 150

Number
responses/
respondent

Form No.

Annual .................................
Annual .................................
Monthly ................................
Annual .................................

LC–72A ..............................
LC–72B ..............................
Custom Forms ...................
Custom Forms ...................

8
12
37
27

10
10
12
25

1
1
12
1

8
12
444
27

1
2
89
11

Total .............................

............................................

84

........................

........................

491

103

22:39 Oct 25, 2021

Jkt 256001

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4703

Minutes/
response

Total
responses/
year

Frequency of data collection
(monthly/annual)

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Number of
respondents

(2006)), requires the Secretary of the
Interior to prepare and maintain
complete, detailed, and accurate records
of diversions of water, return flow, and
consumptive use and make these
records available at least annually. The
information collected ensures that a
State or a water user within a State does
not exceed its authorized use of
Colorado River water. Water users are
obligated by provisions in their water
delivery contracts to provide
Reclamation information on diversions
and return flows. Reclamation
determines the consumptive use by
subtracting return flow from diversions
or by other engineering means.
Title of Collection: Diversions, Return
Flow, and Consumptive Use of Colorado
River Water in the Lower Colorado
River Basin.
OMB Control Number: 1006–0015.
Form Numbers: LC–72A, LC–72B,
Custom Forms.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: The
respondents will include the Lower
Basin States (Arizona, California, and
Nevada), local and tribal entities, water
districts, and individuals that use
Colorado River water.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Respondents: 84.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 491.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: See table.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 103 hours.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: Monthly,
annually, or otherwise as stipulated by
the water user’s Colorado River water
delivery contract with the Secretary of
the Interior.
Total Estimated Annual Non-hour
Burden Cost: None.

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM

26OCN1

Total
hours/year

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The authority for this
action is the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Jacklynn L. Gould,
Regional Director, Interior Region 8: Lower
Colorado Basin, Bureau of Reclamation.
[FR Doc. 2021–23312 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332–90–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1206]

Certain Percussive Massage Devices;
Commission Determination To Review
in Part an Initial Determination
Granting in Part a Motion for Summary
Determination and Finding a Violation
of Section 337; Schedule for Filing
Written Submissions
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 40) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
granting in part complainant’s motion
for summary determination and finding
a violation of section 337. The
Commission requests written
submissions from the parties on an issue
under review, and requests briefing
from the parties, interested government
agencies, and other interested persons
on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding, under the
schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2392. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help
accessing EDIS, please email
[email protected]. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810.
SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:39 Oct 25, 2021

Jkt 256001

The
Commission instituted this investigation
on July 22, 2020, based on a complaint
filed on behalf of Hyper Ice, Inc.
(‘‘Hyperice’’) of Irvine, California. 85 FR
44322 (July 22, 2020). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleges violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, or the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain percussive massage devices by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent No. 10,561,574 (‘‘the ’574
patent’’); U.S. Design Patent No.
D855,822; and U.S. Design Patent No.
D886,317 (collectively, ‘‘Asserted
Design Patents’’). The complaint further
alleges that a domestic industry exists.
The Commission’s notice of
investigation names the following
nineteen respondents: Laiwushiyu
Xinuan Trading Company of Shandong
District, China; Shenzhen Let Us WinWin Technology Co., Ltd. of
Guangdong, China; Shenzhen Qifeng
Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangdong,
China; Shenzhen QingYueTang Ecommerce Co., Ltd. of Guangdong,
China; and Shenzhen Shiluo Trading
Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China
(collectively, the ‘‘Unserved
Respondents’’); Kinghood International
Logistics Inc. (‘‘Kinghood’’) of La
Mirada, California; Manybo Ecommerce
Ltd. (‘‘Manybo’’) of Hong Kong, China;
Shenzhen Infein Technology Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shenzhen Infein’’) of Guangdong,
China; Hong Kong Yongxu Capital
Management Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hong Kong
Yongxu’’) of Hong Kong, China; Kula
eCommerce Co., Ltd. (‘‘Kula’’) of
Guangdong, China; Performance Health
Systems, LLC (‘‘Performance Health’’) of
Northbrook, Illinois; Rechar, Inc.
(‘‘Rechar’’) of Strasburg, Colorado; Ning
Chen of Yancheng, Jiangsu China;
Opove, Ltd. (‘‘Opove’’) of Azusa,
California; Shenzhen Shufang ECommerce Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shufang ECommerce’’) of Shenzhen, China; Fu Si
(‘‘Shenzhen Fusi Technology’’) of
Guangdong, China; 1 WODFitters
(‘‘WODFitters’’) Lorton, Virginia;
Massimo Motor Sports, LLC
(‘‘Massimo’’) of Garland, Texas; and
Addaday LLC (‘‘Addaday’’) of Santa
Monica, California. The notice of

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1 Respondent Fu Si’s full name is Shenzhen Fusi
Technology Co., Ltd. See Response of Opove Ltd.,
Shenzhen Shufang E-Commerce Co., Ltd., and Fu Si
to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation at ¶ 40,
EDIS Doc ID 716966 (Aug. 11, 2020). The principal
place of business of Shenzhen Fusi Technology Co.,
Ltd. was changed to 14E, Building A, Guanghao
International Center, No. 441 Meilong Road, Minzhi
Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen, China, 518131
effective September 15, 2020. Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

59187

investigation also names the Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) as
a party.
On October 16, 2020, the Commission
determined not to review Order No. 11
granting motions to intervene by third
parties Shenzhen Xinde Technology
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinde’’) and Yongkang Aijiu
Industrial & Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Aijiu’’) in
the investigation. See Order No. 11
(Sept. 25, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n
Notice (Oct. 16, 2020).
Respondents Addaday, WODFitters,
Massimo, Performance Health, Rechar,
Ning Chen, Opove, Shufang ECommerce, Xinde, Aijiu, and Shenzhen
Fusi Technology were terminated from
the investigation based upon settlement
agreements. See Order No. 10 (Sep. 16,
2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice
(Oct. 15, 2020); Order No. 12 (Nov. 4,
2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice
(Nov. 20, 2020); Order No. 30 (Apr. 8,
2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice
(Apr. 22, 2021).
The Unserved Respondents were
terminated from the investigation based
upon withdrawal of the Complaint. See
Order No. 36 at 2 (Aug. 3, 2021)
unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 19,
2021).
Respondents Kinghood, Manybo,
Shenzhen Infein, Hong Kong Yongxu,
and Kula (collectively, ‘‘the Defaulting
Respondents’’) were found in default.
See Order No. 17 (Dec. 17. 2020),
unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Jan. 5,
2021).
On May 6, 2021, OUII filed a motion
to terminate the Asserted Design Patents
from this investigation on the ground
that Hyperice did not have sufficient
rights to the design patents at the time
the investigation was instituted. On May
17, 2021, Hyperice filed its response in
opposition to OUII’s motion to
terminate, which included a crossmotion to amend the Complaint to
reflect proper inventorship.
On May 7, 2021, Hyperice filed a
motion for summary determination that
the Defaulting Respondents have
violated section 337 for infringing its
three asserted patents. On May 14, 2021,
Hyperice supplemented its motion with
additional declarations. On May 20,
2021, Hyperice again supplemented its
motion with claim charts and exhibits.
OUII filed a response in support of the
motion with respect to the ’574 patent
but not with respect to the asserted
design patents.
On August 17, 2021, the ALJ issued
Order No. 38 denying Hyperice’s motion
to amend the complaint and the notice
of investigation to reflect proper
inventorship. That same day, the ALJ
issued Order No. 39 granting OUII’s
motion to terminate the Asserted Design

E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM

26OCN1