This proposed information collection was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2022 at 87 FR 9563 , allowing for a 60-day public comment period. Two comments were received during the 60-day public comment period. The first comment expressed support for the 60-day public comment period. The second comment expressed concerns about background checks and financial audits that are addressed within the standard provisions; thus, no changes are required to the standard provisions or the burden estimates. Both commenters were thanked for their input via email. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including the practical utility of the information; (b) the accuracy of USAID's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

OMB No: 0412-0510 (expired).

Title of Information Collection: Applicant and Recipient Information Collected in Response to Standard Provisions in USAID Grants and Cooperative Agreements to Non-Governmental Organizations.

Type of Review: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection (OMB approval number 0412-0510) for which approval has expired.

Purpose: USAID is authorized to make grants to and enter cooperative agreements with Non-Governmental Organizations in or outside of the United States in furtherance of the purposes and within limitations of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA). The information collection requirements placed on the public are published in Standard Provisions that are included, as required or as applicable, in Notices of Funding Opportunities to potential applicants and resulting awards to recipients. The pre-award requirements are based on a need for prudent management in the determination that an applicant either has or can obtain the ability to competently manage development assistance programs using public funds. The requirements for information collection during the post-award period are based on the need to prudently administer public funds.

Respondents: USAID grant and cooperative agreement applicants and recipients.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,210.

Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 22,100.

Estimated Total Public Burden (in cost): $1,303,900.

These estimated totals were calculated using the below burden estimates per response for each of the named Standard Provisions, which are published internally in the Agency's Automated Directives System (ADS) Chapter 303 and included by Agreement Officers, as required or as applicable, in Notices of Funding Opportunities and resulting awards:

Any interested member of the public may attend the meeting in person or join the meeting through the conference link above. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference details found at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email kfajota@usccr.gov at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Liliana Schiller at lschiller@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Guam Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at the above phone number.

This meeting is available to the public through the WebEx link and/or phone number/access code above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing. may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the call-in number found through registering at the web links provided for these meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara de La Viez at ero@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 539-8246. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at www.facadatabase.gov. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above phone number or email address.

Steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Puget Sound.

Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Puget Sound.

NMFS has issued the ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for operation of the Sunset Falls trap and haul program, which is operated by WDFW since the late 1950s to increase habitat available to various species of salmon, steelhead, and trout. The program traps and hauls ESA-listed salmon and steelhead and is consistent with the recovery plans for each species.

NMFS has analyzed the effects of the trap and haul program on salmon and steelhead listed under the ESA and has concluded that the program would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of ESA-listed species. Authorization of the activities depends upon implementation of all of the monitoring, evaluation, reporting tasks or assignments, and enforcement activities included in the permit.

NMFS made the ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit application available for public review and comment on December 22, 2020 (85 FR 83519), as required by the ESA. No substantive comments were received specific to the application. However, we received several general comments in support of the program.

NMFS published a notice of availability for public review and comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on February 5, 2021 (86 FR 8342), in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The DEA was available for public review and comment for 30 days, and our responses to the comments are addressed in our Final Environmental Assessment (FEA). NMFS has determined that there are no significant impacts associated with the project and issued a FONSI for the program on July 2, 2021.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 50 CFR subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 50 CFR 223.206(d)(9).

The primary purpose of this online meeting is for the MPC to discuss several issues related to offshore wind energy development, including Oregon Call Areas and future lease sales off California. The MPC will also discuss NOAA Aquaculture Opportunity Areas and may develop a supplemental MPC report for the June Pacific Council meeting. Other marine planning topics or emerging issues may be discussed as necessary. The meeting agenda will be available on the Pacific Council's website in advance of the meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least ten days prior to the meeting date.

NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register on April 22, 2022 (87 FR 24103) announcing that an IHA had been issued to Atlantic Shores, LLC, authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys off of New Jersey, effective from April 20, 2022 through April 19, 2023. NMFS refers the reader to the April 22, 2022, Federal Register notice (87 FR 24103) for background information concerning the IHA.

On page 24108 in the section for NMFS' response to Comment 13 is corrected to read as follows:

Comment 13: Oceana and LBI recommended increasing the Exclusion Zone to either 1,000 m or 2,500 m, respectively, for NARWs.

Response: NMFS notes that the 500 m Exclusion Zone for NARWs exceeds the modeled distance to the largest 160 dB Level B harassment isopleth distance (141 m during sparker use) by a substantial margin. Commenters do not provide a compelling rationale for why the Exclusion Zone should be even larger. Given that these surveys are relatively low impact and that, regardless, NMFS has prescribed a NARW Exclusion Zone that is significantly larger (500 m) than the conservatively estimated largest harassment zone (141 m), NMFS has determined that the Exclusion Zone is appropriate. Further, Level A harassment is not expected to result, even in the absence of mitigation, given the characteristics of the sources planned for use. As described in the Mitigation section, NMFS has determined that the prescribed mitigation requirements are sufficient to effect the least practicable adverse impact on all affected species or stocks

The Monkfish Committee will meet to discuss the draft 2022 Monkfish Fishery Performance Report: Including recent fishery data and input by the Monkfish Advisory Panel on the current state of the fishery. They will discuss Framework Adjustment 13 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan: Develop alternatives for an action that is likely considering: 2023-25 monkfish fishery specifications, including Days-At-Sea allocations and possession limits, and other management measures (requiring 12‐inch minimum mesh size for monkfish gillnets, requiring use of the Vessel Monitoring System across the federal fishery, measures to reduce discards in the Southern Fishery Management Area). The Committee will discuss research priorities: 2022-26 NEFMC Research Priorities and Data Needs: Finalize recommended updates; 2023-24 Monkfish Research-Set-Aside Program: Recommend research. Other business will be discussed if necessary.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The purpose of the GMT webinar is to complete analyses on several items, which include annual catch targets for quillback rockfish and copper rockfish off of California and to develop groundfish block area closures as bycatch mitigation. The GMT will also prepare for the Pacific Council's June 2022 agenda items. The GMT will discuss items related to groundfish management and administrative matters on the Pacific Council's agenda. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. A detailed agenda for the webinar will be available on the Pacific Council's website prior to the meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

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

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB or Bureau) supervision program examines large banks and certain nonbanks for compliance with Federal consumer financial law. A key focus of the program is detecting and assessing risks to consumers and to markets for consumer financial products and services. Through its supervisory work, the Bureau promotes the development of markets for consumer financial products and services that are fair, transparent, and competitive. One important goal of this work is to foster financial inclusion and racial equity. The Bureau supervises and applies the law to entities subject to its authority in a consistent manner, regardless of charter type (bank or nonbank), market, or geographical location.

The findings included in this report cover examinations completed between July 2021 and December 2021 in the areas of auto servicing, consumer reporting, credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, mortgage origination, prepaid accounts, remittances, and student loan servicing. To maintain the anonymity of the supervised institutions discussed in Supervisory Highlights, references to institutions generally are in the plural and the related findings may pertain to one or more institutions. This edition of Supervisory Highlights also summarizes recent developments in the Bureau's supervision program and remedial actions.

The CFPB publishes Supervisory Highlights to help institutions and the general public better understand how we examine institutions for compliance with Federal consumer financial laws. Supervisory Highlights summarizes existing legal requirements and violations identified in the course of the Bureau's exercise of supervisory and enforcement authority. 1 We invite readers with questions or comments about Supervisory Highlights to contact us at CFPB_Supervision@cfpb.gov.

The Bureau continues to examine auto loan servicing activities, primarily to assess whether entities have engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAPs) prohibited by the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA). 2

Examiners have continued to identify wrongful repossessions at auto servicers. 3 Recent examinations found that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices when they repossessed vehicles after consumers took action that should have prevented the repossession. This caused substantial injury by depriving borrowers of the use of their vehicles, and many consumers also experienced consequences such as missed work, expenses for alternative transportation, repossession-related fees, detrimental credit reporting, and vehicle damage during the repossession process. Such injury was not reasonably avoidable because consumers had taken action they believed would halt repossession and there was no additional action the consumer could take to prevent the repossession. Finally, the injury was not outweighed by countervailing benefits to the consumer or to competition. In response to these findings, servicers are enhancing their procedures, including enhancing timely communications with repossession agents, and remediating consumers.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in deceptive acts or practices when they misled consumers about the final loan payment amount after a deferral. 4 Servicers may let consumers defer payments for many months when they experience financial difficulties, and the deferrals frequently increase the consumer's final payment amount. Servicers sent consumers notices about their final payment amounts that included only imprecise conditional statements, such as stating that the final payment “may be larger.” These conditional statements, without additional information about the magnitude of the final payment, likely misled consumers to believe the payment would only increase somewhat, when in fact the final payment likely would dramatically increase, by amounts multiple times larger than a normal payment. The consumers' interpretation of the representation was reasonable under the circumstances and was material because it likely impacted consumers' financial planning.

When consumers purchase an automobile, auto dealers and finance companies offer optional, add-on products that consumers can purchase. Some of the add-on products provide specific types of potential benefits, such as guaranteed asset protection (GAP) products that offer to help pay off an auto loan if the car is totaled or stolen and the consumer owes more than the car's depreciated value. The add-on products' potential benefits apply only for specific time periods, such as four years after purchase or for the term of the loan, and only under certain circumstances.

Auto dealers and finance companies often charge consumers all payments for any add-on products as a lump sum at origination of the auto loan or purchase of the vehicle. Dealers and finance companies generally include the lump sum cost of the add-on product as part of the total vehicle financing agreement, and consumers typically make payments on these products throughout the loan term, even if the product expires years earlier.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in unfair practices by failing to request refunds from the third-party administrators for “unearned” fees related to GAP products and failing to apply the applicable refunds to the accounts after repossession and cancellation of the contracts. At that point, the consumers did not have the vehicle that had been subject to the GAP product, and the product no longer offered any possible benefit to consumers.

Examiners found that while servicers did maintain policies to obtain applicable refunds, they frequently failed to apply for these refunds from third-party administrators. When consumers' vehicles were repossessed and sold and there was a deficiency balance (that is, the money unpaid on the sale price of the vehicle after repossession), the servicers' failure to apply for the GAP product refunds from the third-party administrators resulted in inaccurate deficiency balances. The partial refunds from the third-party administrators would have paid for at least some of the GAP product fees that were financed, but instead, servicers included charges for the unused portions of the financed GAP products in the deficiency balances.

Examiners found that servicers sent deficiency notices to consumers and reported balances to third-party debt buyers that included these inaccurate amounts as the deficiency balance owed by consumers. Including these amounts in the deficiency balances resulted in substantial injury to consumers because the amounts to be collected were higher than the true amount owed, and the deficiency balances were likely to be collected by the third-party debt buyers when the products provided no possible benefit, after the vehicles were repossessed and the accounts were charged off. Consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury because they had no control over the servicers' refund processing actions. And they generally could not apply for such refunds themselves because they were unaware that the contract provided they could do so. The injury was not outweighed by any countervailing benefit to consumers or competition.

In response to these findings, servicers updated disclosure language and practices. Some servicers included estimated final payment amounts on deferral notices while other servicers provided consumers with access to online calculator tools to track their final payment amounts. Additionally, some servicers conducted affirmative outreach when the final payment date approached to offer workout options that allowed borrowers to pay the large final payments in more than one installment.

Companies in the business of regularly assembling or evaluating information about consumers for the purpose of providing consumer reports to third parties are “consumer reporting companies ” (CRCs). 5 These companies, along with the entities—such as banks, loan servicers, and others—that furnish information to the CRCs for inclusion in consumer reports, play a vital role in availability of credit and have a significant role to play in the fair and accurate reporting of credit information. They are subject to several requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)  6 and its implementing regulation, Regulation V, 7 including the requirement to reasonably investigate disputes and to furnish data subject to the relevant accuracy requirements. In recent reviews, examiners found deficiencies in CRCs' compliance with FCRA dispute investigation requirements and furnisher compliance with FCRA and Regulation V accuracy and dispute investigation requirements.

The FCRA requires that a CRC must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information to determine if the disputed information is inaccurate whenever the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the CRC directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute. 8 In several reviews of CRCs, examiners found that CRCs failed to conduct reasonable investigations of disputes in multiple ways. Examiners also found that rather than resolving disputes consistent with the investigation conducted by the furnisher, which in many instances would have required correcting inaccurate derogatory information and replacing it with accurate positive information, CRCs simply deleted thousands of disputed tradelines. Examiners also found that CRCs failed to conduct reasonable dispute investigations when they failed to review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in support of their disputes. After identification of these issues, CRCs were directed to cease violating the FCRA's dispute investigation requirements.

The FCRA requires that when a CRC receives notice of a dispute from a consumer or reseller, the CRC must provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute before the expiration of the five-business-day period beginning on the date that the CRC received the notice of dispute. 9 In several reviews of CRCs, examiners found that CRCs failed to send notifications of dispute to furnishers within five business days of receiving the dispute. After identification of these issues, CRCs were directed to cease violating the FCRA's dispute notification timeliness requirements.

The FCRA requires that a CRC must provide written notice of the results of a dispute reinvestigation not later than five business days after the completion of the reinvestigation. 10 In several reviews of CRCs, examiners found disputes where an FCRA compliant statement of results was not sent within the required five business days of completing the dispute investigation. Moreover, examiners found that CRCs' statements of results omitted material information necessary to understand the results of the investigation. Examiners also found that in some cases the statement of results was incorrect—stating, for example, that disputed information had been corrected when, in fact, the disputed information was verified as accurate by the furnisher and not materially changed by the CRC. After identification of these issues, CRCs were directed to cease violating the FCRA's dispute results notice requirements.

After receiving notice of a dispute of the completeness or accuracy of any information from a CRC, furnishers are required to conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information. 11 Such investigations must include a review of all relevant information provided by the CRC, and the furnisher must complete the investigation and report the results to the CRC before the expiration of the time period required for the CRC to complete its investigation and provide notice of the results to the consumer. 12 When disputes are forwarded to furnishers by CRCs, the FCRA does not provide the furnisher with discretion to deem such disputes frivolous; for indirect disputes, only the CRC has discretion to determine that disputes are frivolous or irrelevant. 13 Examples of failures to conduct reasonable investigations of indirect disputes from recent Bureau exams include:

• Credit card furnishers failed to conduct any investigations of disputes received from CRCs or send results of dispute investigations to the CRCs due to furnishing system implementation issues. Credit card furnishers also failed to conduct reasonable investigation of disputes due to erroneously deeming thousands of indirect disputes as frivolous. Credit card furnishers also sent incorrect results of disputes to CRCs. For example, after completing the dispute investigation, furnishers included incorrect special comment codes on the automated credit dispute verification forms (ACDV) used to communicate the results to the CRCs. After identifying that incorrect results were sent to the CRCs, the furnishers sent updates to the CRCs reporting the correct special comment codes.

• Deposit furnishers failed to conduct any investigations of disputes received from specialty CRCs or send results of dispute investigations to specialty CRCs. The furnishers stated the dispute investigations were not conducted because they were not aware that any disputes had been received from specialty CRCs, as a result of the furnishers' insufficient dispute intake procedures. The specialty CRCs deleted the disputed information from the consumers' files because the furnishers failed to timely investigate and respond to the disputes. In response to these findings, the furnishers developed revised dispute handling policies and procedures and compliance monitoring procedures to ensure all disputes are tracked and resolved completely within the time periods required by the FCRA.

• Auto furnishers failed to conduct reasonable investigations of disputes received by CRCs. Specifically, furnishers incorrectly calculated consumers' payment histories while processing dispute investigations, resulting in the furnishers including incorrect payment histories in the dispute results reported to the CRCs.

In response to these findings, furnishers revised their training programs to ensure that dispute agents conduct reasonable investigations of disputes received from CRCs. Furnishers are also conducting reviews to identify and remediate all impacted accounts for which payment histories were reported inaccurately.

The FCRA and Regulation V require furnishers to complete their investigations of direct disputes received from consumers and to report the results to the consumer before the expiration of the time period that would have been required for the CRC to complete its investigation had the consumer sent the dispute to the CRC rather than the furnisher. 14

In reviews of credit card furnishers, examiners found that the furnishers conducted investigations of direct disputes and sent the consumers response letters, but the letters failed to communicate the results of the investigations. Specifically, for disputes that resulted in corrections to disputed information, the furnishers used template response letters that included confusing language, which created ambiguity about whether changes had been made in response to the dispute investigations. These letters failed to provide consumers with the results of the dispute investigations because they did not affirmatively inform the consumers that changes were made in response to their disputes. In response to these findings, the furnishers implemented revised template response letters, which do not contain ambiguous language and clearly communicate that changes were made in response to the dispute investigations.

The FCRA requires that when a furnisher determines that information furnished to CRCs is not complete or accurate, the furnisher must “promptly” notify the CRC of that determination and provide the CRC with any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the furnisher to the CRC complete and accurate. 15 After determining that information furnished to CRCs is not complete or accurate, furnishers must also stop furnishing to CRCs information that remains not complete or accurate. 16

In reviews of credit card furnishers, examiners found that furnishers failed to send updating or correcting information to CRCs after making a determination that information the furnishers had reported was not complete or accurate. For example, examiners found that after determining that accounts that had been given new account numbers were erroneously being furnished twice to the CRCs, once under the old account number and once under the new account number, the furnishers continued to furnish the duplicate accounts to the CRCs. Examiners also found that credit card furnishers violated this provision by failing to promptly update account statuses to settled-in-full, paid-in-full, voluntarily closed, or discharged in bankruptcy upon recognizing that the account statuses furnished did not match the account statuses in the furnishers' systems of record.

Supervision directed the furnishers to update their systems to allow for prompt updates to, and to prevent the continued furnishing of information determined to be incomplete or inaccurate.

Regulation V requires that furnishers establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers that it furnishes to a CRC. 17 The policies and procedures must be appropriate to the nature, size, complexity, and scope of each furnisher's activities.”  18 Furnishers must consider and incorporate, as appropriate, the guidelines of Appendix E to Regulation V when developing their policies and procedures. 19 These guidelines address key business functions, such as record retention, training, third-party oversight, and receipt of feedback from CRCs and others that contribute to a furnisher's ability to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data furnished to CRCs.

In previous issues of Supervisory Highlights, we described supervisory findings of furnishers that violated these requirements. 20 In recent supervisory reviews, we have identified further violations of the Regulation V requirement for reasonable written policies and procedures.

• In reviews of credit card furnishers, examiners found furnishers' policies and procedures had failed to specify how particular data fields, such as the date of first delinquency, should be populated when furnishing information about credit card accounts.

• Credit card furnishers' policies and procedures also had failed to provide for the retention of records for a reasonable period of time to substantiate the accuracy of consumer information furnished to CRCs. For example, examiners identified multiple instances where furnishers failed to retain records relating to direct disputes for the time period required by their own policies due to automated system purges of dormant accounts occurring on a shorter cycle than the applicable retention period.

• Examiners also found that had failed to perform account level analyses to determine which accounts should be reported in bankruptcy status after a consumer informs the furnisher of a bankruptcy filing. The furnishers' processes resulted in the reporting of bankruptcy status codes for accounts that had already been paid and/or closed prior to the bankruptcy filing.

• In reviews of auto loan furnishers, examiners found that furnishers had failed to incorporate content relating to the specific activities in which the furnishers engaged. For example, furnishers lacked procedures for furnishing accurate information in connection with leased automobiles returned to dealerships.

• In reviews of deposit furnishers, examiners found that furnishers had no written policies or procedures for furnishing deposit account information to specialty CRCs. Examiners also found that furnishers, in developing their policies and procedures, did not consider and incorporate the guidelines in Appendix E to Regulation V with respect to conducting reasonable investigations of consumer disputes relating to furnished deposit account information. For example, examiners identified furnishers that claimed to handle disputes through their existing complaints procedures despite those procedures failing to address the specific requirements under the FCRA for investigating and resolving consumer disputes.

After identification of these issues, furnishers are taking corrective actions including developing written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to CRCs and the proper handling of consumer disputes.

The Bureau assessed the credit card account management operations of supervised entities for compliance with applicable Federal consumer financial laws. Examinations of these entities identified violations of Regulation Z and deceptive acts or practices prohibited by the CFPA.

Regulation Z contains billing error resolution provisions that a creditor must comply with following receipt of a billing error notice from a consumer. Examiners found violations of the following provisions of Regulation Z:

• 12 CFR 1026.13(c)(1) by failing to mail or deliver written acknowledgments to consumers within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice;

• 12 CFR 1026.13(c)(2) by failing to resolve disputes within two complete billing cycles after receiving a billing error notice, due to human and system intake errors;

• 12 CFR 1026.13(e)(1) by failing to reimburse consumers after billing errors were determined to have occurred as consumers asserted;

• 12 CFR 1026.13(e)(2) by failing to mail or deliver correction notices to consumers resolving billing errors in their favor;

• 12 CFR 1026.13(f) by failing to conduct reasonable investigations after receiving billing error notices due to human errors and system weaknesses;

• 12 CFR 1026.13(f)(1) by providing inaccurate explanations to consumers as to why the creditor denied the consumers' billing error claims in whole or part or, in some instances, providing no explanation at all; and

• 12 CFR 1026.13(f)(2) by failing to provide consumers with the evidence the creditor relied upon to determine no billing error occurred, after the consumers requested the evidence to understand the creditor's determination.

In response to these findings, the relevant entities are implementing plans to improve compliance with Regulation Z's billing error resolution requirements, which include enhanced training, system improvements, enhanced monitoring, additional controls for consumer complaints, and revisions to applicable policies and procedures.

Under Regulation Z, as revised to implement the Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, after increasing a consumer's Annual Percentage Rate (APR or rate), credit card issuers have to periodically assess whether it is appropriate to reduce the account's APR(s). 21 Issuers must first re-evaluate each such account no later than six months after the rate increase and at least every six months thereafter. 22 In re-evaluating each account, the issuer must review (a) the factors on which the rate increase was originally based or (b) the factors the issuer currently considers when determining the APR applicable to similar, new consumer credit card accounts. 23

Examiners found violations of these provisions of Regulation Z in connection with creditors' acquisitions of pre-existing credit card accounts from other creditors. In one set of violations, the creditors conducted rate re-evaluations on the acquired accounts but failed to reduce APRs to the appropriate level. Specifically, the creditors were unable to identify the lowest rate applicable to the acquired accounts because they failed to gather this data from the sellers during the acquisition. This rate data was necessary to the creditors' rate reevaluation analysis and, as a result, the creditors did not properly re-evaluate accounts as required by Regulation Z, causing monetary harm to consumers who did not receive APR rate reductions. In response to these findings, the creditors will provide remediation to impacted consumers and will enhance monitoring to ensure accurate rate information.

In a separate set of violations, the creditors failed to conduct re-evaluations of rate increases once every six months after certain APR increases on acquired accounts. For those accounts, the creditors failed to accurately record a review date in their system of record for rate re-evaluation and, as a result, their rate re-evaluation system did not identify these accounts for inclusion in the rate re-evaluation process. This resulted in monetary harm to consumers who were not included in the creditors' rate re-evaluation process and did not receive potential rate reductions. As a result, the creditors will remediate all affected consumers, develop new rate re-evaluation controls, and enhance exception reporting and monitoring activities.

Finally, examiners found violations of these provisions of Regulation Z in connection with a failure to consider appropriate factors when performing rate re-evaluations. Specifically, when evaluating rate reductions, based on the factors considered when determining the APRs applicable to similar new accounts, the creditors considered certain minimum rates that formerly applied to their credit card accounts; however, at the time of their rate re-evaluation analyses, because these minimum rates no longer applied to the relevant credit card accounts, using them in the creditors' rate re-evaluation analyses violated Regulation Z. In response to these findings, the creditors will remove the inappropriate factors when determining the applicable APR following the re-evaluation of a rate increase and revise their relevant policies and procedures.

Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA prohibit deceptive acts or practices. 24 Examiners found that certain entities engaged in deceptive acts or practices by advertising the interest-free financing feature of their credit card without adequately disclosing the preconditions for obtaining the financing. To receive the interest-free financing, consumers needed to satisfy two preconditions, including purchasing the products at a business partner's store or website and agreeing, at checkout, to pay for the product in monthly installments. Based on the net impression of the advertisements, consumers were misled about the preconditions necessary to receive the interest-free financing promotion, which were material to the consumers' decision to purchase the products with the credit card. As a result of these findings, the entities will undertake remedial and corrective actions.

Examiners also found that certain entities engaged in deceptive acts or practices by failing to process refunds in accordance with their credit card account holder agreements. The entities issued certain credit card accounts to customers which had both a revolving balance that accrued interest and a monthly installment balance that was interest-free for its duration. The account holder agreements provided that refunds and credits would be applied to the revolving balance on the customer's account, and did not contain any provision stating that, if the purchase refunds on the revolving balance resulted in a negative revolving balance, the refund would instead be applied to the monthly installment balance. Nonetheless, when the refund would result in a negative revolving balance, the entities (1) applied revolving purchase refunds to the monthly installment balance, or (2) applied such refunds to the revolving balance temporarily, but then applied the negative revolving balance to the monthly installment balance when the monthly installment balance payment became due. These practices caused the interest-free installment balances to be paid prematurely, resulting in consumers losing the interest-free benefit they expected to receive and having fewer funds available to pay future interest-accruing revolving balances.

This practice was deceptive because the credit card account holder agreements misled consumers with regard to how refunds and credits would be applied to their account balances. In response to these findings, the entities will undertake remedial and corrective actions.

The Bureau has supervisory authority to examine certain institutions that engage in consumer debt collection activities, including very large depository institutions, 25 nonbanks that are larger participants in the consumer debt collection market, 26 and nonbanks that are service providers to certain covered persons. 27 Recent examinations of larger participant debt collectors identified risks of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the CFPA.

FDCPA section 807(2)(A)  28 states that a debt collector may not falsely represent the character, amount, or legal status of any debt in connection with the collection of any debt. Examiners found instances in which debt collectors violated this section by misrepresenting or implying to consumers that they were responsible for paying charges on their accounts that were incurred as the result of fraudulent activity.

Examiners found instances in which consumers had informed collectors that the establishment of the account was the result of identity theft. For example, consumers informed collectors that they had police reports related to the fraud. Notwithstanding the consumers' proffer of evidence supporting the identify theft, the debt collectors continued to represent that the consumers owed the debt by offering to allow the consumers to pay a reduced amount to settle the alleged debt, and then continuing to attempt to collect the debt. Examiners determined that, by continuing attempts to collect the debt and offering settlement, even after being informed of the fraud, the debt collectors misrepresented that the consumers were legally obligated to pay a debt created through fraud. In these instances, the debt collectors' agents deviated from the collectors' established policies and procedures, and the debt collectors issued refunds of consumer payments made after the misrepresentations.

The CFPA prohibits covered entities from engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in their interactions with consumers. 29 Examiners found multiple instances in which debt collectors may have engaged in an unfair act or practice in connection with the collection of a debt by failing to timely refund overpayments and credit balances to consumers. These practices caused or were likely to cause substantial injury to affected borrowers as consumers lost the ability to use funds for an extended period of time. Consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury as they were unlikely to know about the credit balances, and even if they became aware, the consumers had no way to expedite the refund process. The injury was not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. In response to these findings, the entities will report to the CFPB on remedial measures, including issuing full refunds to consumers, revising their policies and procedures, and strengthening their monitoring to ensure credit balances are timely refunded.

The CFPB continues its examinations of financial institutions for compliance with Regulation E, 30 which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). 31 The CFPB also examines for compliance with other relevant statutes and regulations, including Regulation DD, 32 which implements the Truth in Savings Act, 33 and the CFPA's prohibitions regarding UDAAPs. 34

Examiners found that institutions engaged in unfair acts or practices by erroneously placing multiple holds on certain mobile check deposits that were deemed suspicious rather than placing the single holds that were intended. Through transaction testing, examiners identified accounts where the institutions had charged a consumer overdraft fees because the institutions failed to lift the initial automatic holds on the amounts of mobile check deposits after an additional suspicious deposit hold was placed on the account. This practice caused, or was likely to cause, substantial injury due to consumers incurring fees and losing access to funds that were unrelated to the suspicious mobile check deposit. Consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury, given that they could not have prevented the institutions from failing to comply with their own internal procedures. And the injury was not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

The institutions' failures to implement policies and procedures that address these technical limitations led to the unfair practices. The institutions revised their policies and procedures governing holds and developed controls to monitor for and detect instances of duplicate holds. The institutions refunded the fees caused by these duplicate holds.

Institutions violated the stop payment requirements of 12 CFR 1005.10(c) by failing to honor stop payment requests for preauthorized transfers tied to debit cards. Examiners found that the institutions' systems did not enable stopping a payment tied to a debit card. The institutions clarified the policies for this area and revised trainings to address this issue in the future.

Examiners continued to find issues with financial institutions failing to follow Regulation E error resolution procedures. Institutions violated Regulation E by failing to complete error investigations following consumers' notices of error because the consumers did not submit an affidavit. 35 Where consumers did not submit an affidavit, the institutions denied the error claims without investigating the merits of the error claims. A financial institution cannot require a consumer to file a police report or other documentation as a condition of initiating or completing an error investigation. The institutions updated policies and procedures and implemented remediation programs for affected consumers.

The Bureau has discussed this issue in FAQs on Electronic Funds Transfers and in Supervisory Highlights, Issue 24, Summer 2021. 36

Institutions violated 12 CFR 1005.11(d)(2) by failing to provide notices of revocation of provisional credit to consumers in connection with error investigations regarding check deposits at ATMs.

Consumers filed error claims stating that checks deposited at ATMs in specific amounts were not properly credited to their accounts. The institutions provided the consumers with provisional credits in the amounts claimed by the consumers; however, when the institutions retrieved the checks, they determined the check amounts were for lesser amounts than the consumers alleged in the error claims. The institutions debited the differences and sent the consumers written letters indicating the investigations were complete and the provisional credits of the lesser amounts were final, not addressing the fact that the institutions debited the difference between the amounts of the original provisional credits and the face values of the checks. 37

The institutions violated Regulation E by failing to state that they would be debiting the excess amounts originally provisionally credited from the consumers' accounts, the dates the institutions would be debiting the excess provisional credits, or that the institutions would (as required by the regulation) honor certain transactions for five days after the notification.

In response to these findings, the institutions provided additional Regulation E compliance training to applicable staff, transitioned certain monitoring and oversight functions to an independent quality assurance/quality control team, and have identified opportunities to enhance error resolution letter templates.

Supervision assessed the mortgage origination operations of several supervised entities for compliance with applicable Federal consumer financial laws. Examinations of these entities identified violations of Regulation Z.

Regulation Z generally prohibits compensating mortgage loan originators in an amount that is based on the terms of a transaction. 38 In the preamble to the Bureau's 2013 Loan Originator Final Rule, the Bureau responded to questions from commenters about whether it was permissible to compensate differently based on product types, such as credit extended pursuant to government programs for low-and moderate-income borrowers. 39 As explained by the Bureau there, it is not permissible to differentiate compensation based on credit product type, since products are simply a bundle of particular terms. 40

Examiners found that certain lenders' loan originator compensation agreements provided for higher loan originator compensation where Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) conforming fixed rate loans surpassed a designated threshold percentage of the total loans closed by the loan originator. This compensation was higher than the compensation paid when such loans did not surpass the designated threshold percentage. Paying higher commissions under these circumstances constitutes paying compensation based on credit product type, which, in turn, violates the Loan Originator Rule as compensation based on the term of a transaction, since products are simply a bundle of particular terms. As a result of these findings, the lenders have agreed to change their compensation plans to bring them into compliance with the Loan Originator Rule. The Bureau previously discussed this issue in Supervisory Highlights, Issue 24, Summer 2021. 41

Regulation Z requires a creditor to provide the consumer with good faith estimates on the Loan Estimate for certain transactions. The closing cost estimates are generally considered to be in good faith if the amount paid by or imposed on the consumer does not exceed the amount originally disclosed. 42 A creditor is permitted to use a revised estimate of a charge instead of the estimate of the charge originally disclosed to reset tolerances when there is a valid changed circumstance permitted by Regulation Z that resulted in the increased costs. 43 One such valid changed circumstance is where the consumer requests revisions to the credit terms. 44 For a creditor to successfully reset tolerances as permitted by Regulation Z, it must, among other things, maintain documentation explaining the reason for revision. 45

Examiners found that certain lenders failed to retain sufficient documentation to establish the changed circumstance's validity. Specifically, the lenders disclosed an appraisal fee on initial Loan Estimates and subsequently disclosed appraisal rush fees, in a higher amount, on revised Loan Estimates. The lenders claimed the rush appraisals, which led to the appraisal rush fees, were requested by consumers. However, in each instance, the lender failed to maintain sufficient documentation evidencing the consumer's request of the rush appraisals; in fact, the documentation maintained reflected that either the appraisal management company notified the lenders that a rush appraisal would be needed or the lenders' loan officers requested the rush appraisal. In certain instances, the lenders' documentation included only a checked box indicating the consumer requested the rush appraisal, but there was no other evidence retained reflecting this occurred. In response to these findings, the lenders agreed to remediate affected consumers, revise their policies and procedures to ensure relevant documentation is obtained and maintained, and strengthen relevant quality control audit functions.

Regulation Z provides that closed-end disclosures, including the mortgage Closing Disclosure, must reflect the terms of the legal obligation between the parties. 46

Examiners found violations of this provision relating to items on Closing Disclosures that did not reflect the legal obligation between the parties. Specifically, examiners identified instances where lenders' Closing Disclosures failed to reflect the fully-indexed-rate as required by the promissory note because the lenders' software miscalculated the disclosed rates. The software used a rounding method that is different from the method used in the corresponding promissory notes. The software automatically rounded up to the nearest one-eighth percent, despite the promissory note's instruction to round to the nearest one-eighth percent—up or down. This practice resulted in Closing Disclosures that do not reflect the terms of the legal obligation between the parties, and likely affected files and loans transferred to other loan servicers. As a result of these findings, the relevant lenders committed to update the rounding methodology and enhance monitoring and testing procedures to ensure that disclosures to consumers reflect the terms of the legal obligation between the parties.

The Bureau's Supervision program covers both institutions that issue prepaid accounts and prepaid account service providers. Recent examinations identified various violations of EFTA and Regulation E.

Examiners found violations related to the requirement that financial institutions submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau as set forth in Regulation E. Section 1005.19(b)(1) requires that prepaid account issuers make submissions of prepaid account agreements on a rolling basis no later than 30 days after an issuer “offers, amends, or ceases to offer any prepaid account agreement.”  47

Examiners determined that institutions failed to submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau within 30 days of the effective date after they amend certain prepaid account agreements.

In addition, 12 CFR 1005.19(b)(1)(i) requires that each submission by a financial institution must contain, among other things, “the name of the program manager, if any, and the list of names of other relevant parties, if applicable (such as the employer for a payroll card program or the agency for a government benefit program.)” Examiners determined that institutions failed to submit, as part of their prepaid account agreement submissions, the names of the program managers, if any, and the lists of names of other relevant parties.

In response to these findings, institutions amended their compliance management systems, submitted, or resubmitted the amended prepaid account agreements to the Bureau with the additional required information, as applicable, and instituted increased monitoring of prepaid account agreements.

Examiners found violations related to the receipt of valid stop payment requests from prepaid account users. Regulation E states that a consumer may stop payment of a preauthorized electronic fund transfer from the consumer's account by notifying the financial institution orally or in writing at least three business days before the scheduled date of the transfer. 48

Examiners determined that institutions failed to honor oral stop payment requests with respect to payments originating through certain bill pay systems, including both those initiated with the merchant, as well as within the bill pay system housed at the prepaid account program manager.

In response to these findings, institutions corrected their processes to allow for stop payment requests received orally or in writing, regardless of where the payment was originated, and remediated impacted consumers.

Examiners found violations related to the notice provided to consumers after an institution determined no error or a different error than alleged by the consumer had occurred upon the completion of a Regulation E error investigation. Section 1005.11(d)(1) requires a financial institution to report the results of its investigation, including a written explanation of the institution's findings and the consumer's right to request the documents that the institution relied on in making its determination. Upon request, the institution must promptly provide copies of these documents.

Examiners determined that institutions violated 12 CFR 1005.11(d)(1) by failing to include a statement noting the consumer's right to request the documents that the institution relied on in making its determination after determining no error or a different error occurred as part of the report of the results. Examiners also found that institutions failed to fulfill consumers' subsequent requests to provide the documentation relied upon to make the determinations that no error occurred.

In response to these findings, institutions updated their report of results letter templates to explicitly state the consumers' right to request documents that the institutions relied on in making their error investigation determinations, and directed their service providers to institute compliance management system enhancements to ensure requests for documents were honored.

The Bureau continues to examine institutions under its supervisory authority for compliance with Regulation E, Subpart B (Remittance Rule). 49 The Bureau also reviews for UDAAPs in connection with remittance transfers. Examiners identified violations of EFTA, Regulation E, and a deceptive act or practice.

Examiners found remittance transfer providers engaged in deceptive acts or practices by making false and misleading representations of “instant” and “30 second” transfers, even though the transfers may not be completed in 30 seconds or they may be otherwise delayed. Certain transfers could be delayed up to an additional 48 hours past the disclosed date of availability. These express claims, which failed to disclose or disclose adequately any exceptions, were likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably. And information about transfer speed would have been material to a consumer's decision as to which remittance transfer provider to use. In response to these findings, institutions implemented additional UDAAP training for their staff and ensured that their compliance departments review advertisements.

Section 914 of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. 1693l, states that “[n]o writing or other agreement between a consumer and any other person may contain any provision which constitutes a waiver of any right conferred or cause of action created by this subchapter.”  50

Examiners found multiple instances where remittance transfer service agreements with consumers violated EFTA's prohibition on waivers of rights conferred or causes of action created by EFTA. Institutions violated EFTA by:

• Including a hold harmless and indemnification requirement that purports to limit claims against the institution, thereby waiving rights conferred by EFTA section 916. 51

• Attempting to limit the consumer's right to recover costs and attorney's fees in a limited liability clause. 52

• Stating that the entity makes “no representations or warranties regarding the time required to complete processing because the Service is dependent on many factors beyond our control.”  53

In response to these findings, the entities undertook a number of corrective actions including updating their agreements to remove the offending language.

Examiners found multiple issues with remittance providers failing to comply with disclosure and timing requirements set forth in the Remittance Rule.

Section 1005.31(b)(2)(ii) requires remittance transfer providers to disclose on receipts the date in the foreign country in which funds will be available to the designated recipient. 54 Institutions violated this section by failing to disclose on the remittance transfer receipts the date the funds are available to the designated recipient. The institutions disclosed when the funds were delivered to the designated recipient's bank, but not the date on which the funds would be available to the recipient.

Section 1005.31(e)(2) requires the remittance transfer provider to provide the receipt required under § 1005.31(b)(2) no later than one business day after the date on which payment is made for remittance transfers made via mobile applications. 55 Institutions violated this section in instances where they failed to issue receipts until after the funds were successfully delivered to the intended recipients, outside the timeline required by § 1005.31(b)(2).

In response to these findings, institutions updated their policies to meet the timing requirements of the Remittance Rule.

Examiners found that institutions failed to develop and maintain written policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with the error resolution requirements of the Remittance Transfer Rule as found in 12 CFR 1005.33(g). The absence of adequate written policies and procedures resulted in various violations of the substantive provisions of the error resolution requirements, including the erroneous exclusion of certain types of claims from the definition of an error under the Remittance Transfer Rule; improper delays in investigations, refunds and notices, and notices missing required information.

Several institutions also failed to implement written policies and procedures regarding the retention of documentation related to error investigations under the Remittance Transfer Rule. In response to these findings, Supervision directed institutions to revise error resolution policies and procedures and provide additional training to relevant personnel.

Institutions failed to provide notice of the results of error investigations, including the notice of available remedies, as is required. 56 The institutions had erroneously coded the error claims as paid and the cases resolved, but failed to contact the senders to report on the results of their investigations.

Examiners also found that institutions failed to provide refunds in the amounts needed to resolve the errors within one business day, or as soon as reasonably practicable, after receiving the sender's instructions regarding the appropriate remedy, as is required. 57

Examiners also determined that institutions failed to refund fees imposed for remittance transfers when the funds were not delivered to the designated recipients by the disclosed dates of availability, consistent with 12 CFR1005.33(c)(2)(ii)(B), as a result of the institutions' inabilities to reach the senders by phone.

Examiners found that institutions issued error claim denial letters that did not disclose to the sender that the sender has the right to request documentation used in the investigation. 58

In response to these findings, institutions changed their policies and procedures.

The Bureau continues to examine student loan servicing activity, including at private student loan servicers, primarily to assess whether entities have engaged in any UDAAPs. Examiners identified three unfair acts or practices related to private student loan servicing.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by failing to make incentive payments that they offered in advertisements and agreed to make in the relevant contracts with consumers.

Examiners found that servicers were not making incentive payments described in advertisements or loan contracts in a variety of circumstances. Specifically, servicers failed to provide early repayment incentive payments, referral bonuses, and welcome bonuses due to system errors. Furthermore, in some instances servicers did not make early repayment incentive payments based on policies that made incentive payments contingent upon maintaining a deposit account with a specific financial institution, although they did not disclose this requirement in the loan contracts.

The servicers' conduct caused or was likely to cause substantial injury because consumers complied with the promotional program or contract terms and did not receive payments to which they were entitled. Because consumers impacted by the system errors had complied with all required terms and the servicer was in control of the program administration, consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury. Similarly, consumers impacted by the requirement to maintain a deposit account could not reasonably avoid injury because they were not adequately informed that the rebate was contingent upon maintaining a deposit account with that financial institution. And the substantial injury to consumers was not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. In response to these findings, servicers remediated affected consumers and implemented monitoring systems consisting of new weekly reports to capture all accounts with refunds due so that the servicers could confirm that they had made appropriate refunds.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by failing to issue timely refund payments in accordance with the payment schedules in loan modifications. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some servicers offered student loan modifications. These modifications reduced the payments that a consumer owed for a set period of time and provided a specific repayment schedule. In some instances, the servicers entered into modification agreements that included effective dates that predated the date they were transmitted to consumers. Some consumers made payments that were not due under the repayment schedule provided for in the modification agreement and were therefore entitled to refunds of those payments. Examiners found that servicers failed to issue timely refunds to consumers.

This practice caused or was likely to cause substantial injury to consumers because they lost the use of money that should have been refunded. The injury was not reasonably avoidable because consumers reasonably relied on the specific terms described in the modification agreement and the servicers were in charge of the refund process. And the injury was not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. In response to these findings, the servicers conducted outreach to determine if consumers wanted a refund.

On April 25, 2022, the CFPB announced that it is invoking a largely unused legal provision to examine nonbank financial companies that pose risks to consumers.

Before the CFPA was enacted only banks and credit unions were subject to Federal supervision. But after the 2008 financial crisis in which nonbank companies played a pivotal role, Congress tasked the CFPB with supervising certain nonbanks, in addition to large depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, and their service providers. Nonbanks do not have a bank, thrift, or credit union charter; many today operate nationally and brand themselves as “fintechs.”

Congress authorized several categories of entities subject to CFPB's nonbank supervision program. First and foremost, all nonbank entities in the mortgage, private student loan, and payday loan industries, regardless of size. Another category of supervised entities includes what the law calls “larger participants” in other nonbank markets for consumer financial products and services. The CFPB conducted rulemakings to define thresholds for entities subject to supervision in the markets of consumer reporting, debt collection, student loan servicing, international remittances, and auto loan servicing.

The third category of entities subject to CFPB nonbank supervision are nonbanks whose activities the CFPB has reasonable cause to determine pose risks to consumers. This authority is not specific to any particular consumer financial product or service. While the CFPB did implement the provision through a procedural rule in 2013, 59 the agency has now begun to invoke this authority. This will allow the CFPB to be agile and supervise entities that may be fast-growing or are in markets outside the existing nonbank supervision program.

The CFPB also issued a procedural rule to increase the transparency of the risk-determination process. 60 The company involved will have an opportunity to provide input to the CFPB on what information is released to the public.

On March 16, 2022, the CFPB published an updated exam manual for evaluating UDAAPs. These updates cover discriminatory practices that may also be “unfair” under the CFPA. The manual guides examiners in evaluating whether certain discriminatory practices meet the criteria for “unfairness” by causing substantial harm to consumers that they cannot reasonably avoid, where that harm is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 61 Consumers can be harmed by discrimination regardless of whether it is intentional. Discrimination can be unfair in cases where the conduct may also be covered by Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), as well as in instances where ECOA does not apply. For example, denying access to a checking account because the individual is of a particular race could be an unfair practice even if ECOA may not cover the transaction.

On February 28, 2022, the Bureau released a bulletin describing instances, in examinations and enforcement actions, where servicers violated the CFPA's prohibition against unfair, abusive, or deceptive acts and practices. 62 In particular, the Bureau intends to hold loan holders and servicers accountable for UDAAPs related to repossession of consumers' vehicles.

On February 18, 2022, the Bureau released a bulletin detailing student loan servicers' obligation to halt unlawful conduct regarding borrowers' eligibility and benefits under the limited waiver for the U.S. Department of Education's Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Waiver. 63 The bulletin recommends actions servicers should consider taking to ensure they do not misrepresent borrower eligibility or make deceptive statements to borrowers about the PSLF program and the waiver.

On January 13, 2022, the Bureau released a bulletin reminding debt collectors and CRCs of their legal obligations in light of the No Surprises Act, which protects consumers from certain unexpected medical bills. 64 Companies that try to collect on medical bills that are prohibited by the No Surprises Act, or who furnish information to CRCs about such invalid debts, may face significant legal liability under the FDCPA and FCRA. The bulletin advises CRCs that the accuracy and dispute obligations imposed by the FCRA apply with respect to debts stemming from charges that exceed the amount permitted by the No Surprises Act.

The Bureau's supervisory activities resulted in and supported the following enforcement actions.

On April 21, 2022, the CFPB and New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that they filed a lawsuit against MoneyGram International, Inc. and MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. (MoneyGram)—one of the largest remittance providers in the U.S.—for repeatedly violating various consumer financial protection laws. 65

CFPB examined MoneyGram between 2014 and 2016 and found multiple problems. Then in 2019, the CFPB did a subsequent exam to see if MoneyGram had fixed its problems. In short, for more than five years, the CFPB worked with MoneyGram to fully comply with the law, but MoneyGram continually failed to do so.

Specifically, the CFPB and New York Attorney General James allege:

• MoneyGram failed to deliver remittance funds by a date promised to consumers and held up remittance transfers and refunds unnecessarily. Holding the money in limbo resulted in needless delays and harmed or risked harm to consumers.

• MoneyGram failed to adequately instruct or direct its employees on how to comply with certain laws on resolving disputes. The company also failed to report the results of its error investigations to consumers and failed to provide adequate written explanation of its findings to consumers.

• MoneyGram failed to put in place policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with certain record retention requirements. MoneyGram also failed to retain evidence of its compliance with certain money-transferring requirements as required.

The complaint seeks relief including damages and other monetary relief, an injunction to stop future violations, and imposition of civil money penalties. The complaint is not a final finding or ruling that the defendants have violated the law.

On April 12, 2022, the Bureau filed a complaint in Federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against TransUnion, two of its subsidiaries, and longtime executive John Danaher for violating a 2017 law enforcement order, the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive acts and practices, EFTA and its implementing Regulation E, and Regulation V. 66 Chicago-based TransUnion is the parent company of one of the nation's three largest credit reporting companies. TransUnion collects consumer credit information, including borrowers' payment histories, debt loads, maximum credit limits, names and address of current creditors, and other elements of their credit relationships. Through its subsidiary, TransUnion Interactive, the company also markets, sells, and provides credit-related products directly to the public, such as credit scores, credit reports, and credit monitoring.

The Bureau alleges that TransUnion, its subsidiaries, and former executive John Danaher violated a January 3, 2017, consent order which settled charges for deceptively marketing credit scores and credit-related products, including credit monitoring services. As part of the 2017 settlement, TransUnion agreed to pay $13.9 million in restitution to victims and $3 million in civil penalties. TransUnion and its subsidiaries also agreed to a formal law enforcement order that, among other things, required the credit reporting company to warn consumers that lenders are not likely to use the scores they are supplying, obtain the express informed consent of customers for recurring payments for subscription products or services, and provide an easy way for people to cancel subscriptions. The order was binding on the company, its board of directors, and its executive officers.

In October 2018, the CFPB commenced an examination of TransUnion. In May 2019, CFPB examiners informed TransUnion that it was violating multiple requirements of the order. In these instances, companies typically work constructively with the CFPB to make quick fixes and come into compliance. However, in June 2020, CFPB informed TransUnion that it was still violating the order and engaged in additional violations of law.

In the April 12, 2022, complaint, the Bureau alleges that TransUnion and John Danaher engaged in multiple violations of law, including that TransUnion and Danaher violated the 2017 consent order; that TransUnion deceived customers through an array of digital dark patterns to trick people into recurring payments and to make it difficult to cancel them; and that TransUnion misrepresented numerous aspects of its products, services, and subscription plans, including that its credit monitoring service was a standalone credit score or credit report.

The CFPB is seeking monetary relief for consumers, such as restitution or return of funds, disgorgement of compensation for unjust gains, injunctive relief, and civil money penalties. The complaint is not a final finding or ruling that the defendants have violated the law.

On March 30, 2022, the Bureau sanctioned Edfinancial Services, LLC, a student-loan servicer, for making deceptive statements to student loan borrowers and misrepresenting their forgiveness and repayment options to them. 67 Edfinancial deceived borrowers, with Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans about their eligibility for PSLF. The Bureau is ordering the company to contact all affected borrowers, provide them with accurate information, and pay a $1 million civil money penalty.

CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

Title: Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators.

OMB Number: 3041-0125.

Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of automatic residential garage door operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: An estimated 17 firms that conduct performance tests and maintain records based on the test results to retain UL certification and verify compliance with the rule.

Estimated Time per Response: Based on staff's review of industry sources, each respondent will spend an estimated 40 hours annually on the collection of information related to the rule.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 680 hours (17 firms × 40 hours).

General Description of Collection: On December 22, 1992, the Commission issued rules prescribing requirements for a reasonable testing program to support certificates of compliance with the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators (57 FR 60449). These regulations also require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of residential garage door operators to establish and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for testing to support certification of compliance. 16 CFR part 1211, subparts B and C.

CPSC solicits written comment from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. CPSC specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

Title: Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.

OMB Number: 3041-015.6

Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Third party conformity assessment bodies seeking acceptance of accreditation or continuing accreditation.

• New Applications From Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies

○ We estimate approximately 40 new applications from independent third party conformity assessment bodies will be submitted per year, each taking an estimated 75 minutes to complete the initial application materials, with an estimated burden of 50 hours per year.

○ We estimate approximately 3 firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies will apply per year, each taking an estimated 8.4 hours to complete the initial application materials, with an estimated burden of 25.2 hours per year.

○ We estimate approximately 4 governmental third party conformity assessment bodies will apply per year, each taking an estimated 3 hours to complete the initial application materials, with an estimated burden of 12 hours per year.

○ We estimate that approximately 1 percent of third party conformity assessment bodies will take 15 minutes to update information for only those elements of information that need updating, with an estimated burden of 1.5 hours per year.

○ We estimate that approximately 25 percent of party conformity assessment bodies subcontract test and it will take 7 minutes to comply with the subcontracting recordkeeping requirement for an estimated 76,410 subcontracted tests, with an estimated of approximately 8,915 hours per year.

○ We estimate approximately 8 third party conformity assessment bodies will withdraw yearly, taking an estimated 30 minutes to create and submit the required documentation, with an estimated burden of 4 hours per year.

○ We estimate that approximately 253 independent third party conformity assessment bodies each year will be audited, taking approximately 4 minutes to resubmit their Form 223 and accreditation certificate, with an estimated burden of 17 hours per year.

○ We estimate that approximately 21 firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies will spend 226 minutes collecting and preparing the documentation to submit for an audit, with estimated burden of about 79 hours per year.

○ We estimate approximately 30 governmental third party conformity assessment bodies will spend 1 hour collecting and preparing the documentation to submit for an audit, with estimated burden of 30 hours per year.

Adding all the annual estimated burden hours results in a total of 9,134 hours for third party conformity assessment bodies per year. At $40.35 per hour, the total cost of the recordkeeping associated with the Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies is approximately $368,557 (9,134 hours × $40.35 = $368,557).

General Description of Collection: On March 12, 2013, the Commission issued a rule Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (78 FR 15836). The rule established the general requirements concerning third party conformity assessment bodies, such as the requirements and procedures for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation of a third party conformity assessment body, and the rule prescribed adverse actions that might be imposed against CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies. The rule also amended the audit requirements for third party conformity assessment bodies and amended the CPSC's regulation on inspections. CPSC's requirements pertaining to third party conformity assessment bodies can be found at 16 CFR part 1112.

CPSC solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. CPSC specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

Matching fund requirements are not unusual for Federal grants, but they vary across government agencies and programs. Match requires that a grantee share the funding load for their project or program that is (partially) funded by the agency. Policy reasons for match requirements include ensuring that Federal taxpayer dollars are leveraging non-agency contributions, supporting more programming by stretching agency dollars further, encouraging community engagement and investment in the grantee's activities, and promoting grantees' sustained financial health and the viability of their projects beyond the life of the grant.

Both AmeriCorps Seniors and AmeriCorps State and National have match requirements, established by Congress, for some of their grant opportunities, as do the Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service and the Volunteer Generation Fund grant programs. In each case, the grantees may provide the match through cash or in-kind contributions. AmeriCorps Seniors and AmeriCorps State and National grant programs currently have some statutory and/or regulatory relief from match requirements. In accordance with Executive Order 13985 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government), issued on January 20, 2021, AmeriCorps is inviting public comment regarding grantee match requirements.

AmeriCorps seeks input on the following:

1. What are the benefits, if any, of matching requirements?

2. What evidence, if any, supports (or does not support) the use of matching requirements?

3. What changes related to match requirements and alternative match schedules, if any, might be needed in order to:

a. Encourage more applicants to apply?

b. Make grantees more successful?

c. Allow applicants and grantees to reach underserved communities?

4. What changes, if any, to the criteria or timing for alternative match and/or match waiver requests and approvals might:

a. Encourage more applicants to apply?

b. Make grantees more successful?

c. Allow applicants and grantees to reach underserved communities?

5. What alternative approaches to the existing matching requirements would help meet the intended policy goals of community engagement and investment?

Congress established the match requirements for AmeriCorps Seniors programs in the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended (DVSA), 45 U.S.C. 4950 et seq.

For the Foster Grandparent Program (FGP) and Senior Companion Program (SCP), the DVSA generally limits AmeriCorps' contributions to 90 percent of the costs of the development and operation of projects, effectively requiring grantee sponsors to contribute at least 10 percent of the total project cost. See 42 U.S.C. 5011(a). AmeriCorps' regulations specify that grantee sponsors must contribute 10 percent of the total project cost from non-Federal or authorized Federal sources for these programs. See 45 CFR 2552.92(a), 2551.92(a).

For the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), the statute generally limits the match required of grantees to 10 percent in the first year, 20 percent in the second year and 30 percent in subsequent years. See 42 U.S.C. 5001(b). AmeriCorps' regulations mirror this requirement, stating that RSVP grants may be awarded to fund up to 90 percent of the total project cost in the first year, 80 percent in the second year, and 70 percent in the third and succeeding years. See 45 CFR 2553.72(a).

Congress established the match requirements for AmeriCorps State and National in the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended (NCSA), 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq. The NCSA limits AmeriCorps' share of the cost of carrying out an AmeriCorps State and National program to 75 percent. See 42 U.S.C. 12571(e). However, Congress has, for several years through annual appropriations laws, revised this requirement. For example, in the Fiscal Year 2021 appropriations law, Congress provided that the grantees must meet an overall minimum share requirement of 24 percent for the first three years they receive AmeriCorps funding and in successive years must meet the requirements as provided for in AmeriCorps regulations at 45 CFR 2521.60. See Public Law 116-260, div. H, title IV, 402, December 27, 2020.

AmeriCorps regulations implement these requirements by requiring a 24 percent match for cost-reimbursement grants to first-time grantees for the first three-year funding period. Starting with year four, the match requirement gradually increases every year until it reaches 50 percent by year 10, as shown in the minimum overall share chart below. Match is calculated as a total of the over all budget (Federal share + grantee share.)

See 45 CFR 2521.45 and 2521.60(a).

Section 126(a) of the NCSA (42 U.S.C. 12576) authorizes AmeriCorps to make grants of $250,000 to $1,000,000 to support State Commissions annually, and requires the State to agree to provide matching funds from non-Federal sources of not less than $1 for every $1 provided by the Corporation through the grant.

Section 198(i) of the NCSA (42 U.S.C. 12653(i)) authorizes AmeriCorps to make grants to support activities in honor of the life and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The statute limits the Federal share to 30% of the cost of the service opportunity. There is currently no explicit relief for this match requirement in statute or regulation.

Section 198P(f) (42 U.S.C. 12653p(f)) authorizes AmeriCorps to make grants for volunteer programs. The statute limits the AmeriCorps share to 80% in year one, 70% in year two, 60% in year 3, and 50% in years four and beyond. There is currently no explicit relief for this match requirement in statute or regulation.

AmeriCorps may grant a match waiver to a grantee for any of the three AmeriCorps Seniors programs. See 42 U.S.C. 5001(b) (RSVP), 5011(a) (FGP), 5013(a) (SCP). AmeriCorps has established by regulation that it may grant a waiver of match requirements if it determines that at least one of the following criteria are met, based on information provided by the gprantee: Initial difficulties in the development of local funding sources during the first three years of operations; an economic downturn, a natural disaster, or similar events in the service area that severely restrict or reduce sources of local funding support; or the unexpected discontinuation of local support from one or more sources that a project has relied on for a period of years. See 45 CFR 2551.92 (SCP), 2552.92 (FGP), 2553.72 (RSVP).

AmeriCorps has designed a streamlined process for AmeriCorps Seniors to request individual match waivers in accordance with these regulatory criteria.

Under certain circumstances, applicants/grantees in AmeriCorps State and National may qualify to meet alternative matching requirements that increase over the years to 35 percent instead of 50 percent as specified in the regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 12645(d); 42 U.S.C. 12576. To qualify, applicants/grantees must demonstrate that the proposed program is located in a rural county or in a severely economically distressed community. See 45 CFR 2521.60(b).

AmeriCorps may grant a match waiver for an AmeriCorps State and National grantee if it determines that the grantee has demonstrated all four of the following: There is a lack of resources at the local level; the lack of resources in the local community is unique or unusual; the grantee has made efforts to raise matching resources; and the grantee has raised a specified amount of matching resources or reasonably expects to raise that amount. See 45 CFR 2521.70. AmeriCorps has designed a streamlined process for AmeriCorps State and National Grantees to request individual match waivers in accordance with these regulatory criteria.

The CEO may permit a State Commission that demonstrates hardship, or a new State Commission, to meet alternative matching requirements for a commission support grant as follows:

(A) FIRST $100,000: For the first $100,000 of AmeriCorps grant funds, the State involved shall not be required to provide matching funds.

(B) AMOUNTS GREATER THAN $100,000: For AmeriCorps grants of more than $100,000 but not more than $250,000, the State shall agree to provide matching funds from non-Federal sources of not less than $1 for every $2 provided by AmeriCorps in excess of $100,000.

(C) AMOUNTS GREATER THAN $250,000: For AmeriCorps grants of more than $250,000, the State shall agree to provide matching funds from non-Federal sources of not less than $1 for every $1 provided by AmeriCorps, in excess of $250,000.

See 42 U.S.C. 12576; 45 CFR 2550.110.

The public hearing will take place via video- and teleconference. Upon registering, participants and observers will be provided instructions on accessing the hearing. DFC will prepare an agenda for the hearing identifying speakers, setting forth the subject on which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for each presentation. The agenda will be available at the time of the hearing.

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 9613(c).

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting will include discussion on accreditation compliance, organizational management, strategic planning, resource management, and other matters of interest to the National Defense University.

Agenda: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. (Eastern Time): Call to Order and Administrative Notes; State of the University Address; Update on Reaffirmation of Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) Accreditation; NDU Strategic Plan; Budget Overview; Facilities. Wednesday, May 25, 2022 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (Eastern Time): Public Comment; Board of Visitors Member Deliberation and Feedback; Wrap-up and Closing Remarks.

Base Access Requirements: All visitors without a U.S. DoD Common Access Card (CAC) or U.S. military ID must be vetted in advance in order to gain entry onto the base. Per the U.S. Army, all non-DoD civilians are required to have a background check before being allowed on a military installation; better known as vetting. (Procedure can take between 5 to 45 minutes).

(1) Pre-vetting (due no earlier than 20 days, and no later than 10 days before the event):

(a) If the visitor does not have a U.S. driver's license:

(i) That visitor will not be able to utilize the online feature, and must fill out the paper application and return same to their sponsor for submission to the JBM-HH Visitor Control Center (VCC).

(1) Submit the JBM-HH Request for Support Form (Form 7) and the Special Events Visitor List (190-16f) for all non-DoD, to the Installation Operations Center and to NDU.

(2) Upon JBM-HH assessment, the Installation Operations Center will determine if this is an authorized or unauthorized event: Notification (by email) to JBM-HH DES, JBM-HH VCC, and to the customer.

(3) Upon the customer receiving the authorized event notice, they will then either pre-vett through the online website, or the completed JBM-HH Form 190-6x, (Installation Access Request) and return the written application back to the Visitor Control Center for processing.

(4) The Visitor Control Center will perform background checks on the applications of the event, and then return a clearance document back to the customer so they inform those who didn't meet the screening requirements that they are not allowed on the installation.

(5) The Visitor Control Center provides the approved screening list to the Gate Guards for allowed access, however, they are still subject to search.

(b) If the visitor has a valid U.S. driver's license:

(i) Pre-vetting can be conducted online (best option) at https://pass.aie.army.mil/jbmhh/ or in person at JBM-HH VCC.

Hours of operation for Visitor Control Center (VCC/Police Substation—Building 65) are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Outside of those hours of operation, vetting will be conducted from the Guard search station on a 24-hour basis.

For vetting the day of the event:

(1) Visitor will not be able to utilize the online feature, and must fill out the paper application and return same to their sponsor for submission to the JBM-HH VCC.

(a) Submit the JBM-HH Request for Support Form (Form 7) and the Special Events Visitor List (190-16f) for all non-DoD, to the Installation Operations Center and to NDU.

(b) Upon JBM-HH assessment, the Installation Operations Center will determine if this is an authorized or unauthorized event: Notification (by email) to JBM-HH DES, JBM-HH VCC, and to the customer.

(c) Upon the customer receiving the authorized event notice, they will then either pre-vett through the online website, or the completed JBM-HH Form 190-6x, (Installation Access Request) and return the written application back to the VCC for processing.

(d) The VCC will perform background checks on the applications of the event, and then return a clearance document back to the customer so they inform those who didn't meet the screening requirements that they are not allowed on the installation.

(e) The VCC provides the approved screening list to the Gate Guards for allowed access, however, they are still subject to search.

Vehicle Search: Non-DoD/non-federally affiliated visitors' vehicles are subject to search.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, written statements to the committee may be submitted to the committee at any time or in response to a stated planned meeting agenda by FAX or email to Ms. Joycelyn Stevens at (202) 685-0079, Fax (202) 685-3920 or StevensJ7@ndu.edu.

This request for written third-party comments concerning the performance of accrediting agencies under review by the Secretary of Education is required by 496(n)(1)(A) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended, and pertains to the summer 2023 meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). The meeting date and location have not been determined, but will be announced in a later Federal Register notice. In addition, a later Federal Register notice will describe how to register to provide oral comments at the meeting.

Agencies Under Review and Evaluation: The Department requests written comments from the public on the following accrediting agencies, which are currently undergoing review and evaluation by the Accreditation Group, and which will be reviewed at the summer 2023 NACIQI meeting.

The agencies are listed by the type of application each agency has submitted. Please note, each agency's current scope of recognition is indicated below. If any agency requests a change to its scope of recognition, identified are both the current scope of recognition and the requested scope of recognition.

1. Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Accreditation Commission. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and pre-accreditation (“Correspondent” and “Candidate”) of advanced rabbinical and Talmudic schools to include Associate, Baccalaureate, Masters, Doctorate, and First Rabbinic and First Talmudic degrees programs.

Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

2. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and pre-accreditation, of Didactic and Coordinated Programs in Dietetics at both the undergraduate and graduate level, postbaccalaureate Dietetic Internships, and Dietetic Technician Programs at the associate degree level and for its accreditation of such programs offered via distance education.

Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

3. American Optometric Association, Accreditation Council on Optometric Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of professional optometric degree programs and optometric residency programs, and for the pre-accreditation category of Preliminary Approval for professional optometric degree programs.

Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

4. Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of nursing education programs at the baccalaureate, master's, doctoral, and certificate levels, including programs offering distance education.

Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

5. Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of institutions and programs of nurse anesthesia at the post master's certificate, master's, or doctoral degree levels, including programs offering distance education.

Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

Requested Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of institutions and programs of nurse anesthesia at the post master's certificate, post-doctoral certificate, master's, or doctoral degree levels, including programs offering distance education.

Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

6. Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of medical education programs leading to the M.D. degree.

Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

7. National Association of Schools of Art and Design, Commission on Accreditation. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of freestanding institutions and units offering art/design and art/design-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.

Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

8. Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and pre-accreditation (“Candidacy status”) of postsecondary degree-granting educational institutions and the accreditation of programs offered via distance education within these institutions.

Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

1. Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of institutions and programs that award postsecondary certificates, postsecondary diplomas, academic Associate degrees and occupational Associate degrees, in the practice of massage therapy, bodywork, and aesthetics/esthetics and skin care. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

The compliance report addresses findings of noncompliance with 34 CFR 602 as referenced in the senior Department official's (SDO) decision letter dated June 02, 2021, available under NACIQI meeting date February 25, 2021, available at: https://surveys.ope.ed.gov/erecognition/PublicDocuments.

Written comments about the recognition of any of the accrediting agencies listed above must be received by June 06, 2022, in the ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov mailbox. Please include in the subject line “Written Comments: (agency name).” The electronic mail (email) must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the person(s) making the comment. Comments should be submitted as a PDF, Microsoft Word document or in a medium compatible with Microsoft Word that is attached to an email or provided in the body of an email message. Comments about an agency that has submitted a compliance report scheduled for review by the Department must relate to the criteria for recognition cited in the SDO's letter that requested the report, or in the Secretary's appeal decision, if any. Comments about an agency that has submitted a petition for initial recognition, renewal of recognition, or an expansion of scope must relate to the agency's compliance with the Criteria for the Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, which are available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-602?toc=1.

Only written materials submitted by the deadline to the email address listed in this notice, and in accordance with these instructions, become part of the official record concerning agencies scheduled for review and are considered by the Department and NACIQI in their deliberations.

Electronic Access to this Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of the Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1011c; 20 U.S.C. 1099b.

For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the agreement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Table 1 in Unit IV.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for all pesticides listed in Table 1 in Unit IV. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA may issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed registration review decision for the pesticides listed in Table 1 in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in Table 1 in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the pesticides shown in Table 1 and opens a 60-day public comment period on the risk assessments.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the pesticides listed in Table 1 in Unit IV. The Agency will consider all comments received during the public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to a draft human health and/or ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments.

Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

• To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

• The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English, and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audio-graphic or video-graphic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

• Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

• Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

OMB Control Number: 3060-1078.

Title: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, CG Docket No. 04-53.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,908,572 respondents; 1,908,572 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-10 hours (average per response).

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. 7701-7713, Public Law 108-187, 117 Stat. 2719.

Total Annual Burden: 1,237,036 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $624,882.

Needs and Uses: The reporting requirements included under this OMB Control Number 3060-1078 enable the Commission to collect information regarding violations of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act). This information is used to help wireless subscribers stop receiving unwanted commercial mobile services messages.

On August 12, 2004, the Commission released an Order, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, CG Docket No. 04-53, FCC 04-194, published at 69 FR 55765, September 16, 2004, adopting rules to prohibit the sending of commercial messages to any address referencing an internet domain name associated with wireless subscribers' messaging services, unless the individual addressee has given the sender express prior authorization. The information collection requirements consist § 64.3100(a)(4), (d), (e) and (f) of the Commission's rules.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's document (Public Notice), in MB Docket Nos. 20-401 and 17-105; RM-11854; DA 22-429, released on April 18, 2022. The complete text of this document is available electronically via the search function on the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) web page at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ ( https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ ). Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) and reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) may be requested by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. On December 1, 2020, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 86 FR 1909 (Jan. 11, 2021) (NPRM), in this proceeding, seeking comment on whether to modify the Commission's rules governing the operation of FM booster stations in certain limited circumstances to allow for geo-targeted content. The time period for filing comments and reply comments on the NPRM closed on March 12, 2021. Since that time, GeoBroadcast Solutions sought, and the Bureau has approved, experimental authority to test the technology in San Jose, California with station KSJO(FM), and in Jackson, Mississippi with station WRBJ-FM. As part of this authority, GeoBroadcast Solutions was required to file in the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) technical reports on testing it conducted for both stations. Those reports contain detailed technical discussions about the operation of GeoBroadcast Solutions' booster technology, its compatibility with the Emergency Alert System, and its impact on digital FM broadcasts. This technical information was not available to the public at the time comments and reply comments were due.

2. In light of these recent developments and to provide a complete record on developments since the completion of the commenting cycle in this matter, the Media Bureau seeks public comment on these test reports, as well as other documents filed in this proceeding since March 12, 2021. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments by the dates listed above using ECFS or by submitting paper copies to the Commission's Office of the Secretary. Commenters should follow the comment filing instructions provided in paragraph 36 of the NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd 14213 (2020), 86 FR 1909 (Jan. 11, 2021).

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Model Medicare Advantage and Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Individual Enrollment Request; Use: The enrollment form is considered a “model” under Medicare regulations at §§ 422.2262 and 423.2262, for purposes of communication and marketing review and approval; therefore, MA and Part D plans are able to modify the language, content, format, or order of the enrollment form. The model enrollment form includes the minimal amount of information to process the enrollment, located in Section 1, and other limited information, in Section 2, that the sponsor is required ( i.e., race and ethnicity data, accessible format preference) or chooses to provide to the beneficiary ( i.e., premium payment information). The optional data elements, which aid the MA and Part D plans in processing the enrollment, is developed for efficiency for the plans. Plan sponsors can obtain information at the initial point of contact to help streamline the beneficiary's enrollment process. The optional questions include information, specific to the plan's business needs that serves to reduce overall burden and allow for timely processing of an enrollment request. All data elements in Section 2 are optional for the beneficiary to complete, but the plan will be required to have the questions on the enrollment forms. Plan enrollment will not be affected if the beneficiary does not complete this additional information.

With the long-term goal of collecting race and ethnicity data from all Medicare beneficiaries, CMS will focus initial efforts on beneficiaries who newly elect or change coverage in the Medicare Part C and D program. The detailed race and ethnicity categories collected through the demographic pilot on the enrollment form will be compliant with the 2011 HHS Data Collection Standards to provide granular information for plans and CMS to understand the diversity of the beneficiary population. The data will be used to: (1) Explore the response rate to race and ethnicity questions as a whole and how it intersects with beneficiary income and other demographics; (2) Conduct focus groups, to be approved in a separate PRA package, among non-responders to the race and ethnicity questions to understand how people who elect to not respond to the race and ethnicity questions perceive the addition of those questions on the form; (32) Continue to test CMS' race and ethnicity imputation models by adding additional race and ethnicity data to the data CMS already has; and (4) Determine the data necessary for sufficient samples sizes to conduct analyses of disaggregated race and ethnicity categories. As part of a broader health equity effort, CMS has interest in identifying patterns of differences across many key process and care outcomes by sociodemographic characteristics, including race and ethnicity. To best characterize these differences, self-reported and granular data are needed. Collecting these data will support efforts to continue to strengthen, for example, CMS OMH's stratified reporting efforts, which currently do consider quality indicators by race and ethnicity, but at present these data are not granular and not self-reported. In addition, this data will allow us to validate imputation methods CMS currently uses for race and ethnicity, to ensure that we do not rely on methodologies that unintentionally create or exacerbate disparities. To assess readiness for analysis of collected data (particularly with regard to considering sample sizes, especially of small groups), continual assessment will be required—simultaneously as enrollment happens—because readiness will depend partly on distribution of responses to these items by enrollees.

These categories are of great interest to CMS and will improve the accuracy of current data sets. We acknowledge that it may take several years of data collection to conduct other meaningful studies CMS intends to pursue that are not listed above. In addition to the aforementioned uses, CMS will ultimately use this information to: Track beneficiary enrollment, including tracking patterns in enrollment by race and ethnicity over time; to identify, monitor, and develop effective and efficient strategies and incentives to reduce and eliminate health and health care inequities; to validate existing race and ethnicity imputation methods; and to ensure that clinically appropriate and equitable care (in terms of payment, access, and quality) is consistently provided to all beneficiaries. Form Number: CMS-10718 (OMB control number: 0938-1378); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments, Federal Government, Private Sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profits); Number of Respondents: 80,539,628; Number of Responses: 80,539,628; Total Annual Hours: 8,567,975. (For questions regarding this collection contact Deme Umo at (410) 786-8854.)

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

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

ESRD facilities participating in the Medicare program submit these cost reports annually to report cost and statistical data used by CMS to determine reasonable costs incurred for furnishing dialysis services to Medicare beneficiaries and to effect the year-end cost settlement for Medicare bad debts. Form Number: CMS-265-11 (OMB control number: 0938-0236); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, Business or other for-profits, State, Local, or Tribal Governments); Number of Respondents: 7,492; Total Annual Responses: 7,492; Total Annual Hours: 494,472. (For questions regarding this collection contact Keplinger, Jill C. at 410-786-4550.)

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Good Cause Processes; Use: Section 1851(g)(3)(B)(i) of the Act provides that MA organizations may terminate the enrollment of individuals who fail to pay basic and supplemental premiums after a grace period established by the plan. Section 1860D-1(b)(1)(B)(v) of the Act generally directs us to establish rules related to enrollment, disenrollment, and termination for Part D plan sponsors that are similar to those established for MA organizations under section 1851 of the Act. Consistent with these sections of the Act, subpart B in each of the Parts C and D regulations sets forth requirements with respect to involuntary disenrollment procedures at 42 CFR 422.74 and 423.44, respectively. In addition, section 1876(c)(3)(B) establishes that individuals may be disenrolled from coverage as specified in regulations. Thus, current regulations at 42 CFR 417.460 specify that a cost plan, specifically a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) or competitive medical plan (CMP), may disenroll a member who fails to pay premiums or other charges imposed by the plan for deductible and coinsurance amounts.

These good cause provisions authorize CMS to reinstate a disenrolled individual's enrollment without interruption in coverage if the non-payment is due to circumstances that the individual could not reasonably foresee or could not control, such as an unexpected hospitalization. At its inception, the process of accepting, reviewing, and processing beneficiary requests for reinstatement for good cause was carried out exclusively by CMS. Form Number: CMS-10544 (OMB control number: 0938-1271); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits State, Local, or Tribal Governments); Number of Respondents: 312; Total Annual Responses: 41,289; Total Annual Hours: 27,499. (For questions regarding this collection contact Ronke Fabayo at (410) 786-4460.)

3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Affordable Care Act Internal Claims and Appeals and External Review Procedures for Non-grandfathered Group Health Plans and Issuers and Individual Market Issuers; Use: The information collection requirements ensure that claimants receive adequate information regarding the plan's claims procedures and the plan's handling of specific benefit claims. Claimants need to understand plan procedures and plan decisions in order to appropriately request benefits and/or appeal benefit denials. The information collected in connection with the HHS-administered federal external review process is collected by HHS, and is used to provide claimants with an independent external review. Form Number: CMS-10338 (OMB control number: 0938-1099); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 497,262; Total Annual Responses: 517,014,153; Total Annual Hours: 1,198,692. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Laura Byabazaire at 301-492-4128.)

4. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Review Choice Demonstration for Home Health Services; Use: Section 402(a)(1)(J) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1(a)(1)(J)) authorizes the Secretary to “develop or demonstrate improved methods for the investigation and prosecution of fraud in the provision of care or services under the health programs established by the Social Security Act (the Act).” Pursuant to this authority, the CMS seeks to develop and implement a Medicare demonstration project, which CMS believes will help assist in developing improved procedures for the identification, investigation, and prosecution of Medicare fraud occurring among Home Health Agencies (HHA) providing services to Medicare beneficiaries.

This revised demonstration helps assist in developing improved procedures for the identification, investigation, and prosecution of potential Medicare fraud. The demonstration helps make sure that payments for home health services are appropriate through either pre-claim or postpayment review, thereby working towards the prevention and identification of potential fraud, waste, and abuse; the protection of Medicare Trust Funds from improper payments; and the reduction of Medicare appeals. CMS has implemented the demonstration in Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas with the option to expand to other states in the Palmetto/JM jurisdiction. Under this demonstration, CMS offers choices for providers to demonstrate their compliance with CMS' home health policies. Providers in the demonstration states may participate in either 100 percent pre-claim review or 100 percent post payment review. These providers will continue to be subject to a review method until the HHA reaches the target affirmation or claim approval rate. Once an HHA reaches the target pre-claim review affirmation or post-payment review claim approval rate, it may choose to be relieved from claim reviews, except for a spot check of their claims to ensure continued compliance. Providers who do not wish to participate in either 100 percent pre-claim or post payment reviews have the option to furnish home health services and submit the associated claim for payment without undergoing such reviews; however, they will receive a 25 percent payment reduction on all claims submitted for home health services and may be eligible for review by the Recovery Audit Contractors.

The information required under this collection is required by Medicare contractors to determine proper payment or if there is a suspicion of fraud. Under the pre-claim review option, the HHA sends the pre-claim review request along with all required documentation to the Medicare contractor for review prior to submitting the final claim for payment. If a claim is submitted without a pre-claim review decision one file, the Medicare contractor will request the information from the HHA to determine if payment is appropriate. For the post payment review option, the Medicare contractor will also request the information from the HHA provider who submitted the claim for payment from the Medicare program to determine if payment was appropriate. Form Number: CMS-10599 (OMB control number: 0938-1311); Frequency: Frequently, until the HHA reaches the target affirmation or claim approval threshold and then occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profits); Number of Respondents: 3,631; Number of Responses: 1,467,243; Total Annual Hours: 7,445,143. (For questions regarding this collection contact Jennifer McMullen (410)786-7635.)

Description: Federal law requires that all child support orders under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act include medical coverage. The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA) requires enforcement of this provision; the NMSN Part A is the means to enforce health care orders.

This information collection expedites requests for medical coverage between state child support enforcement agencies and employers. OCSE maintains Part A of the NMSN, which states initiate and send to a parent's employer to complete. States must supply some sensitive information to the parent's employer in order to enroll the child(ren) in the correct health coverage plan. This information includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and addresses. The employer retains the income withholding part of the form and withholds from the employee's income any premium payments the health care plan may require. Then, the employer's health care administrator enrolls the child(ren) in the health care plan. The Department of Labor (DOL) maintains Part B of the NMSN. This request includes minor revisions to the NMSN Part A form, revisions to and separation of the instructions into a stand-alone attachment, a Part A sample, and the addition of the State Medical Support Contacts and Program Requirements matrix. OCSE will also request from OMB that the NMSN Part A expiration date match the expiration date of the NMSN Part B, which will be submitted by DOL.

Respondents: States and employers.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,656,939.

Comments: The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

Authority: 45 U.S.C. 303.32; the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193; CSPIA, Pub. L. 105-200, Sec. 401(c); Sec. 609(a)(5)(C) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.

The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products including analgesics, e.g., abuse-deterrent opioids, novel analgesics, and issues related to opioid abuse, and those for use in anesthesiology and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of anesthesiology, analgesics (such as: Abuse deterrent opioids, novel analgesics, and issues related to opioid abuse), epidemiology or statistics, and related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Non-federal members of the committee will serve as Special Government Employees, representatives or Ex-Officio members. Federal members will serve as Regular Government Employees or Ex-Officios. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting representative member who is identified with industry interests. There may also be an alternate industry representative.

Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/anesthetic-and-analgesic-drug-products-advisory-committee/anesthetic-and-analgesic-drug-products-advisory-committee-charter or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). In light of the fact that no change has been made to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be made to 21 CFR 14.100.

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please visit us at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Human Radiolabeled Mass Balance Studies.” A human radiolabeled mass balance study is the single most direct method to obtain quantitative and comprehensive information on the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) of an investigational drug in the human body. The mass balance study can provide information to determine the overall pathways of metabolism and excretion of an investigational drug, identify circulating metabolites, and determine the abundance of metabolites relative to the parent or total drug-related exposure. This guidance provides FDA's recommendations for clinical pharmacology considerations in conducting human radiolabeled mass balance studies, including: (1) Deciding whether and when to conduct the study, (2) designing the study, and (3) reporting results.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Human Radiolabeled Mass Balance Studies.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information for submission of investigational new drug applications in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014, and the collections of information for submission of new drug applications in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs , https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents , or https://www.regulations.gov.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Sponsors of approved or conditionally approved applications for new animal drugs containing an antimicrobial active ingredient are required by section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b) to submit to FDA an annual report on the amount of each such ingredient in the drug that is sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals. Sponsors are also required to maintain distribution records for their animal drug products, including separate information for each month of the calendar year, under section 512(l)(3) of the FD&C Act. These provisions were enacted to assist FDA in our continuing analysis of the interactions (including drug resistance), efficacy, and safety of antimicrobials approved for use in both humans and food-producing animals for the purpose of mitigating the public health risk associated with antimicrobial resistance.

Section 514.87 of our regulations (21 CFR 514.87) codifies the reporting requirements established in the FD&C Act. Sponsors submit antimicrobial animal drug sales and distribution reports to us on Form FDA 3744. Each report must specify: (1) The amount of each antimicrobial active ingredient by container size, strength, and dosage form; (2) quantities distributed domestically and quantities exported; and (3) a listing of the target animals, indications, and production classes that are specified on the approved label of the product. The report must cover the period of the preceding calendar year and include separate information for each month of the calendar year. Each report must also provide a species-specific estimate of the percentage of each product that was sold or distributed domestically in the reporting year for use in cattle, swine, chickens, or turkeys for such species that appear on the approved label.

In the Federal Register of November 9, 2021 (86 FR 62178), we published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

We base our estimate of the average burden per response on our recent experience with the existing antimicrobial animal drug distribution reports program. We base our estimate of the number of affected respondents reported in tables 1 and 2 and the average number of responses per respondent in table 1 on a review of our records of sponsors with active and inactive applications. We estimate that 20 sponsors will have active applications, and we assume that 75 percent of the respondents will report electronically, while the other 25 percent will report on paper. We estimate that 4 sponsors with active applications will spend 62 hours annually to assemble the necessary information, prepare, and submit an annual antimicrobial animal drug sales and distribution report on paper and 16 sponsors with active applications will spend 52 hours annually to assemble the necessary information, prepare, and electronically submit an annual antimicrobial animal drug sales and distribution report. We estimate that 21 sponsors will have inactive applications, and we assume that 93 percent of these respondents will report electronically, while the other 7 percent will report on paper. We estimate that sponsors with inactive applications will spend 2 hours to prepare their annual antimicrobial animal drug sales and distribution reports, whether electronically or on paper.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (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 requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed 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) 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.

Tobacco products are governed by chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387 through 21 U.S.C. 387u). The FDA intends to issue regulations establishing standards for approved tobacco retailer training programs under section 906(d) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387f(d)). In the interim, FDA published a guidance document which can be downloaded at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/tobacco-retailer-training-programs. The guidance is intended to assist tobacco retailers to voluntarily implement effective training programs for employees.

The guidance discusses recommended elements that should be covered in a training program, such as: (1) Federal laws restricting the access to, and the advertising and promotion of, cigarettes, smokeless, and covered tobacco products; (2) the health and economic effects of tobacco use, especially when the tobacco use begins at a young age; (3) written company policies against sales to youth and other restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and promotion of, tobacco products; (4) identification of the tobacco products sold in the retail establishment that are subject to the Federal laws and regulations prohibiting their sale to underage persons; (5) age verification methods; (6) practical guidelines for refusing sales; and (7) testing to ensure that employees have the required knowledge. The guidance recommends that retailers require current and new employees to take a written test prior to selling tobacco products and that refresher training be provided at least annually and more frequently as needed. The guidance recommends that retailers maintain certain written records documenting that all individual employees have been trained and that retailers retain these records for 4 years in order to be able to provide evidence of a training program during the 48-month time period covered by the civil money penalty schedules outlined in the law.

The guidance also recommends that retailers implement certain hiring and management practices as part of an effective retailer training program. The guidance suggests that applicants and current employees be notified both verbally and in writing of the importance of complying with laws prohibiting the sales of tobacco products to underage persons. In addition, FDA recommends that retailers implement an internal compliance check program and document the procedures and corrective actions for the program.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: