In response to USAID's work on the climate change crisis, BIFAD formed the BIFAD Subcommittee on Systemic Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Agriculture, Nutrition, and Food Systems (see https://www.usaid.gov/bifad/climatechange for more information) in June, 2022. The subcommittee will lead transdisciplinary evidence gathering to support USAID's role in accelerating inclusive systems change and transformative climate change adaptation and mitigation approaches in agricultural, nutrition, and food systems, and in targeting climate finance to benefit smallholder farmers. The subcommittee's efforts are intended to inform implementation of the USAID Climate Strategy 2022-2023 (see https://www.usaid.gov/climate/strategy for more information), the U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy (see https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security/us-government-global-food-security-strategy), and other sectoral policies. A list of subcommittee members may be found at https://www.usaid.gov/bifad/climatechange/subcommittee.

A BIFAD-commissioned study on systemic solutions for climate change adaptation and mitigation in agricultural, nutrition, and food systems, guided by the subcommittee, was introduced and discussed at a BIFAD public meeting on August 31, 2022 (see link at https://www.usaid.gov/bifad/documents/185th-public-meeting-agenda ). A final report is anticipated in Spring 2023. The study will achieve the following three objectives:

1. Suggest realistic 2030 targets and intermediate results to guide USAID program design for the agriculture, food, and nutrition sectors.

2. Identify priority leverage points for transformative systemic change and scaling climate finance to achieve the targets and intermediate results for the sector.

3. Prioritize areas for USAID action in the sector and recommend interventions.

At the public meeting, and in the lead-up to the 2022 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 27th Conference of Parties (COP27, see https://cop27.eg/#/ ), authors of the BIFAD-commissioned study will present and discuss preliminary findings (to be posted publicly a few days prior to the meeting at www.usaid.gov/bifad/climatechange ), related to the following:

1. Climate-resilient pathways for inclusive, transformative systemic change in agricultural, nutrition, and food systems;

2. Priority systems for inclusive transformation in food, agriculture, and nutrition;

3. Barriers to inclusive transformation in agricultural, nutrition, and food systems;

4. Priority leverage points for transformative systemic change; and

5. Climate finance solutions to catalyze inclusive adaptation and mitigation actions in the agricultural, food, and nutrition sector.

The public is invited to comment on the report's preliminary findings and recommendations and to submit additional case studies, evidence, and relevant publications to inform the study.

The BIFAD is a seven-member, presidentially appointed advisory board to the US. Agency for International Development (USAID) established in 1975 under Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, to ensure that USAID brings the assets of U.S. universities to bear on development challenges in agriculture and food security and supports their representation in USAID programming. Public comment is invited to further inform BIFAD's work.

For questions about registration, please contact the BIFAD Support Team at bifadsupport@tetratech.com. For questions about BIFAD, or to submit written comments, evidence, or materials in advance or following the meeting, please contact Clara Cohen, Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD in the Bureau for Resilience and Food Security at USAID. Interested persons may email her at ccohen@usaid.gov (Subject: Comment for 187th BIFAD Public Meeting) or telephone her at (202) 712-0119.

Under the regulations in “Subpart L—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis (PRA), can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS proposes to authorize the importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States if, based on findings of a PRA, we determine that the measures can mitigate the plant pest risk associated with the importation of that fruit or vegetable. APHIS then publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the PRA that evaluates the risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS will issue a subsequent Federal Register notice announcing whether or not we will authorize the importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the phytosanitary measures specified in the notice.

In accordance with that process, we published a notice  1 in the Federal Register on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73237-73238, Docket No. APHIS-2020-0106), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a PRA that evaluated the risks associated with the importation into the United States of pummelo fruit ( Citrus maxima Merrill) from Vietnam. The PRA consisted of a risk assessment identifying pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation of pummelo fruit from Vietnam into the United States and a risk management document (RMD) identifying phytosanitary measures to be applied to that commodity to mitigate the pest risk.

We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on February 25, 2022. We did not receive any comments by that date.

Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in §  319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation into the United States of pummelo from Vietnam subject to the phytosanitary measures identified in the RMD that accompanied the initial notice.

These conditions will be listed in the USDA, APHIS Agricultural Commodity Import Requirements (ACIR) database ( https://acir.aphis.usda.gov/s/ ). 2 In addition to these specific measures, pummelo from Vietnam will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the recordkeeping and burden requirements associated with this action are included under the Office of Management and Budget control number 0579-0049.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E- Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this notice, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this action as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has established regulations for the emergency processing of information collection requests (ICRs) at 5 CFR 1320.13. OMB can authorize Emergency Clearance for an information collection for up to 6 months.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed emergency 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The draft survey is included in the appendix to this Notice.

Title: Special Emergency Approval of SFA Survey II on School Food Supply Chain Disruptions.

OMB Number: 0584-NEW.

Expiration Date: Six months after OMB approval.

Type of Request: Emergency information collection request.

Abstract: FNS is responsible for the administration of the Child Nutrition programs—including the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), NSLP Seamless Summer Option (SSO), the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and others—at the federal level. To inform current and future policy decisions and effectively oversee these programs, FNS requires information on how these programs are operating. Although FNS oversees these programs, SAs administer them through agreements with SFAs and other local entities that implement the programs at the local level.

Throughout the pandemic, school nutrition professionals have met extraordinary challenges to ensure every child can get the food they need to learn, grow, and thrive. But circumstances in local communities remain unpredictable, and supply chains for food and labor have been stressed and at times disrupted. USDA is committed to working together with state agencies, school food authorities (SFAs), the food industry, and other stakeholders to communicate these challenges and to identify solutions.

This is the second survey issued to SFAs that will assist FNS and its partners to enhance the toolbox for school nutrition professionals working hard to make sure students have reliable access to healthy meals. Whereas the first SFA survey focused on challenges and mitigation strategies related to procuring specific food or non-food items during the 2021-2022 school year, this survey focuses on food costs, labor costs, and vendor issues that continue to disrupt school food service in the 2022-2023 school year, as well as changes in student participation related to the return to standard operations.

The attached survey has a maximum of 31 questions and is estimated to take approximately 20 minutes to complete per respondent. FNS is asking all SFAs that participate in the Child Nutrition Programs to complete this survey, which will be distributed via email with the support of state agencies. SFAs will be asked to complete the survey using an online survey tool and will receive reminders and support emails from state agencies and FNS as needed. As a result, the total proposed time burden is 8,840.79 burden hours.

Affected Public: School Food Authorities and state agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 19,106.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 5.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: The total estimated number of responses is 95,315.

Estimated Time per Response: 5.6 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 8,840.79 hours.

Current OMB Inventory: 0.

Difference (Burden Revisions Requested): 8,840.79 hours and 95,315 responses.

Nominations must contain a completed application packet that may be downloaded from the application website at https://nucfac.org/application-portal. This includes instructions on how to nominate and apply for a position. Note: As part of the application process, candidates will be required to submit a signed AD-755 Form (Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information) authorizing the Forest Service to perform a background check. The AD-755 Form should be encrypted and emailed separately to the address in the ADDRESSES section.

In accordance with FACA, the NUCFAC charter was renewed on June 2, 2022 and USDA is seeking nominations for membership to the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC). Members will advise the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service and related Federal agencies on urban and community forestry and related natural resources. The duties of NUCFAC include: developing a national urban and community forest action plan every ten years as described in the Act; evaluating the implementation of that plan by submitting to the Secretary annual accomplishments of the action plan and any amendments to the plan incorporated into this review, beginning no later than one year after the plan is submitted, and annually thereafter; and annually developing criteria for, and submitting recommendations with respect to, the topic categories and recommendations for grant awards for the Forest Service's National Urban and Community Forestry Challenge Cost Share Grant Program.

NUCFAC shall be comprised of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Membership will be fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and functions to be performed. In NUCFACs renewal of the committee, initial appointments will introduce staggered terms for its memberships —

1. 5, including the chairperson and 2 governmental employees, shall be appointed for a term of 3 years,

2. 5, including 2 governmental employees, shall be appointed for a term of 2 years, and

3. 5, including 2 governmental employees, shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, as designated by the Secretary at the time of appointment.

NUCFAC shall include representation from the following interest areas:

1. Two members representing national nonprofit forestry and conservation citizen organizations;

2. Three members, one each representing State, county, and city and town governments;

3. One member representing the forest products, nursery, or related industries;

4. One member representing urban forestry, landscape, or design consultants;

5. Two members representing academic institutions with an expertise in urban and community forestry activities;

6. One member representing state forestry agencies or equivalent state agencies;

7. One member representing a professional renewable natural resource or arboricultural society;

8. One member from National Institute of Food & Agriculture;

9. One member from the Forest Service; and

10. Two members who are not officers or employees of any governmental body, one of whom is a resident of a community with a population of less than 50,000 as of the most recent census and both of whom have expertise and have been active in urban and community forestry.

NUCFAC shall meet on a periodic and regular basis, at least bi-annually. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to serve on NUCFAC. Individuals may also nominate themselves. Applicants are asked to apply separately for each positions that they are eligible.

Letters of recommendations are welcome, but not required. All nominations will be vetted by USDA. The Secretary of Agriculture will appoint members to NUCFAC from the list of qualified applicants. Members of NUCFAC shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses while performing duties on behalf of NUCFAC, subject to approval of USDA.

USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to NUCFAC. To ensure that the recommendations of NUCFAC have taken in account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and person with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Committee meetings are available to the public through the Zoom link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. 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 through registering 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 in the regional office 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, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 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.

Members of the public can listen to these discussions. Committee meetings are available to the public through the above call in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. 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. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. 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 conference call number and conference ID number.

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

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs 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, Colorado 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 Unit at the above email or street address.

Members of the public can listen to these discussions. Committee meetings are available to the public through the above call in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. 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. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. 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 conference call number and conference ID number.

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

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs 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, Pennsylvania 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 Unit at the above email or street address.

The Census Bureau is planning two tribal consultations on October 18, 2022, in Anchorage, Alaska and October 31, 2022, in Sacramento, California, with federally recognized tribes, so tribes can provide feedback on the content and design of the 2020 Census Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (Detailed DHC-A) and Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File B (Detailed DHC-B). These two products are the successor products to the American Indian and Alaska Native Summary File (AIANSF) that was produced in previous censuses. The Detailed DHC-A provides population counts and sex by age statistics for approximately 370 detailed racial and ethnic groups, such as German, Lebanese, Jamaican, Chinese, Native Hawaiian, and Mexican, as well as about 1,200 detailed American Indian and Alaska Native tribal and village population groups, such as Native Village of Hooper Bay (Naparyarmiut) and Navajo Nation. The Detailed DHC-B provides household type and tenure information for the same detailed race and ethnicity groups and American Indian and Alaska Native tribal and village population groups.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, issued November 6, 2000, the Census Bureau has adhered to its tribal consultation policy by seeking the input of tribal governments in the planning and implementation of the 2020 Census with the goal of ensuring the most accurate counts and data for the American Indian and Alaska Native population. In that regard, the Census Bureau is seeking comments on the content and design of the 2020 Census Detailed DHC-A and Detailed DHC-B, which include data on detailed race and ethnic groups and American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages.

• Subjects: Population counts and sex by age statistics for approximately 370 detailed racial and ethnic groups, such as German, Lebanese, Jamaican, Chinese, Native Hawaiian, and Mexican, as well as about 1,200 detailed American Indian and Alaska Native tribal and village population groups, such as Native Village of Hooper Bay (Naparyarmiut) and Navajo Nation.

• The Detailed DHC-A implements an adaptive design that provides more detailed statistics for racial and ethnic groups with larger populations, while at the same time ensuring sufficient confidentiality protections.

• Access: data.census.gov.

• Proposed 2020 geographies: Nation, state, county, and American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) areas. We are evaluating the feasibility of adding places (cities and towns) and census tracts, per data user feedback.

• Planned release date: August 2023.

• Subjects: Household type and tenure information for the same detailed race and ethnicity groups and American Indian and Alaska Native tribal and village population groups mentioned for the Detailed DHC-A.

• The Detailed DHC-B has a proposed implementation of adaptive design similarly to Detailed DHC-A mentioned above.

• Access: data.census.gov.

• Proposed 2020 geographies: Nation, state, county, and American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) areas. We are evaluating the feasibility of adding places (cities and towns) and census tracts, per data user feedback.

• Release date: To be determined.

Submit your comments by email. Send comments to: 2020DAS@census.gov. Use the product name of either Detailed DHC-A or Detailed DHC-B in the subject line.

Robert L. Santos, Director, Census Bureau, approved the publication of this Notice in the Federal Register .

Executive Order 14017 of February 24, 2021, “Executive Order on America's Supply Chains” (hereafter “Executive Order” or “Order”) (86 FR 11849; February 24, 2021), outlines U.S. policy objectives with respect to strengthening the resilience of America's supply chains. The Executive Order directed various agencies to submit supply chain assessments, including a review of “the critical goods and materials, as defined by section 6(b) of this order, underlying the supply chain in question.” Relevant reports were released in June 2021 and February 2022.

Section 6(b) of the Order defines critical goods and materials as “goods and raw materials currently defined under statute or regulation as `critical' materials, technologies, or infrastructure.” For the purposes of better analyzing trade data and policies, Commerce has identified HTSUS codes that match to critical goods and materials in four of these supply chains, drawing upon the expertise of industry analysts. Each product is identified as either an input, capital good, or final good. The draft list of HTSUS codes, defined at the 8 and 10-digit level, is set out online at https://www.trade.gov/data-visualization/draft-list-critical-supply-chains.

This RFC offers an opportunity for all interested parties to provide relevant input and recommendations for consideration with respect to the draft list of critical goods and materials. Commerce is also interested in how products are used within a supply chain.

Please submit written comments on this draft list on or before November 3, 2022 to facilitate consideration. Commerce is requesting comments addressing the make-up of the draft list, including any recommended product additions or subtractions. For any product noted, please include:

Commenters should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment. All personal identifying information (for example, phone number and email) voluntarily submitted in any attachments by the commenter will be publicly accessible unless marked as Business Confidential Information (BCI). Instructions on business confidential submissions can be found below.

Commerce strongly prefers comments submitted using the public comment submission form posted on https://www.trade.gov/data-visualization/draft-list-critical-supply-chains and in the “Supporting & Related Material” section on https://www.regulations.gov in Docket ID ITA-2022-0010. Click on the top tab titled “View More Documents” of the docket to find the “Supporting & Related Material” section. In order to facilitate preparation of comments, a facsimile of the form is attached as an annex to this notice.

If you do not use the form, Commerce prefers submissions made in Microsoft Word (.doc) or searchable Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). If you use an application other than those two, please indicate the name of the application in the `comment' field. If you attach a document, it is sufficient to type “see attached” in the “comment” field.

Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the comment itself, rather than submitting them as separate files.

For any documents submitted electronically containing Business Confidential Information (BCI), the file name of the business confidential version should end with the characters “BC”. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is business confidential. Filers of submissions containing BCI also must submit a public version of their submissions. The file name of the public version should end with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should follow the rest of the file name. If these procedures are not sufficient to protect BCI or otherwise protect business interests, please contact Tobias Reynolds, International Economist, at (202) 482-6374 or SupplyChainsHS@trade.gov to discuss whether alternative arrangements are possible.

Commerce will post submissions in the docket for public inspection, except BCI. You can view submissions on the https://www.regulations.gov by entering Docket ID ITA-2022-0010 in the search field on the home page.

Please note: If you wish to recommend the addition or removal of multiple products at once, please attach a copy of this form for each product in your submission.

Commerce is particularly interested in how products are used within a supply chain.

Please refer back to the Federal Register notice associated with Docket ID ITA-2022-0010 on https://www.regulations.gov for additional submission information.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with an information collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 unless the information collection has a currently valid OMB Control Number. The approved OMB Control Number for this information collection is 0625-0143. Without this approval, we could not conduct this information collection. Public reporting for this information collection is estimated to be approximately 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. All responses to this information collection are voluntary. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the International Trade Administration, Attn: Tobias Reynolds at SupplyChainsHS@trade.gov.

On June 1, 2022, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the AD orders on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey, Taiwan, and Japan  1 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 On June 15, 2022, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate from the domestic interested parties  3 for the Orders within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 4 The domestic interested parties claimed domestic interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of domestic like product in the United States. 5 On June 30, 2022, the domestic interested parties submitted a timely substantive responses for each sunset review within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 6 Commerce did not receive a substantive response from any other interested parties with respect to the Orders covered by these sunset reviews. On July 21, 2022, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties in any of these sunset reviews. 7 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these Orders.

The merchandise subject to these Orders is steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof. Subject merchandise includes deformed steel wire with bar markings ( e.g., mill mark, size, or grade) and which has been subjected to an elongation test. For a full description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 8

All issues raised in these sunset reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if these Orders were revoked. A list of the issues discussed in the decision memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. A complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNotices/ListLayout.aspx.

Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins of up to 4.17 percent for Turkey, up to 32.01 percent for Taiwan, and up to 209.46 percent for Japan.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

Background

On May 10, 1991, Commerce published its antidumping duty order on cement and clinker from Japan. 1 On July 17, 2017, Commerce published the continuation notice from the most recent sunset review of the Order. 2 On June 1, 2022, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the five-year sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 3 On June 16, 2022, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate in this review from the Committee for Fairly Traded Japanese Cement (Committee) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 4 The Committee claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(E) of the Act, as a trade or business association, a majority of whose members manufacture, produce or wholesale a domestic like product in the United States. On July 1, 2022, the Committee provided a complete substantive response for this review within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 5 We received no substantive responses from other interested parties, nor was a hearing requested. On July 21, 2022, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties. 6 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce has conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order.

The products covered by the Order are cement and cement clinker from Japan. Cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Cement clinker, an intermediate material produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than grinding into finished cement. Microfine cement was specifically excluded from the Order. Cement is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading 2523.29 and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTS subheading 2523.10. Cement has also been entered under HTS subheading 2523.90 as “other hydraulic cements.” The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product covered by the Order. 7

Every five years, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct reviews to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in November 2022 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Reviews (Sunset Review).

No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in November 2022.

Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Review are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), Commerce will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact Commerce in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

Please note that if Commerce receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue.

Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation. Note that Commerce has modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 1

This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

On June 2, 2022, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 1 POSCO, the sole producer and exporter subject to the review, filed a hearing request on July 5, 2022, and withdrew its request on September 22, 2022. 2 In addition, POSCO filed a case brief, related to a single issue ( i.e., whether to grant POSCO a constructed export price offset), on July 8, 2022. 3 No other interested parties commented on the Preliminary Results. Because POSCO's final dumping margin is zero, the issue raised in POSCO's case brief is moot and we have not addressed it for purposes of these final results. Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

The scope of the Order includes certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. On April 8, 2019, Commerce excluded from the scope of the Order grade 1078 and higher tire cord quality wire rod used in the production of tire cord wire. 5 On June 13, 2019, Commerce excluded from the scope of the Order valve spring quality steel products defined as wire rod. 6 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Preliminary Results, we found that POSCO and PIC are affiliated and should be treated as a single entity, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). 7 No interested party commented on this preliminary finding. As the record contains no other information or evidence that calls into question our preliminary finding, we adopt the reasoning and findings of fact outlined in the Preliminary Results with respect to this issue. Therefore, we continue to find that POSCO and PIC should be treated as a single entity.

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2020, through April 30, 2021:

Because we have not modified our analysis, there are no new calculations to disclose in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(b) for the final results. We are adopting the Preliminary Results as the final results.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. 8 Because POSCO's weighted-average dumping margin is zero percent, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

In accordance with Commerce's practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by POSCO for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate if there is no company-specific rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for POSCO is equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously-investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter was not covered in this review or the investigation, but the producer was covered, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 41.10 percent, the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value investigation. 10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion in the webinar are as follows:

Participants will discuss data analysis for the SEDAR Procedural Workshop 8.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice 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.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 business days prior to each workshop.

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

At this meeting, the LKTKS Taskforce will: (a) receive an overview of Taskforce work products, namely the LKTKS protocol which includes the primary guidelines and onramps for identifying, analyzing, and including LKTKS information and expertise in the Council's decision-making process; (b) further develop the protocol and recommendations for LKTKS onramps; (c) discuss next steps and the timeline for remaining work timing of future to meet the Council's objectives for the Taskforce; and (d) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2954 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2954. If you are attending the meeting in-person, please note that all attendees will be encouraged to wear a mask.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2954 by 12 p.m. Alaska time on Monday, October 31, 2022. An opportunity for oral public testimony will also be provided during the meeting.

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

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant proposes to import marine mammal parts from up to 360 pilot whales ( Globicephala melas ) and 360 Atlantic white-sided dolphins ( Lagenorhynchus acutus ) to study temporal trends and toxicokinetics exposure. The parts have been or will be collected under other authorizations from 2016 and 2027 and archived at the Havstovan Faroe Marine Research Institute. The sources of parts include subsistence hunts, fisheries bycatch, or dead stranded carcasses in the Faroe Islands. The requested duration of the permit is 5 years.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The applicant requests a 5-year research permit to conduct scientific research on marine mammal parts to create a resource of cetacean pluripotent stem cells to aid basic biological research. The applicant would create and maintain cell lines from a total of 10 individual cetaceans representing 5 different species. The cell lines may be sent to Co-Investigators, including export to foreign countries.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Before making its final determinations, NMFS solicited and took into account public comments for how the plans address the criteria in § 223.203(b)(5). The determinations announced in this notice consist of NMFS' findings as to whether the plans submitted to NMFS meet the regulatory criteria.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) submitted the Touchet River Endemic Summer Steelhead HGMP. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) submitted the Umatilla River Summer Steelhead HGMP, the Round Butte Hatchery Spring Chinook Salmon HGMP, and the Round Butte Hatchery Summer Steelhead HGMP. The Umatilla Hatchery program is funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), as well as a small proportion of the Round Butte Hatchery programs, with the remainder of these programs funded by Portland General Electric (PGE).

Touchet River: The Touchet Endemic Steelhead Program is intended to conserve ESA-listed summer steelhead in the Touchet River, Washington, while also providing harvest opportunities and mitigating some of the effects of the development and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) in the Snake River Basin on fish and wildlife under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.

Umatilla River: The Umatilla River Steelhead Program is intended to conserve ESA-listed summer steelhead in the Umatilla River, Oregon, while also providing harvest opportunities. The BPA funds the program to mitigate for the effects of the development and operation of the FCRPS on fish and wildlife in the Columbia River and its tributaries under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act; 16 U.S.C. 839 et seq. ) in a manner consistent with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The BPA also funds the program to fulfill commitments to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) related to proposed projects that are identified for funding in the 2008 Columbia River Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement among the CTUIR, the CTWSRO, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, BPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Columbia Basin Fish Accords), as extended in 2018 (Fish Accord Extension).

Deschutes River: The Round Butte Spring Chinook Salmon and the Round Butte Summer Steelhead Programs are funded by PGE and CTWSRO under terms of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the Pelton Round Butte Project on the Deschutes River in Oregon. Under the FERC license, PGE and the CTWSRO need to restore native fish passage and improve fish habitat upstream of Round Butte Dam, and support the reintroductions of steelhead and Chinook Salmon above Round Butte Dam. Both programs also provide fish to mitigate for lost fishing opportunities downstream of the Pelton Round Butte Project.

Issaquah Hatchery: The purpose of the chinook and coho salmon programs at Issaquah hatchery is to produce salmon for sustainable fisheries (including those under the jurisdiction of the Magnuson-Stevens Act) and to facilitate the exercise of Treaty Indian fishing right entitlements ( U.S. v Washington ). The programs also provide educational opportunities for the citizens of the area through its Watershed Interpretive Center. Further, the coho program supplies salmon eggs to schools and 26 cooperative educational centers throughout the region.

University of Washington Aquatic Research Facility (UWARF) Fall Chinook Salmon: The purpose of the coho and Chinook salmon programs at UWARF are to support research programs ( e.g., University of Washington faculty, research scientists, graduate students; MIT; WDFW; and other affiliated research organizations such as NOAA Fisheries and USGS-Western Fisheries Research Center) and to support educational activities for undergraduate and graduate students within the University of Washington, MIT members, other Tribes, and the general public. The intent of the research program is to reduce genetic risk to natural populations and to maintain a gene pool that is separated from all natural populations.

The CTWSRO and ODFW have submitted HGMPs for two programs in the Hood River, Oregon (spring Chinook salmon and winter steelhead). The programs are funded by the BPA.

The goal of the Hood River spring Chinook salmon program is to re-establish and maintain a naturally sustaining spring Chinook salmon population in the Hood River, with sustainable and consistent in-basin tribal and sport harvest opportunities. The goals of the Hood River winter steelhead program are (1) to provide in-basin harvest opportunity for sport and tribal anglers, and (2) to increase the number of natural-origin spawners while maintaining the long-term fitness of the natural population and minimizing ecological and genetic impacts on other populations in the Hood River. The BPA funds the programs to mitigate for the effects of the development and operation of the FCRPS on fish and wildlife in the Columbia River and its tributaries under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act; 16 U.S.C. 839 et seq. ) in a manner consistent with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The BPA also funds the program to fulfill commitments to the CTWSRO related to proposed projects that are identified for funding in the 2008 Columbia River Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement among the CTUIR, the CTWSRO, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, BPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Columbia Basin Fish Accords), as extended in 2018 (Fish Accord Extension).

The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, the Skokomish Tribe, and the WDFW operate hatchery programs for sustainable fisheries (including those under the jurisdiction of the Magnuson-Stevens Act) and to facilitate exercise of Treaty Indian fishing right entitlements ( U.S. v Washington ). The operators requested changes to three HGMPs (Enetai fall chum, Hoodsport fall chum, Port Gamble coho) to provide additional forage to southern resident killer whales; a species listed as endangered under the ESA that relies on adult salmon as a food resource. The operators of the Hood Canal steelhead supplementation program propose to investigate genetic effects of natural-origin steelhead dispersal throughout the Hood Canal Basin. The operators of the Hoodsport fall Chinook salmon program also propose to investigate the effects of release timing on survival of adult fall Chinook salmon; a non-ESA-listed stock.

All of the HGMPs submitted to NMFS are consistent with the recovery plans for each of the ESA-listed species and are designed to aid in conserving their populations across the ESU and/or DPS range. NMFS, through its evaluation, has determined each of the programs are designed and operated to ensure that the impacts on ESA-listed natural-origin Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, and steelhead populations will not appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of listed species. The programs use adaptive management procedures and the best available science to reduce adverse genetic effects and lessen competition and predation impacts typically associated with salmon and steelhead hatchery programs. Monitoring and evaluation will be implemented to assess the performance of each program in meeting population conservation or harvest augmentation objectives, and their effects on ESA-listed natural-origin Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, and steelhead. The information gained through monitoring and evaluation will be used to assess whether the impacts of the programs on listed fish remain consistent with NMFS' determinations.

Review of monitoring and evaluation results by NMFS and the co-managers will occur annually to evaluate whether assumptions regarding the hatchery programs and their effects and analysis remain valid and whether the objectives are being accomplished. The HGMPs include provisions for annual reports that will assess compliance with performance standards established through the HGMPs. Reporting and inclusion of new information derived from HGMPs' research, monitoring, and evaluation activities assures that performance standards will be achieved in future seasons.

NMFS published a notice of availability for public review and comment on four Mid-Columbia HGMPs and the proposed evaluation and pending determination (PEPD) for the two Hood River programs on July 14, 2020 (85 FR 42361), as required under Limit 5 and Limit 6 of the ESA section 4(d) Rule, respectively. The PEPD and HGMPs were available for public review and comment for 30 days.

NMFS published a notice of availability for public review and comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on July 14, 2020 (85 FR 42361), 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.

No comments were received on the PEPD, HGMPs, or the DEA.

NMFS published a notice of its PEPD on the five hatchery programs for public review and comment on August 27, 2021 (86 FR 48125, August 27, 2021), as required under Limit 6 of the ESA section 4(d) Rule. The PEPD was available for public review and comment for 30 days. No comments were received on the PEPD.

NMFS published a notice of availability for public review and comment on the DEA on August 27, 2021 (85 FR 48125, August 27, 2021), in accordance with NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The DEA was available for public review and comment for 30 days. NMFS received four comments on the DEA; though none of the comments had specific information or supporting documentation to warrant a change in the proposed action or the analysis contained in the DEA.

NMFS published a notice of its PEPD on five hatchery programs for public review and comment on November 10, 2021 (86 FR 62517), as required under Limit 6 of the ESA section 4(d) Rule. The PEPD was available for public review and comment for 30 days. No comments were received on the PEPD.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d).

The SSC meeting agenda topics will include: SSC review and discussion of the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) interim analysis strategy, management strategy evaluation (MSE) model for the snapper grouper fishery, an update from the NOAA Fisheries National MSE Technical Workgroup, red snapper recruitment patterns in the South Atlantic, SEFSC project on minimizing discards in the snapper grouper fishery, Release Mortality Reduction Framework Amendment 35 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan, Spanish mackerel revised operational assessment review, greater amberjack estimation project update, review of terms of reference and Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) schedule for golden tilefish and blueline tilefish, report on the National SSC meeting, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports review, fishery management plan amendment updates, and other business as needed.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) 5 days prior to the meeting.

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

The Charter Halibut Management Committee will meet to make recommendations on management measures to analyze for the 2023 season. First the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) will go over the final numbers for 2021 and preliminary harvest and effort numbers for 2022. Then the committee will discuss development of the 2023 management measures for analysis. The Committee will also discuss upcoming meetings and any other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2956 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2956.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2956.

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

The USPTO is seeking public input and guidance on proposed initiatives directed at bolstering the robustness and reliability of patents. These initiatives are meant to ensure that the patent rights granted by the USPTO fulfill their intended purpose of furthering the common good, incentivizing innovation, and promoting economic prosperity.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order (E.O.) on “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” 86 FR 36987 (July 14, 2021) (“Competition E.O.”). To advance the Biden Administration's goals of promoting access to prescription pharmaceuticals for American families and increasing competition in the marketplace, section 5(p)(vi) of the E.O. directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) “to help ensure that the patent system, while incentivizing innovation, does not also unjustifiably delay generic drug and biosimilar competition beyond that reasonably contemplated by applicable law.” In particular, section 5(p)(vi) of the E.O. directs the HHS Secretary, “through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs” and “not later than 45 days after the date of this order,” to “write a letter to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office enumerating and describing any relevant concerns of the FDA.”

In response to the Competition E.O., on September 10, 2021, the FDA sent a letter to the USPTO outlining ideas for further engagement with the USPTO. On July 6, 2022, the USPTO sent a responsive letter (USPTO Letter) discussing specific initiatives the USPTO was exploring to further promote robust and reliable patent rights across all technology areas and suggesting additional ways in which the USPTO could work with the FDA to ensure that our patent system properly and adequately protects innovation while not unnecessarily delaying generic and biosimilar competition, which provides more affordable versions of pharmaceuticals for Americans who need them. The Competition E.O. and the letters are available at www.uspto.gov/initiatives/drug-pricing-initiatives .

The USPTO Letter explains that the United States is a global leader in the development of drugs and biologics due to its strong patent system. Robust and reliable patents are needed to incentivize and protect the immense research and development investment essential to bringing such products to market and to spur the collaboration necessary for quick and speedy drug and biologic development. Our laws also strive to ensure that our system, as a whole, does not unnecessarily delay generic and biosimilar competition, which provide cost savings to Americans when they purchase pharmaceutical products.

To further the objectives of the Competition E.O., the USPTO recently outlined initiatives to execute the President's agenda. The USPTO's initiatives to ensure robust and reliable patents, as discussed in Paragraph 2 of the USPTO Letter, are reproduced below.

A primary intention of this RFC is to seek written public comments on the initiatives described in the USPTO Letter reproduced above (2(a)-2(i)), and as reflected in questions 1-5 below. The questions in this RFC focus on some of these initiatives, and the USPTO plans to issue an additional RFC that will address other initiatives and additional topics concerning improvements to the patent application process, including, without limitation, enhancing the information disclosure statement process, increasing clarity and certainty in functional claiming, and transcribing inventor interviews.

On June 8, 2022, the USPTO received a letter from United States Senators Leahy, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Cornyn, Collins and Braun raising a concern about “large numbers of patents that cover a single product or minor variations on a single product, commonly known as patent thickets.” In the letter, the Senators commented that the practice of obtaining large numbers of patents on a single drug product “impedes generic drugs' production, hurts competition, and can even extend exclusivity beyond the congressionally mandated patent term.” The Senators requested that the USPTO consider changes to its regulations and practices by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking or a public RFC on a list of six questions. We are including the Senators' six questions in this RFC (questions 6-11 below) and welcome feedback on them, in addition to the proposed USPTO initiatives as reflected in questions 1-5 below.

The USPTO Letter, section 2(b), indicates the USPTO “is exploring additional technology and resources of prior art.” Patent examiners have access to many resources for searching for prior art during the examination of patent applications. The new Patents End-to-End Search system includes access to U.S. patents and pre-grant publications and more than 76 million foreign patent documents with high-quality English translations and new, improved search capabilities. In addition, examiners search general and technology-specific databases for non-patent prior art and are provided the services of trained professional online search personnel for non-patent prior art searching. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 904. In question 1 below, the USPTO seeks public input on specific sources of prior art to ensure that patent examiners have access to the most relevant information. Specifically, the USPTO seeks public input on robust sources of technology-specific, non-patent literature. The USPTO also seeks public input on best practices to ensure that examiners are aware of public use and on-sale activity that is relevant to examination.

The USPTO Letter, section 2(e), indicates the USPTO will “[c]onsider applying greater scrutiny to continuation applications in large families.” More broadly, to ensure that all claims are properly supported by the specification, greater scrutiny should be considered any time the claims presented do not form part of the original specification or specifications on which the claims rely for priority, i.e., when new claims are presented in continuing applications ( e.g., continuation, continuation-in-part, and divisional applications) as well as when new claims are presented or claims are amended during prosecution. In all such circumstances, because such new claims and amendments to claims may not have support under 35 U.S.C. 112 since they do not form part of the original specification, these new and amended claims require additional scrutiny to: (1) ensure they have proper written description and enablement support in the application itself, see 35 U.S.C. 112(a); and (2) ensure they have proper written description and enablement support in the application from which they claim entitlement to the benefit of an earlier filing date ( e.g., a benefit or priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365). Because an examiner must establish the effective filing date of each claim in order to identify applicable prior art and evaluate the claims for compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, examiners often spend a significant amount of time, particularly on continuing applications, or applications that contain numerous benefit or priority claims, evaluating issues related to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) ( e.g., ascertaining the filing date of individual claims).

Currently, the MPEP states that applicants “should” show “support” for claims during prosecution. See, e.g., MPEP 2163 II.A. (“With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims.”). By contrast, the reexamination and reissue rules (rules 1.530(e) and 1.173(c), respectively) require that during reexamination or reissue proceedings, patentees “must” supply an “explanation of the support in the disclosure” for new and amended claims:

Similarly, in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings, motions to amend “must” set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended.” 37 CFR 42.121(b)(1), 42.221(b)(1). In promulgating rules related to motions to amend, the Office explained that the rules “enhance efficiency,” for example, because the PTAB may deny the motion to amend when the patent owner cannot show support for the new claims, as opposed to a more burdensome procedure of entering the amendment and then substantively rejecting the claims. 77 FR 48680, 48706, Col. 2 to 3 (Aug. 14, 2012); later amended in 85 FR 82923 (Dec. 21, 2021) (placing the burden of persuasion on the patent owner to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the motion to amend complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 316(d)(1) and (3); 37 CFR 42.121(a)(2), (a)(3), b(1), and (b)(2); and 42.221(a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(1), and (b)(2)).

As detailed further in question 2 below, the USPTO seeks input on the impact of applying a similar approach to all applications and whether any change would enhance the public record and reduce the burden on examiners. This approach would impose minimal burden on applicants because they are required to file claims that “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification,” with claim terms that “find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).

With rare exception, after an examiner closes prosecution, including after the mailing of a notice of allowance or when an appeal has been taken to the PTAB, an applicant may file an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114. Upon receipt of an appropriate RCE, the examiner will reopen prosecution and issue another action. Currently, this cycle may proceed indefinitely, subject only to a finding of prosecution laches. See MPEP 706.07(h) and 2190. The USPTO seeks input through question 3 below on this current practice and whether there should be internal process changes once the number of RCEs filed in an application reaches a certain threshold, such as transferring the application to a new examiner or increasing the scrutiny given in the examination of the application.

In situations in which two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in a single patent application, the USPTO is authorized by the patent laws and implementing regulations to require the applicant to restrict the application to one invention. The practice for requiring an applicant to restrict an application to one invention in such situations is known as restriction practice. See MPEP 800.

According to the USPTO's records, the number of divisional applications fell from more than 21,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2010 to fewer than 15,500 in FY 2021, while the total application filings increased significantly. At the same time, the filing of continuation applications increased significantly. The USPTO has received feedback that one reason many continuing applications are filed is related to restriction practice. See MPEP 800.

With respect to question 4 below, the USPTO seeks input on improvements to restriction practice, including by allowing for the examination of two or more distinct inventions in the same proceeding in a manner similar to the practice authorized by 37 CFR 1.129(b), and also seeks input on whether any offset to patent term adjustment should be considered in such cases. The USPTO also seeks input on whether the burden requirement before the examiner to impose a restriction should be revised, and if so, how. See MPEP 808.02. In particular, the USPTO seeks input on whether it should adjust the method by which an examiner appropriately establishes burden. The USPTO also seeks input on its restriction practice with respect to Markush claims. See MPEP 803.02. For example, the USPTO seeks input on whether the applicant should be authorized to suggest how the scope of the claim searched should be expanded if the elected species is not found in an effort to present closely related inventions for consideration together. The USPTO also seeks input on the advantages, or disadvantages, of unity of invention practice as compared to restriction practice.

Additionally, with respect to question 4 below the USPTO seeks feedback on serial filings of divisional applications, including whether the current practice of authorizing the filing of divisional applications in a series should be revised to require all divisional applications to be filed within a set period of time after the restriction requirement is made final and after any petition for review has been resolved.

Specifically, the USPTO also seeks feedback on guidance, petition practice, rejoinder, and harmonization with respect to restriction practice. The USPTO seeks input on whether to make changes to the rejoinder practice after a final rejection has been made. See MPEP 821.04(a). For example, the USPTO seeks input on whether applicants should be given a certain time period after final rejection to provide appropriate claims for rejoinder.

As a corollary to restriction practice, non-statutory double patenting occurs when a patent owner tries to secure a patent for a patentably indistinct variation of the same invention, or otherwise tries to obtain an unjustified timewise extension of patent rights. See MPEP 804 and 1504.06. A common form of non-statutory double patenting occurs when a patent owner files a patent application claiming an obvious variation of the innovation covered by another of their own patents. In these instances, under current practices, a patent applicant is required to file a terminal disclaimer so that the later patent application on an obvious variant of an earlier-patented invention may not be used to extend the term of patent protection. Although a terminal disclaimer ensures that the later patent will remain commonly owned with and have the same patent term as the earlier patent, multiple patents directed to obvious variants of an invention could potentially deter competition if the number of patents is prohibitively expensive to challenge in post-grant proceedings before PTAB and in district court. Also, multiple patents directed to obvious variants of an invention can pose a heavy burden on examiners because examiners are required to compare the claims in these multiple patents and pending applications to determine if the claims are patentably indistinct from one another such that a non-statutory double patenting rejection is proper. The USPTO seeks input, through question 4 below, on whether any changes need to be made to the patent system regarding non-statutory double patenting.

The USPTO invites written responses to the following questions and requests. Commenters are welcome to respond to any or all of the questions.

1. Identify any specific sources of prior art not currently available through the Patents End-to-End Search system that you believe examiners should be searching. How should the USPTO facilitate an applicant's submission of prior art that is not accessible in the Patents End-to-End Search system ( e.g., “on sale” or prior public use)?

2. How, if at all, should the USPTO change claim support and/or continuation practice to achieve the aims of fostering innovation, competition, and access to information through robust and reliable patents? Specifically, should the USPTO:

a. require applicants to explain or identify the corresponding support in the written description for each claim, or claim limitation, upon the original presentation of the claim(s), and/or upon any subsequent amendment to the claim(s) (including requiring a showing of express or inherent support in the written description for negative claim limitations)?

b. require applicants to explain or identify the corresponding support for each claim, or claim limitation, in the written description of every prior-filed application for which the benefit of an earlier filing date is sought, under, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365?

c. require applicants to explain or identify the corresponding support for each claim, or claim limitation, in the written description of every prior-filed application for which the benefit of an earlier filing date is sought, under, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 (including requiring such support whenever a benefit or priority claim is presented, including upon the filing of a petition for a delayed benefit or priority claim and upon the filing of a request for a certificate of correction to add a benefit or priority claim)?

d. make clear that claims must find clear support and antecedent basis in the written description by replacing the “or” in 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) with an “and” as follows: “The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification, and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or and antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description?”

e. require applicants to provide detailed analysis showing support for genus or Markush claims, and require applicants to identify each claim limitation that is a genus, and explain or identify the corresponding support in the written description for each species encompassed in the claimed genus?

f. require applicants to describe what subject matter is new in continuing applications ( e.g., continuation, continuation-in-part, and divisional applications) to explain or identify subject matter that has been added, deleted, or changed in the disclosure of the application, as compared to the parent application(s)?

3. How, if at all, should the USPTO change RCE practice to achieve the aims of fostering innovation, competition, and access to information through robust and reliable patents? Specifically, should the USPTO implement internal process changes once the number of RCEs filed in an application reaches a certain threshold, such as transferring the application to a new examiner or increasing the scrutiny given in the examination of the application?

4. How, if at all, should the USPTO limit or change restriction, divisional, rejoinder, and/or non-statutory double patenting practice to achieve the aims of fostering innovation, competition, and access to information through robust and reliable patents? Specifically, should the USPTO:

a. allow for the examination of two or more distinct inventions in the same proceeding in a manner similar to the practice authorized by 37 CFR 1.129(b), and, if so, consider an offset to patent term adjustment in such cases?

b. revise the burden requirement before the examiner to impose a restriction, and if so, how?

c. adjust the method by which an examiner appropriately establishes burden for imposing a restriction requirement?

d. authorize applicants, in the case of a Markush group, to suggest how the scope of the claim searched should be expanded if the elected species is not found in an effort to present closely related inventions for consideration together?

e. adopt a unity of invention requirement in place of the restriction requirement?

f. revise the current practice of authorizing the filing of divisional applications in a series to require all divisional applications to be filed within a set period of time after the restriction requirement is made final and after any petition for review has been resolved?

g. make changes to the rejoinder practice after a final rejection has been made, such as giving applicants a certain time period after final rejection to provide appropriate claims for rejoinder?

h. limit or change non-statutory double patenting practice, including requiring applicants seeking patents on obvious variations to prior claims to stipulate that the claims are not patentably distinct from the previously considered claims as a condition of filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection; rejecting such claims as not differing substantially from each other or as unduly multiplied under 37 CFR 1.75; and/or requiring a common applicant or assignee to include all patentably indistinct claims in a single application or to explain a good and sufficient reason for retaining patentably indistinct claims in two or more applications? See 37 CFR 1.78(f).

5. Please provide any other input on any of the proposals listed under initiatives 2(a)-2(i) of the USPTO Letter, or any other suggestions to achieve the aims of fostering innovation, competition, and access to information through robust and reliable patents.

The USPTO also invites public input on the following questions, which are presented verbatim (except for minor changes to internal citation format) as they appeared in the June 8 letter from Members of Congress. Any comments relating to fee setting will be taken into consideration when the USPTO takes up fee setting more broadly.

6. Terminal disclaimers, allowed under 37 CFR 1.321(d), allow applicants to receive patents that are obvious variations of each other as long as the expiration dates match. How would eliminating terminal disclaimers, thus prohibiting patents that are obvious variations of each other, affect patent prosecution strategies and patent quality overall?

7. Currently, patents tied together with a terminal disclaimer after an obviousness-type double patent rejection must be separately challenged on validity grounds. However, if these patents are obvious variations of each other, should the filing of a terminal disclaimer be an admission of obviousness? And if so, would these patents, when their validity is challenged after issuance, stand and fall together?

8. Should the USPTO require a second look, by a team of patent quality specialists, before issuing a continuation patent on a first office action, with special emphasis on whether the claims satisfy the written description, enablement, and definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, and whether the claims do not cover the same invention as a related application?

9. Should there be heightened examination requirements for continuation patents, to ensure that minor modifications do not receive second or subsequent patents?

10. The Patent Act requires the USPTO Director to set a “time during the pendency of the [original] application” in which continuation status may be filed. Currently there is no time limit relative to the original application. Can the USPTO implement a rule change that requires any continuation application to be filed within a set timeframe of the ultimate parent application? What is the appropriate timeframe after the applicant files an application before the applicant should know what types of inventions the patent will actually cover? Would a benchmark ( e.g., within six months of the first office action on the earliest application in a family) be preferable to a specific deadline ( e.g., one year after the earliest application in a family)?

11. The USPTO has fee-setting authority and has set [fees] for filing, search, and examination of applications below the actual costs of carrying out these activities, while maintenance fees for issued patents are above the actual cost. If the up-front fees reflected the actual cost of obtaining a patent, would this increase patent quality by discouraging filing of patents unlikely to succeed? Similarly, if fees for continuation applications were increased above the initial filing fees, would examination be more thorough and would applicants be less likely to use continuations to cover, for example, inventions that are obvious variations of each other?

A patent owner in an AIA trial proceeding may file an MTA as a matter of right. See 35 U.S.C. 316(d)(1), 326(d)(1). After receiving public feedback about the PTAB's MTA practice, in October 2018 the USPTO published a Request for Comments in the Federal Register seeking written public comments on a proposed amendment process in AIA trials that would involve preliminary guidance from the PTAB on the merits of an MTA and an opportunity for a patent owner to file a revised MTA. See Request for Comments on MTA Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 FR 54319 (Oct. 29, 2018). The majority of comments supported the PTAB issuing preliminary guidance in cases involving an MTA, and commenters were almost evenly mixed in supporting or opposing the opportunity for a patent owner to file a revised MTA.

On March 15, 2019, in response to these public comments, the USPTO issued a Federal Register Notice detailing the MTA Pilot Program. See Notice Regarding a New Pilot Program Concerning Motion To Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 84 FR 9497 (Mar. 15, 2019). The MTA Pilot Program provides a patent owner with two options not previously available: (1) a patent owner may choose to receive preliminary guidance from the PTAB on its MTA; and (2) a patent owner may choose to file a revised MTA after receiving a petitioner's opposition to the original MTA and/or the PTAB's preliminary guidance (if requested). If a patent owner does not elect either option, then AIA trial practice, including MTA practice, is essentially unchanged from the practice prior to the implementation of the MTA Pilot Program.

The USPTO subsequently extended the MTA Pilot Program on September 16, 2021, to run through September 16, 2022. The USPTO presented the results of the MTA Pilot Program through March 31, 2022, in Installment 7 of the Motion to Amend Study. The most recent information and statistics related to MTAs are available on the USPTO's website at www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/motions-amend-study.

Now that stakeholders have had experience with the MTA Pilot Program, as well as access to the results of the Motion to Amend Study, the USPTO plans to issue a Request for Comments regarding the MTA Pilot Program to gather stakeholder feedback and suggestions on the program and on amendment practice generally and to determine whether to make the program permanent through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The USPTO is extending the MTA Pilot Program for a second time, through September 16, 2024, while it gathers public input. The requirements for the program remain as set forth in the original notice without modification.

Ex parte appeals to the Board are normally taken up for decision in the order in which they are docketed. See USPTO Standard Operating Procedure 1, Assignment of judges to panels (Sept. 20, 2018), available at www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/resources. Currently, the average appeal pendency is about 12 months, down from 15 months in 2020, and 30 months in 2015. See the PTAB statistics available at www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/statistics. A small number of ex parte appeals are advanced out of turn, for example, because the appealed case is a reissue application or a reexamination proceeding, or because the appealed case was accorded special status in light of an inventor's advanced age or poor health.

On July 2, 2020, the PTAB adopted, on a temporary basis, the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program, under which appellants may have an ex parte appeal to the Board advanced out of turn by filing a petition under 37 CFR 41.3 and paying the petition fee specified in 37 CFR 41.20(a). See Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program (85 FR 39888, July 2, 2020) (Fast-Track Notice). The PTAB extended the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program on July 12, 2021. See Extension of the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program (86 FR 36530, July 12, 2021) (First Extension). The Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program permits appellants to accelerate the Board's decision on an ex parte appeal, hastening patentability determinations and the potential for commercialization of products or services embodying those patented inventions. This helps spur follow-on innovation, economic growth, and job creation. The USPTO's form for the Fast-Track petition, Form PTO/SB/451, is available at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012.

The original Fast-Track Notice required, among other things, that appellants file a petition before July 2, 2021, to participate in the program. The Fast-Track Notice also set a maximum number of 500 appeals that may be advanced through Fast-Track petitions. The First Extension required that a petition be filed before July 2, 2022, to participate in the program. The First Extension removed the maximum number of 500 appeals, but it maintained a maximum number of 125 Fast-Track petitions granted per quarter.

The Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program is hereby extended to accept petitions for advancing out of turn ( i.e., providing “Fast-Track status”) to ex parte appeals through July 2, 2024. The requirements for the program remain the same as those established in the original notice ( see Fast-Track Notice, 85 FR 39888), with the following modification regarding the petition limit.

Consistent with the First Extension, there is no upper limit of 500 total granted Fast-Track petitions. However, to maintain the Board's ability to provide this faster appeal option while timely resolving other appeals, the number of granted petitions in the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program remains limited to 125 granted petitions per quarter. If a quarterly limit is reached, the PTAB retains the flexibility to accept additional petitions, either for consideration in that quarter or in the next quarter.

The USPTO tracks the number of petitions it grants, the average time it takes to answer petitions, and the average time for the Board to render a decision on the merits of the ex parte appeal after a petition grant. These statistics may be viewed at www.uspto.gov/PTABFastTrack.

Title of Collection: Truth in Savings (Regulation DD).

OMB Control Number: 3170-0004.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Private sector: businesses or other for-profits.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 146.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 19,000.

Abstract: The Truth in Savings Act (TISA), 12 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. was enacted to enhance economic stability, improve competition between depository institutions, and strengthen consumer ability to make informed decisions regarding deposit accounts by requiring uniformity in the disclosure of interest rates and fees. TISA assists consumers in comparing deposit accounts offered by depository institutions, principally through the disclosure of fees, the annual percentage yield, the interest rate, and other account terms. TISA and Regulation DD require depository institutions to disclose yields, fees, and other terms concerning deposit accounts to consumers at account opening, upon request, and when changes in terms occur. Depository institutions that provide periodic statements are required to include information about fees imposed, interest earned, and the annual percentage yield earned during those statement periods. TISA and Regulation DD mandate the methods by which institutions determine the account balance on which interest is calculated. They also contain rules about advertising deposit accounts and overdraft services. Regulation DD requires depository institutions subject to TISA to retain evidence of compliance with the regulation. These recordkeeping requirements ensure that records that might contain evidence of violations of TISA remain available to Federal enforcement agencies, as well as to private litigants.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance 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. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title of Collection: Generic Information Collection Plan for Qualitative Consumer Education, Engagement and Experience Information Collections.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0036.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; State, local, or tribal governments; private sector.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 48,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 36,000.

Abstract: Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, section 1021(c)) one of the Bureau's primary functions is to conduct financial education programs. The Bureau seeks to obtain approval of a generic information collection plan to collect qualitative data on effective financial education strategies and consumer experiences in the financial marketplace from a variety of respondents (including financial educators and consumers). The Bureau will collect this information through a variety of methods including in-person meetings, interviews, focus groups, qualitative surveys, online discussion forums, social media polls, and other qualitative methods as necessary. The information collected through these processes will increase the Bureau's understanding of consumers' financial experiences, financial education and empowerment programs, and practices that can improve financial decision-making skills and outcomes for consumers. This information will also enable the Bureau to better communicate to consumers about the availability of Bureau tools and resources that consumers can use to make better informed financial decisions.

Request for Comments: The Bureau published a 60-day Federal Register notice on July 27, 2022 (87 FR 45088) under Docket Number: CFPB-2022-0051. The Bureau is publishing this notice and soliciting comments on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance 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. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be reviewed by OMB as part of its review of this request. All comments will become a matter of public record.

On August 3, 2022, the Council on Environmental Quality published an RFI to solicit feedback on the vision, framework, and outcomes of the Environmental Justice Scorecard. The original deadline to submit responses was October 3, 2022. This notice extends the period for response by 30 days to provide the public with additional time to provide feedback. CEQ is providing this additional time in response to public requests for an extension of the response period. Written responses should be submitted on or before November 3, 2022.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The SBMH program provides competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30)), local educational agencies (LEAs) (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49), and consortia of LEAs to increase the number of credentialed (as defined in this document) school-based mental health services providers (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7112(6)) providing mental health services to students in LEAs with demonstrated need (as defined in this document).

Background:

Like good physical health, positive mental health promotes success in life. As defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Mental health includes our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It affects how we think, feel, and act. It also helps determine how we handle stress, relate to others, and make healthy choices. Mental health is important at every stage of life, from childhood and adolescence through adulthood.”  1

The increases in mental health needs, including those resulting from traumatic events such as the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, community violence, and adverse childhood experiences, have brought on challenges for children and youth that impact their overall emotional, psychological, and social well-being and their ability to fully engage in learning. The disruptions in routines, relationships, and the learning environment have led to increased stress and trauma, social isolation, and anxiety.

The Department aims to help address these mental health needs and provide support to students, families, and schools by using the increased funds available from the FY 2022 Appropriations Act and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to dramatically increase the number of credentialed school-based mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need through awards in FYs 2022-2026 under the SBMH grant program. The priorities for the FY 2022 competition, described further in this notice, are intended to accomplish this goal by increasing recruitment and retention-related incentives for school-based mental health services providers; promoting the respecialization and professional retraining of existing mental health services providers to qualify them for work in LEAs with demonstrated need; and increasing the diversity, and cultural and linguistic competency, of school-based mental health services providers, including competency in providing identity-safe services.

Note: The provision of medical services by such services providers is not an allowable use of funds under this grant.

Priorities: This competition has two absolute priorities and two competitive preference priorities. These priorities are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

Absolute Priority: For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet these absolute priorities. Absolute Priority 1 is only applicable to SEAs. Absolute Priority 2 is only applicable to LEAs or consortia of LEAs.

These priorities are:

Priority 1—SEAs Proposing to Increase the Number of Credentialed School-Based Mental Health Services Providers in LEAs with Demonstrated Need.

To meet this priority, an SEA must propose to increase the number of credentialed school-based mental health services providers by implementing plans that address recruitment (as defined in this document) and retention (as defined in this document) of services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need. Applicants must propose plans that include both of the following:

(a) Recruitment. An applicant must propose a plan to increase the number of credentialed services providers serving students in LEAs with demonstrated need.

(b) Retention. An applicant must also propose a plan to increase the likelihood that credentialed services providers providing services in LEAs with demonstrated need stay in their position over time.

Priority 2—LEAs or Consortia of LEAs with Demonstrated Need Proposing to Increase the Number of Credentialed School-Based Mental Health Services Providers.

To meet this priority, an LEA or consortium of LEAs with demonstrated need must propose measures to increase the number of credentialed school-based mental health services providers, including plans to address the recruitment and retention of credentialed services providers in the LEA(s). Applicants must propose plans that include both of the following:

(a) Recruitment. An applicant must propose a plan to increase the number of credentialed services providers serving students in the LEA(s) with demonstrated need.

(b) Retention. An applicant must also propose a plan to improve the likelihood that credentialed services providers providing services in the LEA(s) with demonstrated need stay in their position over time.

Note: The Secretary intends to create two funding slates for SBMH applications, one for applications that meet Absolute Priority 1 (SEA applicants) and a separate slate for applications that meet Absolute Priority 2 (LEA or a consortium of LEA applicants). As a result, the Secretary may fund applications out of the overall rank order.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional 5 points for Competitive Preference Priority 1 to any application from an SEA that addresses this priority. We award up to an additional 10 points for Competitive Preference Priority 2 to any application from an SEA, LEA, or consortium of LEAs, depending on how well the application meets the priority. The total number of competitive preference points an SEA applicant may compete for is 15. The total number of competitive preference points an LEA or consortium of LEAs applicant may compete for is 10. As stated previously, these entities will not be competing against one another.

An applicant must clearly identify in the project abstract and the project narrative section of its application the competitive preference priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—SEAs Proposing Respecialization, Professional Retraining, or Other Preparation Plan for Existing Mental Health Services Providers to Qualify Them for Work in LEAs with Demonstrated Need. (Up to 5 points)

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a respecialization (as defined in this document), professional retraining, or other preparation plan that leads to a state credential as a school psychologist, school social worker, school counselor, or other school-based mental health services provider and that is designed to increase the number of services providers qualified to serve in LEAs with demonstrated need.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Increasing the Number of Credentialed School-Based Mental Health Services Providers in LEAs with Demonstrated Need Who Are from Diverse Backgrounds or from Communities Served by the LEAs with Demonstrated Need. (Up to 10 Points)

To meet this priority, applicants must propose a plan to increase the number of credentialed school-based mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need who are from diverse backgrounds or who are from communities served by the LEAs with demonstrated need. 2

Applicants must describe how their proposal to increase the number of school-based mental health services providers who are from diverse backgrounds or who are from the communities served by the LEA with demonstrated need will help increase access to mental health services for students within the LEA with demonstrated need and best meet the mental health needs of the diverse populations of students to be served.

Requirements: These requirements are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . We are establishing these application and program requirements for the FY 2022 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition. Application requirement (a) would apply to SEAs only, and application requirement (b) would apply to LEAs or a consortium of LEAs only. All of the remaining application requirements would apply to all eligible applicants. For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following requirements apply:

Eligible Applicants: SEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49), or LEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30), including consortia of LEAs.

Program Requirements:

(a) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school-based mental health services provider hired under this grant, including any services provider that offers telehealth services, is credentialed by the State to work in an elementary school (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(19)) or secondary school (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(45)).

(b) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school-based mental health services provider offering services (including telehealth services) does so in an equitable manner and consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as all other applicable Federal, State, and local laws and profession-specific ethical obligations.

Application Requirements:

(a) Describe the LEAs with demonstrated need designated by the SEA to be served by the proposed project.

SEA applicants must describe the LEAs with demonstrated need designated to benefit from the SBMH program.

(b) Describe how the LEA, or each LEA in the proposed consortium (if applicable), meets the definition of an LEA with demonstrated need.

To meet this requirement, an LEA applicant or the lead LEA submitting an application on behalf of a consortium must describe how the LEA or each LEA in the consortium meets the definition of an LEA with demonstrated need.

(c) Describe the importance and magnitude of the problem.

Applicants must describe the lack of school-based mental health services providers and its effect on students in the LEA(s) to be served by the grant. This must include a description of the nature of the problem for the LEA(s), based on information, including, but not limited to, the most recent available ratios of school-based mental health services providers to students enrolled in the LEA(s), or for SEA applicants, the LEAs designated by the SEA to benefit from the SBMH program. These data must be provided in the aggregate and disaggregated by profession ( e.g., school social workers, school psychologists, school counselors) as compared to local, State, or national data. The description may also include LEA-level or school-level demographic data (including rates of poverty; rates of chronic absenteeism; the percentage of students involved in the juvenile justice system, experiencing homelessness, or in foster care; and discipline data), school climate surveys, school violence/crime data, data related to suicide rates, and descriptions of barriers to hiring and retaining credentialed school-based mental health services providers in the LEA.

(d) Logic Model.

The applicant must describe its approach to increase the number of credentialed school-based mental health services providers using a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), including the key project components and relevant outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1). The description should indicate how the proposed approach taken under this program will improve or expand on any previous approaches, how the new approach will address barriers, and how the applicant will sustain the increased number of school-based mental health services providers after the performance period has ended.

(e) Detailed project budget, including matching funds.

To promote the sustainability of the school-based mental health services, all applicants must include non-Federal matching funds in the amount of at least 25 percent of their budgets.

Budgets must describe how the applicant will meet the matching requirement for each budget period awarded under this grant and must indicate the source of the funds, such as State, local, or private resources. The Secretary may consider decreasing or waiving the matching requirement post award, on a case-by-case basis, if an applicant demonstrates a significant financial hardship.

Budgets must also specify the portion of funds that will be used for respecialization, if applicable.

Administrative costs for SEA applicants may not exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award. This includes funding for State-level or LEA-level administrative costs that promote respecialization, if applicable. Administrative costs for applicants that are LEAs and consortia of LEAs may not exceed 5 percent of the annual grant award.

(f) Number of providers.

Applicants must include the most recent available data on the number of school-based mental health services providers in the identified LEA(s), disaggregated by profession ( e.g., school social workers, school psychologists, school counselors), and the projected number of school-based mental health services providers that will be placed into employment in the identified LEA(s) for each year of the plan using funds from this grant or matching funds. If applicable, applicants should provide data on the current and projected unduplicated numbers of school-based mental health services providers disaggregated by profession ( e.g., school social workers, school psychologists, school counselors), offering telehealth services.

(g) A plan for collaboration and coordination with related Federal, State, and local organizations, and school-based efforts.

Applicants must propose a plan describing how they will collaborate and coordinate with related Federal, State, and local organizations, and school-based efforts ( e.g., professional associations; colleges or universities, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities; local mental health; public health; child welfare; or other community agencies, including school-based health centers), to achieve plan goals and objectives of increasing the number of school-based mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need. The plan must include a description of how such collaboration and coordination will promote program success across multiple programs.

(h) Use of grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, existing school-based mental health services funds and to expand, not duplicate, efforts to increase the number of providers.

Applicants must describe how project funds will supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this program.

Applicants must describe how they will use the SBMH program funds to expand, rather than duplicate, existing or new efforts to increase the number of credentialed school-based mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need and how they will integrate existing funding streams and efforts to support the plan.

(i) Plan for prompt delivery of services to students. For SEA applicants, applicants must describe their plan to ensure the prompt delivery of services to students ( i.e., as soon as possible, but no later than 180 days from award), including via subgrants to LEAs, as appropriate. For LEA applicants and consortia of LEAs, applicants must describe their plan to ensure the prompt delivery of services to students ( i.e., as soon as possible, but no later than 180 days from award). Additionally, SEA and LEA applicants must describe how leaders across all levels of the project will be engaged in the implementation and evaluation of the project.

Definitions:

The definitions of “credentialed,” “LEA with demonstrated need,” “recruitment,” “respecialization,” “retention,” and “telehealth” are from the notice of priorities, requirements, and definitions published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1: “ambitious,” “baseline,” “logic model,” “project component,” and “relevant outcome.” The following definitions are from 20 U.S.C. 7801: “local educational agency”, “State educational agency.” The definition of “school-based mental health services provider” is from 20 U.S.C. 7112. These definitions apply to the FY 2022 School-Based Mental Health Services Grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by the grant, or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure.

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

Credentialed means an individual who possesses a valid license or certificate from the SEA or relevant regulatory body as a school psychologist, school counselor, or a school social worker, or other mental health services provider, approved by the State to provide school-based mental health services.

Local educational agency means a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.

(a) The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.

(b) The term includes an elementary or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the LEA receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any SEA other than the Bureau of Indian Education.

(c) The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.

(d) The term includes the SEA in a State in which the SEA is the sole educational agency for all public schools.

LEA with demonstrated need means an LEA that has a significant need for additional school-based mental health services providers based on—

(1) High student to mental health services provider ratios as compared to other LEAs statewide or nationally;

(2) High rates of community violence (including hate crimes), poverty, substance use (including opioid use), suicide, or trafficking; or

(3) A significant number of students who are migratory, experiencing homelessness, have a family member deployed in the military or with a military-service connected disability (including veterans), have experienced a natural or man-made disaster or a traumatic event, or have other adverse childhood experiences, such as repeated disciplinary exclusions from the learning environment.

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project ( i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components ( e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Recruitment means strategies that help attract and hire credentialed school-based mental health services providers, including by doing at least one of the following:

(1) Providing an annual salary or stipend for school-based mental health services providers who maintain an active national certification.

(2) Providing payment toward the school loans accrued by the school-based mental health services provider.

(3) Creating pathways to grant cross-State credentialing reciprocity for school-based mental health services providers.

(4) Providing incentives and supports to help mitigate shortages. These may include, for example, increasing pay; offering monetary incentives for relocation to high-need areas; providing services via telehealth; creating hybrid roles that allow for leadership, academic, or research opportunities; developing induction programs; developing paid internship programs; focusing on recruitment and support of underrepresented populations; and offering service scholarship programs such as those that provide grants in exchange for a commitment to serve in the LEA for a minimum number of years.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Respecialization means strategies that provide opportunities for professional retraining and alternative pathways to obtain a state credential, aligned with the standards of the relevant professional organization, as a school-based mental health services provider for individuals who hold, at a minimum, a degree in a related field ( e.g., special education, clinical psychology, community counseling), including by doing one or more of the following:

(1) Revising, updating, or streamlining requirements for such individuals so that additional training or other requirements focus only on training needed to obtain a credential as a school-based mental health services provider.

(2) Providing a stipend or making a payment to support the training needed to obtain a credential as a school-based mental health services provider.

(3) Offering flexible options for completing training that leads such professionals to meet State credentialing requirements as a school-based mental health services provider.

(4) Establishing a provisional, time limited, and nonrenewable credential to allow individuals seeking respecialization to provide school-based mental health services under the direct supervision of a fully credentialed school-based mental health services provider of the same profession.

(5) Offering other meaningful activities that result in existing mental health services providers obtaining a state credential as a school-based mental health services provider.

Retention means strategies to help ensure that credentialed individuals stay in their position to avoid gaps in service and unfilled positions, including by—

(1) Providing opportunities for advancement or leadership, such as career pathways programs, recognition and award programs, and mentorship programs; and

(2) Offering incentives and supports to help mitigate shortages. These may include, for example, increasing pay; making payments toward student loans; offering monetary incentives for relocation to high-need areas; providing services via telehealth; offering service scholarship programs, such as those that provide grants in exchange for a commitment to serve in the LEA for a minimum number of years; and developing paid internship programs.

School-based mental health services provider means a State-licensed or State-certified school counselor, school psychologist, school social worker, or other State licensed or certified mental health professional qualified under State law to provide mental health services to children and adolescents.

State educational agency means the agency primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools.

Telehealth means the use of electronic information and telecommunication technologies to support and promote long-distance clinical health care, patient and professional health-related education, public health, and health administration. Technologies include videoconferencing, the internet, store-and-forward imaging, streaming media, and landline and wireless communications.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7281.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $143,900,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000 to 3,000,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,750,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 50-150.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49), or LEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30), including consortia of LEAs.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: a. This program requires cost sharing or matching requirements. See “Application Requirements” in Section I.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program involves administrative costs for SEAs, LEAs and consortia of LEAs. See “Application Requirements” in Section I.

3. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. See “Application Requirements” in Section I.

4. Limitation on Awards: a. The Department will make only one award that serves any individual LEA.

b. The Department will only make an award to LEAs that are not subgrantees of a current SBMH project.

5. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) an SEA grantee under this competition may award subgrants to directly carry out project activities described in its application to the following types of entities: LEAs. The SEA grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantees. However, an SEA grantee is not required to award subgrants and may instead administer the program directly.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73264) and available at www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-27979 , which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede the version published on February 13, 2019, and, in part, describe the transition from the requirement to register in SAM.gov a DUNS number to the implementation of the UEI. More information on the phase-out of DUNS numbers is available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ofo/docs/unique-entity-identifier-transition-fact-sheet.pdf.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make awards by December 31, 2022.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. In addition, we remind applicants that sections 4001(a) and 4001(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7101) apply to this program. Section 4001(a) requires entities receiving funds under this program to obtain prior, written, informed consent from the parent of each child who is under 18 years of age to participate in any mental-health assessment or service that is funded under this program and conducted in connection with an elementary or secondary school. Section 4001(b) prohibits the use of funds for medical services or drug treatment or rehabilitation, except for integrated student supports, specialized instructional support services, or referral to treatment for impacted students, which may include students who are victims of, or witnesses to, crime or who illegally use drugs. This prohibition does not preclude the use of funds to support mental health counseling and support services, including those provided by a mental health services provider outside of school, so long as such services are not medical.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 25 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all selection criteria is 100 points. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in parentheses. Non-Federal peer reviewers will evaluate and score each application program narrative against the following selection criteria:

(a) Need for the Project (10 points).

The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. (Up to 10 points)

(b) Quality of Project Personnel (30 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (Up to 10 points)

(2) In addition, the Secretary considers:

(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. (Up to 10 points)

(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors. (Up to 10 points)

(c) Quality of Project Design and Project Services (35 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project and the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (Up to 10 points)

(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (Up to 10 points)

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are likely to alleviate the personnel shortages that have been identified or are the focus of the proposed project. (Up to 15 points)

(d) Management Plan and Adequacy of Resources (25 points). The Secretary considers the management plan and adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan and the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

(1) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (Up to 10 points)

(2) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project. (Up to 5 points)

(3) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support. (Up to 5 points)

(4) The adequacy of the procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (Up to 5 points)

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with:

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements:

We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under this competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Performance Measures: For the purpose of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established the following performance measures for the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program:

(a) The unduplicated, cumulative number of new school-based mental health services providers hired for each LEA with demonstrated need as a result of the grant.

(b) The unduplicated, cumulative number of school-based mental health services providers retained in LEAs with demonstrated need as a result of the grant.

(c) The ratio of students to school-based mental health services providers for each LEA with demonstrated need served by the grant, and the numbers of school-based mental health services providers and students used to calculate the ratio.

(d) The attrition rate of school-based mental health services providers for each LEA with a demonstrated need that is participating in the grant.

(e) The total number of students who received school-based mental health services as a result of the grant.

(f) For grantees that addressed competitive preference priority 2, the number of such grantees that met their goal of increasing the diversity of school-based mental health services providers.

These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach for its proposed project plan. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures. These data will be considered by the Department in making potential continuation awards.

Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, grantees funded under this program must meet the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department or an evaluator selected by the Department.

Performance measure targets: The applicant must propose annual targets for the measures listed above in their application. Applicants must also provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

(1) An explanation of how each proposed performance target is ambitious (as defined in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline (as defined in this notice) for the performance measure.

(2) An explanation of the data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and

(3) An explanation of the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

Note: If the applicant does not have experience with collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for its proposed project.

The reviewers of each application will score related selection criteria on the basis of how well an applicant has considered these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation of the project.

All grantees must submit an annual performance report and final performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things, whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, Braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or 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.

Purpose of Program: The MHSP Program provides competitive grants to support and demonstrate innovative partnerships to train school-based mental health services providers (as defined in section 4102 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)) (services providers) for employment in schools and local educational agencies (LEAs). The goal of this program is to increase the number and diversity of high-quality, trained providers available to address the shortages of mental health service professionals in schools served by high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice). The partnerships must include (1) one or more high-need LEAs or a State educational agency (SEA) on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs and (2) one or more eligible institutions of higher education (eligible IHE) (as defined in this notice).

Partnerships must provide opportunities to place postsecondary education graduate students in school-based mental health fields into high-need schools (as defined in this notice) served by the participating high-need LEAs to complete required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training, as applicable, for the degree or credential program of each student. In addition to the placement of graduate students, grantees may also develop mental health career pathways as early as secondary school, through career and technical education opportunities, or through paraprofessional support degree programs at local community or technical colleges.

Background: Like good physical health, positive mental health promotes success in life. As defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Mental health includes our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It affects how we think, feel, and act. It also helps determine how we handle stress, relate to others, and make healthy choices. Mental health is important at every stage of life, from childhood and adolescence through adulthood.”  1

Support for the mental health of children and youth advances educational opportunities by creating conditions for students to fully engage in learning. The increases in mental health needs, including those resulting from traumatic events such as the Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, community violence, and adverse childhood experiences present challenges for children and youth that for many impact their overall emotional, psychological, and social well-being and their ability to fully engage in learning. The disruptions to routines, relationships, and the learning environment have led to increased stress and trauma, social isolation, and anxiety that can have both immediate and long-term adverse impacts on the physical, social, emotional, and academic well-being of children and youth.

In response to these challenges, the FY 2022 Appropriations Act and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act appropriated a dramatic increase in funds for the MHSP program. The final MHSP priorities, requirements, and definitions used in this notice inviting applications aim to address student mental health needs by increasing the number of school-based mental health services providers in high-need LEAs, increasing the number of services providers from diverse backgrounds or from the communities they serve, and ensuring that all services providers are trained in inclusive practices, including ensuring access to services for children and youth who are English learners.

In developing applications that meet the absolute priority, we encourage applicants to consider the needs of individuals from diverse backgrounds and utilize the program's broad allowability to use funds to provide support services that will have a meaningful impact on diversifying the school-based mental health services workforce. For example, projects may pay for participants' tuition, provide a modest salary for internships, cover the cost of transportation to and from the high-need school where the participant is placed, pay for child care while the participant is working at the high-need school, and pay for administrative expenses, such as background check fees that are necessary for placement in a participating school. Such uses of funds may be especially critical in supporting individuals from low-income backgrounds who are pursuing careers as school-based mental health services providers.

Priorities: This competition has one absolute priority and three competitive preference priorities. These priorities are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions for the MHSP Program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

Absolute Priority: For FY 2022, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Expand Capacity of High-need LEAs .

Projects that propose to expand the capacity of high-need LEAs in partnership with eligible IHEs to train school-based mental health services providers (as defined in this notice), with the goal of expanding the number of these professionals available to address the shortages of school-based mental health services providers in high-need schools.

To meet this priority, the applicant must propose a school-based mental health partnership (as defined in this notice) to place the IHE's graduate students in school-based mental health services fields into high-need schools served by the participating high-need LEAs for the purpose of completing required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training necessary to complete their degree or obtain a credential as a school-based mental health services provider.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2022, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 5 points for Competitive Preference Priority 1 depending on how well the application meets the priority. We award up to an additional 5 points for Competitive Preference Priority 2, depending on how well the application meets the priority. We award an additional 2 points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 3. The total number of competitive preference points an applicant may receive is 12.

An applicant must clearly identify in the project abstract and the project narrative section of its application the competitive preference priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Increase the Number of Qualified School-Based Mental Health Services Providers in High-Need LEAs Who Are From Diverse Backgrounds or From Communities Served by the High-Need LEAs. (Up to 5 points)

Projects that propose to increase the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers in high-need LEAs who are from diverse backgrounds ( i.e., backgrounds that reflect the communities, identities, races, ethnicities, abilities, and cultures of the students in the high-need LEA, including underserved students) or who are from communities served by the high-need LEAs. 2

Applicants must describe how their proposal to increase the number of school-based mental health services providers who are from diverse backgrounds or who are from the communities served by the high-need LEA will help increase access to mental health services for students within the high-need LEA and best meet the mental health needs of the diverse populations of students to be served.

Competitive Preference Priority 2-Promote Inclusive Practices. (Up to 5 points)

Projects that propose to provide evidence-based (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA) pedagogical practices in mental health services provider preparation programs or professional development programs that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, disability, and for students who identify as LGBTQI+, and that prepare school-based mental health services providers to create culturally and linguistically inclusive and identity-safe  3 environments for students when providing services.

Applicants must describe how their proposal to provide evidence-based pedagogical practices in mental health services provider preparation programs or professional development programs will prepare school-based mental health services providers to provide inclusive practices and to create culturally and linguistically inclusive and identity-safe environments for students when providing services.

Competitive Preference Priority 3—Partnerships with HBCUs, TCUs, or other MSIs. (0 or 2 points)

Applicants that propose to implement their projects by or in partnership with one or more of the following entities:

(1) Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) (as defined in 34 CFR 608.2).

(2) Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) (as defined in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA).

(3) Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) (as defined in sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA).

Note: Only institutions that the Department determined to be eligible through the FY 2022 process for eligible MSI designation, or which were granted a waiver under the process, may be considered eligible for this competitive preference priority.

Requirements: These application requirements are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . We are establishing these application and program requirements for the FY 2022 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition. These requirements are:

Program Requirement: Eligible applicants for this program are high-need LEAs, SEAs on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs, and IHEs. High-need LEA applicants and SEA applicants on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs must propose to work in partnership with an eligible institution of higher education (eligible IHE), which may include institutions that serve diverse learners such as an HBCU (as defined in 34 CFR 608.2), TCU (as defined in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA), or other MSI (as defined in sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA). Eligible IHE applicants must propose to work in partnership with one or more high-need LEAs or an SEA.

Application Requirements: An applicant must include the following in its application:

(a) Identification of schools to be served by the proposed project.

Applicants must identify or describe how they will identify the high-need schools to be served in each high-need LEA that is part of the school-based mental health partnership.

(b) A description of the nature and magnitude of the problem.

Applicants must describe how the lack of school-based mental health services providers is specifically affecting students in the high-need schools to be served by project activities. Applicants must describe the nature of the problem for the LEA, based on, but not limited to, the most recent available ratios of school-based mental health services providers to students enrolled in the schools in each high-need LEA that is part of the school-based mental health partnership (in the aggregate and disaggregated by profession ( e.g., school social workers, school psychologists, and school counselors)). The description may also include LEA and school-level demographic data, including chronic absenteeism and discipline data, school climate surveys, school violence/crime data, data related to suicide rates, and descriptions of barriers to hiring and retaining services providers in the LEA.

(c) A plan to enhance LEA capacity to provide mental health services to students.

Applicants must describe the specific activities they will conduct to expand and improve LEA capacity to provide mental health services to students in high-need LEAs and ensure that students receive appropriate, evidence-based (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA), and culturally and linguistically inclusive mental health services. To meet this requirement, the applicant must propose a school-based mental health partnership established for the purpose of placing the IHE's graduate students in school-based mental health fields into high-need schools served by the participating high-need LEAs to complete required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training as applicable for the degree or credential program of each student. If the applicant intends to establish a program that directly benefits an individual graduate student, such as through a stipend or tuition credit, the applicant must describe its approach to implementing a service obligation for such graduate student as a school-based mental health services provider in a high-need LEA commensurate with the level of support the graduate student receives.

(d) A memorandum of understanding (MOU), a memorandum of agreement (MOA), or letter of agreement between the LEA or SEA, and the IHE.

Applicants must include with their application an MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement that is signed by the authorized representatives of the LEA or SEA, and the IHE. The MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement must provide details regarding the roles and responsibilities of each entity in the partnership, and include a description of how the partnership will place graduate students into high-need schools served by the participating high-need LEAs to complete required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training necessary to complete their degree or obtain a credential as a school-based mental health services provider. Additionally, SEA and LEA applicants must describe in the MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement how leaders across all levels of the project will be engaged in the implementation and evaluation of the project. The MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement must also include the estimated number of mental health services providers that will be placed into employment in high-need schools and high-need LEAs on an annual basis.

(e) A plan for collaboration and coordination with related Federal, State, and local initiatives.

Applicants must propose a plan that describes one or more of the following:

(1) How they will collaborate with at least one national, State, or local professional organization (to include a regional professional organization, if appropriate), such as a school social worker association, school psychologist association, or school counselor association;

(2) The activities to be carried out in coordination with the national, State, or local mental health, public health, child welfare, and other community agencies, which may include school-based health centers, to achieve the plan goals and objectives of establishing a pipeline program to train and expand the capacity of school-based mental health services providers in high-need LEAs;

(3) How they will leverage other available Federal, State, and local resources to achieve project goals and objectives and sustain investments beyond the budget period. Applicants must identify these other available resources and describe how they will be used to promote success across programs; and

(4) How they will use the MHSP funds to expand and enhance existing efforts or put in place new measures to increase the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers to be employed by eligible schools and LEAs qualified to provide school-based mental health services.

Evidence of collaboration and coordination described in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) must be provided through letters of support or MOAs/MOUs from State or local organizations or agencies, where applicable.

(f) A description of the process to identify students for mental health services.

Applicants must describe the specific process and activities they will use to ensure students in high-need LEAs who need school-based mental health services are properly identified, assessed, and provided the appropriate school-based mental health services by qualified personnel in consultation with educators, including school leaders, and parents and families, as appropriate. To meet this requirement, applicants must also describe how they will ensure that services are evidence-based and inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, disability, homelessness, and for students who identify as LGBTQI+, and are accessible to all. Further, applicants must describe how LEAs will engage parents and families for the purposes of raising awareness about the availability of services and connecting students to services.

Definitions: The definitions of “eligible institution of higher education,” “high-need LEA,” “high-need school,” “school-based mental health partnership,” and “students/children from low-income backgrounds,” are from the notice of priorities, requirements, and definitions for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . The definitions of “local educational agency” (20 U.S.C. 7801(30)), “State educational agency” (20 U.S.C. 7801(49)), and “school-based mental health services provider” (20 U.S.C. 7112(6)) are from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The definition of “institution of higher education” (20 U.S.C. 1001), “Minority Serving Institution,” and “Tribal Colleges and Universities” are from the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. The definition of “Historically Black Colleges and Universities” is from 34 CFR 608.2. The definitions of “ambitious,” “baseline,” “logic model,” “project component,” and “relevant outcome” are from 34 CFR 77.1. These definitions apply to the FY 2022 MHSP Program competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

These definitions are:

Ambitious means promoting continued meaningful improvement for program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by the grant, or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure.

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

Eligible institution of higher education means an institution of higher education that offers a program of study that leads to a master's degree or other graduate degree—

(a) In school psychology that prepares students in such program for a State credential as a school psychologist;

(b) In school counseling that prepares students in such program for a State credential in school counseling;

(c) In school social work that prepares students in such program for a State credential in school social work;

(d) In another school-based mental health field that prepares students in such program for a State credential to deliver school-based mental health services; or

(e) In any combination of study described in paragraphs (a) through (d).

High-need local educational agency (LEA) means an LEA—

(a)(1) For which at least 20 percent of the children served by the agency are children from low-income backgrounds;

(2) That serves at least 10,000 children from low-income backgrounds;

(3) That meets the eligibility requirements for funding under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program under section 5211(b) of the ESEA; or

(4) That meets the eligibility requirements for funding under the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program under section 5221(b) of the ESEA; and—

(b) For which there is a high student to qualified mental health services provider ratio as compared to other LEAs statewide or nationally.

High-need school means a school that, based on the most recent data available, meets at least one of the following:

(a) The school is in the highest quartile of all schools served by an LEA ranked in descending order by percentage of students from low-income backgrounds enrolled in such schools, as determined by the LEA based on one of the following measures of poverty:

(1) The percentage of students aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary.

(2) The percentage of students eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act based on the most recently available data.

(3) The percentage of students in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act.

(4) The percentage of students eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program.

(5) A composite of two or more of the measures described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4).

(b) In the case of—

(1) An elementary school, the school serves students not less than 60 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act based on the most recently available data; or

(2) Any other school that is not an elementary school, the other school serves students not less than 45 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act based on the most recently available data.

Institution of higher education has the meaning given to such term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).

Local educational agency means a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.

(b) The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.

(c) The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State educational agency other than the Bureau of Indian Education.

(d) The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.

(e) The term includes the State educational agency in a State in which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for all public schools.

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project ( i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components ( e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

School-based mental health partnership means the formal relationship, established for the purpose of training school-based mental health services providers for employment in schools and LEAs, between—

(a) One or more high-need LEAs or an SEA on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs; and

(b) One or more eligible IHEs, including HBCUs (as defined in 34 CFR 608.2), MSIs (as defined in sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA), and TCUs (as defined in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA).

School-based mental health services provider means a State-licensed or State-certified school counselor, school psychologist, school social worker, or other State licensed or certified mental health professional qualified under State law to provide mental health services to children and adolescents.

Students/children from low-income backgrounds means students whose families meet any of the poverty thresholds established in section 1113 of the ESEA for the relevant grade level.

State educational agency means the agency primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools.

Program Authority: Section 4631(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7281).

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 81, 82, 84, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $143,000,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $400,000 to $1,200,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $800,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 150-250.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: High-need LEAs, SEAs on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs, and IHEs. High-need LEA applicants and SEA applicants on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs must propose to work in partnership with an eligible institution of higher education (eligible IHE). Eligible IHE applicants must propose to work in partnership with one or more high-need LEAs or an SEA.

2.a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

4. Limitation on Awards: a. The Department will make only one award that serves any individual LEA.

b. The Department will only make an award to LEAs that are not current MHSP grantees.

c. To maximize the number of LEAs and schools that can benefit from program activities and geographic diversity, the number of awards per single entity will be limited to one per UEI number. If sufficient funds remain after funding all high-quality applications, the Department may consider funding more than one high quality application from a single entity so long as an entity's other applications propose separate projects.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73264), and available at www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-27979, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede the version published on February 13, 2019, and, in part, describe the transition from the requirement to register in SAM.gov a DUNS number to the implementation of the UEI. More information on the phase-out of DUNS numbers is available at www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make awards by December 31, 2022.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. In addition, we remind applicants that sections 4001(a) and 4001(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7101) apply to this program. Section 4001(a) requires entities receiving funds under Title IV of the ESEA to obtain prior, written, informed consent from the parent of each child who is under 18 years of age to participate in any mental-health assessment or service that is funded under Title IV of the ESEA and conducted in connection with an elementary or secondary school. Section 4001(b) prohibits the use of funds for medical services or drug treatment or rehabilitation, except for integrated student supports, specialized instructional support services, or referral to treatment for impacted students, which may include students who are victims of, or witnesses to, crime or who illegally use drugs. This prohibition does not preclude the use of funds to support mental health counseling and support services, including those provided by a mental health services provider outside of school, so long as such services are not medical.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 25 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all selection criteria is 100 points. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in parentheses. Non-Federal peer reviewers will evaluate and score each application program narrative against the following selection criteria:

(a) Need for the Project and Significance (Up to 15 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the proposed need for the project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. (Up to 10 points)

(2) The Secretary considers the significance of the project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population. (Up to 5 points)

(c) Quality of the project design (Up to 25 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives. (Up to 15 points)

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition. (Up to 5 points)

(iii) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). (Up to 5 points)

(d) Quality of project services (Up to 30 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (Up to 15 points)

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are likely to alleviate the personnel shortages that have been identified or are the focus of the proposed project. (Up to 15 points)

(e) Management Plan and Adequacy of Resources (Up to 20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the management plan and the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the management plan and the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

(i) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (Up to 10 points)

(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project. (Up to 10 points)

(f) Quality of the project evaluation (Up to 10 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (Up to 5 points)

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (Up to 5 points)

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that, in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with:

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Performance Measures: The Department has established the following performance measures for Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110 for the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program:

(a) The unduplicated, cumulative number of school-based mental health services providers trained by the grantee under the project to provide school-based mental health services in high-need LEAs.

(b) The unduplicated, cumulative number of school-based mental health services providers placed in a practicum or internship by the grantee in high-need LEAs to provide school-based mental health services.

(c) The unduplicated, cumulative number of school-based mental health services providers hired by high-need LEAs to provide school-based mental health services.

(d) For grantees that addressed Competitive Preference Priority 1, the number of such grantees that met their goal of increasing the diversity of school-based mental health services providers.

These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures. This data will be considered by the Department in making potential continuation awards.

Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, grantees funded under this program shall cooperate in any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department or an evaluator selected by the Department.

Performance measure targets: The applicant must propose annual targets for the measures listed above in their application. Applications must also provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

(1) An explanation of how each proposed performance target is ambitious (as defined in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline (as defined in this notice) for the performance measure.

(2) An explanation of the data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and

(3) An explanation of the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

Note: If the applicant does not have experience with the collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for its proposed project.

The reviewers of each application will score related selection criteria on the basis of how well an applicant has considered these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation of the project.

All grantees must submit an annual performance report and final performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things, whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or 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.

Subsection (i) of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act or the Act), 1 entitled “Technology Transitions,” provides that the Administrator may by rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a graduated schedule, the use of a regulated substance in the sector or subsector in which the regulated substance is used. Under subsection (i)(3) a person may petition the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate a rule for the restriction on use of a regulated substance  2 in a sector or subsector, and the Act states that the petition shall include a request that the Administrator negotiate with stakeholders in accordance with subsection (i)(2)(A). Once EPA receives a petition, the AIM Act directs the Agency to make petitions publicly available within 30 days of receipt and to grant or deny the petition within 180 days of receipt, taking the factors listed in subsection (i)(4) into account to the extent practicable.

The Agency has received two petitions under subsection (i) of the AIM Act requesting that EPA promulgate rules to restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons in certain commercial refrigeration applications. 3 These petitions were submitted by the Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, et. al (hereby, “AHRI”) on March 24, 2022, and the International Institute for Ammonia Refrigeration, et. al (hereby, “IIAR”) on May 23, 2022. After reviewing information provided by the petitioners and relevant information related to the “Factors for Determination” in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act, EPA granted the two petitions. 4 The March 24, 2022, and May 23, 2022, petitions requested restrictions on the use of HFCs in sectors and subsectors that were also the subject of the petitions that EPA granted on October 7, 2021.

EPA is also clarifying the treatment of two letters AHRI sent to EPA on August 19, 2021, and October 12, 2021. 5 EPA initially included these letters on the Agency's website as new petitions. However, after further review EPA determined that these two AHRI letters are addenda to AHRI's petitions that EPA granted on October 7, 2021. EPA made this determination because the subsectors listed in these letters were identical to those covered by the already-granted AHRI petitions and because EPA received the August and October 2021 letters before or very near in time to the Agency's action granting the initial set of petitions.

Where the Agency grants a petition submitted under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, the statute requires that EPA promulgate a final rule not later than two years from the date the Agency grants the petition. Per subsection (i)(1) of the AIM Act, EPA may issue rules that restrict, fully, partially, or on a graduated schedule, the use of a regulated substance in the sector or subsector in which the regulated substance is used. The Act establishes that no rule developed under subsection (i) may take effect earlier than one year after the rule promulgation date. In addition, prior to issuing a proposed rule under subsection (i), EPA must consider negotiating with stakeholders in the sector or subsector in accordance with negotiated rulemaking procedures. 6 If the Agency decides not to undertake a negotiated rulemaking, the AIM Act requires the Agency to publish an explanation of its decision not to use that procedure.

As noted, all four of the requests for restrictions on the use of HFCs ( i.e., the two petitions granted on September 19, 2022, and the two letters considered as addenda) addressed sectors and subsectors that are the subject of an upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that was initiated by the prior petitions granted by the Administrator on October 7, 2021. In that rulemaking EPA will consider proposed restrictions in the same sectors and subsectors covered by the May and March petitions and the two letters considered as addenda. EPA is therefore considering addressing all four of the newer requests for restrictions in the same upcoming proposal. EPA issued a notice informing the public of the Agency's consideration of using the negotiated rulemaking procedure for the sectors and subsectors addressed in the petitions granted on October 7, 2021, and the Agency's decision to not use these procedures. 7 Because the AIM Act subsection (i)(2)(A) requires that EPA consider negotiating with stakeholders using the negotiated rulemaking procedure “[b]efore proposing a rule for the use of a regulated substance for a sector or subsector,” EPA's prior consideration and decision not to use negotiated rulemaking applies to the petitions addressed in this notice, which request restrictions on sectors and subsectors for which EPA already considered negotiated rulemaking.

Qualifications

The Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, to advise the EPA Administrator on environmental issues impacting local governments. The Small Communities Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS) is the LGAC's standing subcommittee to advise on issues of concern to smaller communities. Members of LGAC and SCAS will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of issues related to promoting and protecting public health and the environment. For 2023 the topics addressed will include but not be limited to:

• Advancing environmental justice;

• Developing capacity for technical assistance at the local level;

• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

• Bolstering resilience to the impacts of climate change;

• Enhancing the infrastructure needed to provide drinking water and wastewater services;

• Supporting local governments in the assessment and remediation of PFAS chemicals.

Viable candidates must be current elected officials representing local, state, tribal, or territorial governments. Officials working full-time for a local, state, tribal, or territorial government who have been appointed directly by an elected official will also be considered. Preference will be given to qualified candidates who demonstrate experience developing and implementing environmental programs consistent with the 2023 topics listed above. To maintain geographical diversity of the Committee, preference for LGAC membership may also be given to qualified candidates from tribal governments, and states in the South and Southeastern regions of the country; preference for SCAS membership may be given to qualified candidates from Alaska, New England and the Pacific Northwest.

Additional criteria to be considered may include: experience with multi-sector partnerships; coalition-building and grassroots involvement; involvement and leadership in national, state or regional intergovernmental associations; and diversity in vocational/career/volunteer background.

Candidates may apply for both LGAC and SCAS appointments, regardless of community size. While qualified candidates for the SCAS may include individuals from larger communities, preference will be given to those representing populations of 10,000 or less.

LGAC members are appointed for 1 or 2-year terms, depending on the needs of the Committee, and are eligible for reappointment up to a total of 6 years served. In 2023, the Committee plans to hold two or three full-day, public meetings, where both in-person and online participation options will be available.

In addition to public meetings, Workgroups will be created to address the 2023 topics noted above, as well as any emerging issues. Members will be encouraged to serve on one or more Workgroups, where they will be asked to share their experiences working on an issue, recommend experts on an issue for the Committee to consult with, debate the nuances of policy implementation, and review written recommendations before they are shared with the full Committee. Applicants should plan to spend an average of three hours per month on Committee work, with more requested when travel is planned. While EPA is unable to provide compensation for services, official Committee travel and related expenses (lodging, etc.) will be fully reimbursed.

Nominations must be submitted in electronic format. To be considered, all nominations should complete the application at this link: http://tiny.cc/hcezuz.

Additionally, please email LGAC@epa.gov with the following:

• Resume and/or short biography (no more than 2 pages) describing professional, educational, and other pertinent qualifications of the nominee, including a list of relevant activities as well as any current or previous service on advisory committees; and,

• Optional letter(s) of recommendation from a third party (or parties) supporting the nomination. Letter(s) should describe how the nominee's experience and knowledge will bring value to the work of the LGAC.

Other sources, in addition to this Federal Register notice, may be utilized in the solicitation of nominees. EPA expressly values diversity, equity, and inclusion, and encourages the nominations of elected and appointed officials from diverse backgrounds so that the LGAC and SCAS look like America and reflect the country's rich diversity. Individuals may self-nominate.

The Board supervises and regulates companies that control one or more banks (bank holding companies) and companies that are not bank holding companies that control one or more savings associations (savings and loan holding companies, and together with bank holding companies, depository institution holding companies). Congress gave the Board regulatory and supervisory authority for bank holding companies through the enactment of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHC Act). 1 The Board's regulation and supervision of savings and loan holding companies began in 2011 when provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act)  2 transferring supervision and regulation of savings and loan holding companies from the Office of Thrift Supervision to the Board took effect. 3 Upon this transfer, the Board became the federal supervisory agency for all depository institution holding companies, including a portfolio of firms significantly engaged in insurance activities (supervised insurance organizations). 4

The Board has a long-standing policy of supervising holding companies on a consolidated basis. Consolidated supervision encompasses all legal entities within a holding company structure and supports an understanding of the organization's complete risk profile and its ability to address financial, managerial, operational, or other deficiencies before they pose a danger to its subsidiary depository institution(s). The Board's current supervisory approach for noninsurance depository institution holding companies assesses holding companies whose primary risks are largely related to the business of banking. The risks arising from insurance activities, however, are materially different from traditional banking risks. The top-tier holding company for some supervised insurance organizations is an insurance underwriting company, which is subject to supervision and regulation by the relevant state insurance regulator as well as consolidated supervision from the Board; for all supervised insurance organizations, the state insurance regulators supervise and regulate the business of insurance underwriting companies. Additionally, instead of producing consolidated financial statements based on generally accepted accounting principles, many of these firms only produce legal entity financial statements based on Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP) established by states through the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

The Board has recognized these differences in its supervision and regulation of supervised insurance organizations. For example, in 2013, when the Board made significant revisions to its regulatory capital framework, the Board determined not to apply it to this group of companies, stating that it would “explore further whether and how the proposed rule should be modified for these companies in a manner consistent with section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act and safety and soundness concerns.”  5 In 2019, the Board invited comment on a proposal to establish a risk-based capital framework designed specifically for supervised insurance organizations, termed the Building Block Approach, that would adjust and aggregate existing legal entity capital requirements to determine an enterprise-wide capital requirement. 6 In addition, in 2018, the Board did not apply to these firms the supervisory rating systems applicable to other depository institution holding companies. 7 The insurance supervisory framework represents a significant step in the continuation of the Board's tailored approach to supervision and regulation for supervised insurance organizations.

On February 4, 2022, the Board invited public comment on a proposed framework for the supervision of insurance organizations (proposal). 8 The proposal would have established a transparent framework for consolidated supervision of supervised insurance organizations. A depository institution holding company would have been considered a supervised insurance organization if it were an insurance underwriting company or if over 25 percent of its consolidated assets were held by insurance underwriting subsidiaries. The proposed framework would have consisted of a risk-based approach to establishing supervisory expectations, assigning supervisory resources, and conducting supervisory activities; a supervisory rating system; and a description of how examiners would work with state insurance regulators to limit the burden associated with supervisory duplication.

The comment period on the proposal closed on May 5, 2022. 9 The Board received four comments on the proposal. In addition, representatives of the Federal Reserve met with stakeholders and obtained supplementary information from certain commenters. Commenters generally supported the proposal. However, commenters also requested additional clarity on certain aspects of the proposal and provided suggestions on potential changes.

The final insurance supervisory framework adopts the core elements of the proposal with certain modifications to address comments received. Consistent with the proposal, the final framework consists of a risk-based approach to establishing supervisory expectations, assigning supervisory resources, and conducting supervisory activities; applies tailored supervisory ratings; and describes how Federal Reserve examiners will rely to the fullest extent possible on the work of state insurance regulators to limit supervisory duplication. The final guidance has been modified from the proposal to include additional clarity in various sections, including with respect to the complexity classification and applicable guidance. The final guidance also includes additional references to incorporating the work performed by state insurance regulators and allows for noncomplex supervised insurance organizations to be rated up to every other year.

In the proposal, the terms “risk profile,” “complexity classification,” and “risk assessment” would have been used to describe the Board's approach to aligning its supervision with the risk of a firm. Under the proposal, an organization's risk profile would have depended on its products, investments, and strategy and would have been assessed independent of supervisory opinions or approach. The complexity classification would have been the Federal Reserve's preliminary view of the organization's risk profile and would have been used primarily to determine the level of supervisory resources needed to effectively supervise an organization. A supervised insurance organization would have been classified as either complex or noncomplex when the organization initially became subject to Federal Reserve supervision and only re-classified if the organization's risk profile significantly changed (typically the result of a major acquisition or divestiture). The risk assessment would have been an exercise typically completed annually by Federal Reserve examiners to support a discussion of the organization's material risks, ensuring that supervisory activities planned for the following year were risk-focused and did not duplicate work done by other regulators. Commenters requested clarity on the differences between these three terms as used in the proposal. The final guidance maintains these terms and their intended definitions, but the text has been adjusted to clarify how they will be used.

Under the proposal, supervised insurance organizations would have been classified as either complex or noncomplex based on a list of characteristics. The complexity classification would have been the initial driver for the assignment of supervisory resources, with complex supervised insurance organizations being assigned a dedicated supervisory team. The complexity classification would have also been a driver for the application of supervisory guidance. Organizations with over $100 billion of consolidated depository institution assets or that are designated as an internationally active insurance group (IAIG) would have automatically been classified as complex. Commenters requested additional transparency regarding the factors considered when making the complexity classification and suggested additional factors for consideration, such as the source of funding for non-insurance operations. Commenters also suggested removing the $100 billion consolidated depository institution asset threshold, removing the automatic complex classification for IAIGs in exchange for a materiality view of international exposure, attaching specific weights to the factors listed in the proposal, and providing organizations the opportunity to appeal or request a review of the complexity classification.

To ensure that organizations with similar sized banking operations are supervised consistently by the Federal Reserve, the final guidance retains the $100 billion consolidated depository institution asset threshold as proposed. The automatic complex classification proposed for IAIGs has been removed from the final guidance and instead the materiality of an insurance organization's international operations will be considered as part of the complexity classification decision. While weights were not added to the factors in order to preserve the flexibility needed to properly classify organizations of differing business and risk profiles, the factors in the final guidance are sequenced in order of expected relative priority. The Board believes that these factors are broad enough to cover the additional factors suggested by commenters. In response to the comments, and to promote transparency, the complexity classification work program used to support the complexity classification decision made by the Board will be published on the Board's website. The work program provides additional clarity regarding the information leveraged to make the complexity classification and several of the factors suggested by commenters are included in the work program as questions related to a listed factor. The final guidance also clarifies that an organization can request a review of its complexity classification if it has experienced a significant change to its risk profile.

Under the proposal, supervisory activities would have focused on material risks to the consolidated organization and leveraged the work performed by the firm's functional regulators. Additionally, under the proposal, ratings examinations would have been performed annually for all supervised insurance organizations, including those classified as noncomplex. Commenters requested that supervisory activities focus on material risks not subject to oversight by other regulators and that, where appropriate, Federal Reserve examiners coordinate the timing and scope of supervisory activities with other regulators to avoid duplication. Specifically for noncomplex supervised insurance organizations, commenters requested that Federal Reserve examiners align periodic rating examinations with the frequency used by other regulators and limit the frequency of examinations to every other year, as described in SR letter 13-21, 10 “Inspection Frequency and Scope Requirements for Bank Holding Companies and Savings and Loan Holding Companies with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion or Less.”

The final guidance emphasizes that supervisory activities focus primarily on material risks that could impede the organization's ability to act as a source of strength for its depository institution(s). Supervisory activities are also used to develop a better understanding of an organization's business and risk profile and to monitor the safety and soundness of the organization, including its adherence to applicable laws and regulations. As the consolidated supervisor, it is important for Federal Reserve examiners to understand all material risks to the organization. Federal Reserve examiners work closely with other regulators to promote knowledge sharing and to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, supervisory duplication. This includes discussing annual supervisory plans and coordinating the timing of supervisory activities. Under the final guidance, noncomplex supervised insurance organizations may be rated every other year, depending on the organization's risk profile.

Under the proposal, the requirement that supervised insurance organizations comply with all applicable laws and regulations, operate in a safe-and-sound manner, and act as a source of strength for their depository institution(s) would have been emphasized. Expectations within supervisory guidance published by the Board related to specific firm practices would have been tailored to reflect the firm's business and risk profile. Commenters were supportive of this tailoring and requested that the framework explicitly allow for supervisory expectations to differ by business line. Commenters also requested clarity regarding the applicability of SR letter 12-17, 11 “Consolidated Supervision Framework for Large Financial Institutions” to supervised insurance organizations.

Supervisory guidance issued by the Board often provides examples of practices that the Board generally considers consistent with safety-and-soundness standards. Most guidance issued by the Board provides examples specific to banking operations. The final guidance communicates that other practices used by supervised insurance organizations for their other business lines, including for insurance operations, may be different without being considered unsafe or unsound. When making an assessment of whether a different practice is unsafe or unsound, Federal Reserve examiners will work with supervised insurance organizations and their functional regulators, including state insurance regulators. The final guidance clarifies that it supersedes SR letter 12-17 for supervised insurance organizations.

One commenter also requested the Board provide additional clarity on supervisory expectations by continually updating the list of applicable guidance found in SR letter 14-9, 12 “Incorporation of Federal Reserve Policies into the Savings and Loan Holding Company Supervision Program.” SR letter 14-9 was issued after supervisory authority for savings and loan holding companies was transferred from the Office of Thrift Supervision to the Board in order to clarify the applicability of guidance issued before the transfer. Guidance issued since the transfer has expressly stated its applicability to savings and loan holding companies, and this practice will continue. Accordingly, the Board does not intend to continually update SR letter 14-9 in this way.

I. Purpose

In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (the Council). The Council is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of AHRQ on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships. The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.

On Thursday, November 17, 2022, NAC members will meet to conduct preparatory work prior to convening the Council meeting at 11:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair, an introduction of NAC members, and approval of previous Council summary notes. The NAC members will then receive an update from the AHRQ Director, including a focus on health equity. The agenda will also include (1) an update and discussion by NAC members on AHRQ's efforts to promote Safer Together: A National Patient Safety Action Plan and (2) A report out and discussion of the final report from the Subcommittee of the NAC on AHRQ's Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PCORTF) investments. The meeting is open to the public and will adjourn at 3:00 p.m. For information regarding how to access the meeting as well as other meeting details, including information on how to make a public comment, please go to https://www.ahrq.gov/news/events/nac/. The final agenda will be available on the AHRQ website no later than Thursday, November 3, 2022.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments. CMS will not post on Regulations.gov public comments that make threats to individuals or institutions or suggest that the individual will take actions to harm the individual. CMS continues to encourage individuals not to submit duplicative comments. We will post acceptable comments from multiple unique commenters even if the content is identical or nearly identical to other comments.

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from an end-stage renal disease (ESRD) facility (also known as a “dialysis facility”) provided certain requirements are met. Section 1881(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act), establish distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as an ESRD facility. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 494 specify the minimum conditions that an ESRD facility must meet to participate in the Medicare program.

Generally, to enter into an agreement, an ESRD facility must first be certified by a state survey agency (SA) as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 494 of our regulations. Thereafter, the ESRD facility is subject to regular surveys by a SA to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.

Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

If an AO is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at §§ 488.4, 488.5 and 488.5(e)(2)(i). The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require AOs to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by CMS.

The Accreditation Commission for Health Care's (ACHC's) current term of approval for their ESRD facility accreditation program expires April 11, 2023.

Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.

The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the ACHC's request for continued approval of its ESRD facility accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether the ACHC requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for coverage (CfCs) for ESRD facilities.

The ACHC submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its ESRD facility accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on August 26, 2022. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 (Application and re-application procedures for national accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of the ACHC will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:

• The equivalency of the ACHC's standards for ESRD facilities as compared with Medicare's ESRD facility CfCs.

• The ACHC's survey process to determine the following:

++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.

++ The comparability of the ACHC's processes to those of state agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.

++ The ACHC's processes and procedures for monitoring an ESRD facility found out of compliance with the ACHC program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when the ACHC identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the SA monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9.

++ The ACHC's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.

++ The ACHC's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

++ The adequacy of the ACHC's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.

++ The ACHC's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.

++ The ACHC's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.

++ The ACHC's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.

++ The ACHC's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq. ).

Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Lynette Wilson, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

In the August 23, 2022, issue of the Federal Register (87 FR 51675), we published a Paperwork Reduction Act notice requesting a 60-day public comment period for the information collection request identified under CMS-10816, OMB control number 0938-New, and titled “Medicare Part C and Medicare Part D Enrollment Form Interviews.”

In the August 23, 2022 notice, the website address for obtaining copies of the collection is correctly listed on page 51676, in the first column column, in the fourth paragraph beginning on line 2. However, the instructions for accessing the website address were incomplete and incorrect on page 51676 in the first column, beginning in the third paragraph, first line with “To obtain” and ending in the fourth paragraph, second line, third word “at.” This notice corrects the aforementioned incomplete and incorrect instructions.

In the Federal Register of August 23, 2022, in FR Doc. 2022-18092 on page 51676, in the first column, in the third paragraph, lines 1-5 through the fourth paragraph line 1 and line 2 through the third word “at” is corrected to “To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing. ”

In the FR Doc. 2022-18092 of August 23, 2022 (87 FR 51675), we published a Paperwork Reduction Act notice requesting a 60-day public comment period for the document entitled “Medicare Part C and Medicare Part D Enrollment Form Interviews.” There were technical delays with making the information collection request publicly available; therefore, in this notice we are extending the comment period from the date originally listed in the August 23, 2022, notice.

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from a hospital, provided certain requirements are met. Section 1881(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes statutory authority for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to set criteria for facilities seeking designation as a dialysis facility (also known as an “end-stage renal disease (ESRD) facility”). Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 494 specify the minimum conditions for coverage that an ESRD facility must meet to participate in the Medicare program.

Generally, to enter into an agreement, an ESRD facility must first be certified by a state survey agency (SA) as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 494 of our regulations. Thereafter, the ESRD facility is subject to regular surveys by a SA to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.

Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)-approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare requirements are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met such requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

If an AO is recognized by CMS as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare requirements. A national AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare requirements. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at §§ 488.4, 488.5 and 488.5(e)(2)(i). The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require AOs to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner, as determined by CMS.

The National Dialysis Accreditation Commission's (NDAC's) current term of approval for their ESRD facility accreditation program expires January 4, 2023.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of applications for CMS approval of an accreditation program is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us 210 days after the date of receipt of a complete application, with any documentation necessary to make the determination, to complete our survey activities and application process. Within 60 days after receiving a complete application, we must publish a notice in the Federal Register that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the request, and provides no less than a 30-day public comment period. At the end of the 210-day period, we must publish a notice in the Federal Register approving or denying the application.

On May 23 2022, we published a proposed notice in the Federal Register (87 FR 31241), announcing NDAC's request for continued approval of its Medicare ESRD facilities accreditation program. In that proposed notice, we detailed our evaluation criteria. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and in our regulations at § 488.5 and § 488.8(h), we conducted a review of NDAC's Medicare ESRD facilities accreditation application in accordance with the criteria specified by our regulations, which include, but are not limited to the following:

• An administrative review of NDAC's: (1) corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its ESRD facility surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited ESRD facilities; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.

• A review of NDAC's survey processes to confirm that a provider or supplier, under NDAC's ESRD facilities deeming accreditation program, meets or exceeds the Medicare program requirements.

• A documentation review of NDAC's survey process to do the following:

++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and NDAC's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.

++ Compare NDAC's processes to those we require of state survey agencies, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against NDAC accredited ESRD facilities.

++ Evaluate NDAC's procedures for monitoring accredited ESRD facilities it has found to be out of compliance with its program requirements.

++ Assess NDAC's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed ESRD facilities and respond to the ESRD facilities plan of correction in a timely manner.

++ Determine the adequacy of NDAC's staff and other resources.

++ Confirm NDAC's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.

++ Confirm NDAC's policies with respect to surveys being unannounced.

++ Confirm NDAC's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.

++ Obtain NDAC's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.

In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the May 23, 2022 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether NDAC's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare conditions for coverage for ESRD facilities. We received no comments.

We compared NDAC's ESRD facilities accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare conditions for coverage of parts 494, and the survey and certification process requirements of parts 488 and 489. Our review and evaluation of NDAC's renewal application, which were conducted as described in section III. of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, NDAC has revised its standards and certification processes in order to-meet our requirements at:

• Section 494.30(a)(2), to specify the requirement to implement the guidelines as outlined in the Medicare regulations for the prevention of IV catheter-related infections.

• Section 494.60(c)(2)(i), to include reference to the 2008 ASHRAE 170 ventilation design parameters or a reference to these design parameters for ESRD facilities that are required to comply with the 2012 NFPA 99, as it relates to providing comfortable temperature within the ESRD facility.

• Section 494.60(e), to provide specific language which requires dialysis facilities that do not have one or more exits to grade level from the patient treatment level to meet the 2012 Health Care Facilities Code (NFPA 99), regardless of the number of patients served.

• Section 494.62(c)(1)(iv), to incorporate other dialysis facilities' contact information in the ESRD facility's emergency preparedness program as part of its communication plans.

• Section 494.70(a)(17), to specify that patients may file internal or external grievances, personally, anonymously or through a representative of the patient's choosing.

In addition to the standards review, CMS reviewed NDAC's comparable survey processes, which were conducted as described in section III. of this final notice, and yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, NDAC has completed revising its survey processes in order to demonstrate that it uses survey processes that are comparable to state survey agency processes by:

• Developing a process on how NDAC will obtain the Dialysis Facility Reports (DFRs) from its already-accredited facilities in accordance with survey comparability at § 488.5(a)(4)(ii).

• Revising NDAC's Life Safety Code Surveyor Responsibilities section to include survey responsibilities and licensure requirements to ensure the 2012 editions of the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) and Health Care Facilities Code (NFPA 99) are met.

• Updating NDAC's Surveyor Field Manual to include surveyor process and worksheets for Life Safety Code and Health Care Facilities Code surveyors and revise other associated documents as necessary.

• Revising NDAC's complaint policy to include prioritization classifications for complaints and timeframes to investigate based on the priority level in accordance with § 488.5(a)(12).

• Revising NDAC's survey processes for Emergency Preparedness to align with the CMS requirements. Specifically, to ensure surveyors review ESRD facility plans to include primary and alternate means for communicating as required by § 494.62(c)(3) and testing guidance in accordance with § 494.62(d)(2), including conducting after-action reviews after an actual emergency event.

• Clarifying that NDAC's policy for immediate jeopardy includes: (1) a process for providing the template to the dialysis facility; and (2) documentation of this information on the statement of deficiencies, in accordance with § 488.5(a)(4)(ii) and the State Operations Manual (SOM), Appendix Q Section VI. Calling Immediate Jeopardy.

• Providing additional education to NDAC surveyors on interviewing patients and staff using open-ended questioning, in accordance with SOM Chapter 2, Section 2714.

• Providing additional education and training to NDAC surveyors on emergency preparedness interviews of patients, staff and facility leadership to ensure the facility can demonstrate knowledge of the emergency preparedness program, including its policies and procedures, in accordance with the survey procedures in SOM Appendix Z.

Based on our review and observations described in section III. and section V. of this final notice, we approve NDAC as a national accreditation organization for ESRD facilities that request participation in the Medicare program. The decision announced in this final notice is effective January 4, 2023 through January 4, 2029 (6 years). In accordance with § 488.5(e)(2)(i) the term of the approval will not exceed 6 years.

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Lynette Wilson, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

ACHDNC provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) on the development of newborn screening activities, technologies, policies, guidelines, and programs for effectively reducing morbidity and mortality in newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders.

The ACHDNC reviews and reports regularly on newborn and childhood screening practices, recommends improvements in the national newborn and childhood screening programs, and fulfills requirements stated in the authorizing legislation. In addition, ACHDNC's recommendations regarding inclusion of additional conditions for screening on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP), following adoption by the Secretary, are evidence-informed preventive health services provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by HRSA pursuant to section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-13). Under this provision, non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance are required to provide insurance coverage without cost-sharing (a co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible) for preventive services for plan years ( i.e., policy years) beginning on or after the date that is one year from the Secretary's adoption of the condition for screening.

During the November 3-4, 2022, meeting, ACHDNC will hear from experts in the fields of public health, medicine, heritable disorders, rare disorders, and newborn screening. Agenda items include the following:

(1) A presentation on phase two of the Krabbe disease evidence review,

(2) A presentation on the Department of Defense's newborn screening system,

(3) A presentation on the process for states to implement conditions recently added to the RUSP,

(4) A presentation on Blueprint for Change for a system of services for children and youth with special health care needs (see https://mchb.hrsa.gov/ programs-impact/focus-areas/children-youth-special-health-care-needs-cyshcn/blueprint-change ),

(5) A Committee discussion on advancing state newborn screening systems,

(6) Workgroup updates, and

(7) A potential update on the Duchenne muscular dystrophy condition nomination and a potential vote on whether to move it forward to full evidence-based review.

The agenda for this meeting includes a potential vote the Committee may hold on whether or not to recommend a nominated condition, Duchenne muscular dystrophy to full evidence-based review, which may lead to a recommendation to add or not add this condition to the RUSP at a future time. In addition, as noted in the agenda items, the Committee will hear a presentation on the evidence review of Krabbe disease, which may lead to such a recommendation to add or not add this condition to the RUSP at a future time.

Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. Information about the ACHDNC, including a roster of members and past meeting summaries, is also available on the ACHDNC website.

Members of the public also will have the opportunity to provide comments. Public participants may request to provide general oral comments and may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting. Oral comments will be honored in the order they are requested and may be limited as time allows. Requests to provide a written statement or make oral comments to the ACHDNC must be submitted via the registration website by 12:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, October 27, 2022.

Individuals who need special assistance or another reasonable accommodation should notify Alaina Harris at the address and phone number listed above at least 10 business days prior to the meeting. Since this meeting occurs in a federal government building, attendees must go through a security check to enter the building. Non-U.S. Citizen attendees must notify HRSA of their planned attendance by contacting ACHDNC@hrsa.gov no later than October 12, 2022, in order to facilitate entry into the building. All attendees are required to present government-issued identification prior to entry.

Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title of the Collections: Project/Performance Site Location(s), Project Abstract, and Key Contacts forms.

Type of Collection: Renewal.

OMB No. 4040-0010.

The Project/Performance Site Location(s), Project Abstract, and Key Contacts forms provide the Federal grant-making agencies an alternative to the Standard Form 424 data set and form. Agencies may use Project/Performance Site Location(s), Project Abstract, and Key Contacts forms for grant programs not required to collect all the data that is required on the SF-424 core data set and form.

Type of respondent: Project/Performance Site Location(s), Project Abstract, and Key Contacts forms are used by organizations to apply for Federal financial assistance in the form of grants. This form is submitted to the Federal grant-making agencies for evaluation and review. The IC expires on December 31, 2022. Grants.gov seeks a three-year clearance of these collections.