The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334, “the 2018 Farm Bill”), amended Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020, “the Act”) to require FNS to establish an interstate data system to be known as the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC) and to promulgate regulations to set requirements for use of the NAC. The Act requires State agencies to participate in the NAC matching program as both providers of data to the NAC and users of the information in the NAC that has been provided by the other State agencies to prevent individuals from receiving SNAP benefits in more than one State agency simultaneously, commonly referred to as duplicate participation.

FNS is promulgating regulations to codify the NAC implementation requirements pursuant to the amendments to the Act and to ensure compliance and alignment with existing statutory and regulatory requirements, including the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) requirements for computer matching programs.

Under existing regulations, an individual may not receive SNAP benefits from more than one State agency in the same benefit month. However, States are limited in their ability to access timely information to enforce this requirement because State agencies maintain the records for SNAP participants in their own States. The NAC will assist State agencies in preventing and detecting duplicate participation by providing a secure method for sharing current information with each other for this purpose.

Each State agency will provide information about current SNAP participants to the NAC. State agencies will then conduct matches against the NAC to determine if someone is already receiving SNAP benefits in any other State as part of the process of determining an individual's eligibility for SNAP. The NAC will also compare information provided by State agencies to detect existing duplicate participation and will notify State agencies when such matches are found.

The Privacy Act of 1974 (the Privacy Act), 5 U.S.C. 552a, embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a system of records (SOR). A SOR is a group of any records under the control of an agency for which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass United States citizens and legal permanent residents.

The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal Register a description denoting the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, the routine uses that are contained in each system in order to make agency record keeping practices transparent, to notify individuals regarding the uses to which personally identifiable information is put, and to assist individuals to more easily find such records within the agency. Below is the description of the NAC system of records.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), USDA has provided a report of this new system to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.

Background

Section 10621 of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act directs the Department of Commerce to establish a pilot program to award strategy development grants and strategy implementation grants to eligible recipients representing eligible local labor markets, tribes, or local communities to “alleviate persistent economic distress and support long-term comprehensive economic development and job creation in eligible areas.” (15 U.S.C. 3722b; Pub. L. 117-167, Division B, Title VI, Subtitle C, Sec. 10621(a)(2), 136 Stat. 1642). Of the $1 billion authorized for the Recompete Pilot Program from fiscal year 2022 through 2026, $200 million has been made available for the program as of the publication of this RFI.

The Recompete Pilot Program will invest in distressed communities across the country to create, and connect workers to, good jobs and support long-term comprehensive economic development. The Recompete Pilot Program specifically targets areas with lower than the U.S. average labor participation by prime-age (25 to 54 years of age) workers ( i.e., high prime-age employment gap) and strives to make targeted interventions to spark economic activity in such areas.

The program focuses on eligible geographic areas—Tribal lands, local labor markets, and local communities  1 —that are experiencing low labor force participation. Part of the goal of this RFI is to identify the different interventions and approaches capable of making a discernible impact on prime-age employment and related indicators of economic distress, such as low household or per capita income.

EDA intends to run a rigorous, fair, and evidence-driven competition informed by the experiences of all stakeholders, economic development practitioners, and relevant policy research to guide program design, structure, and evaluation, and to ensure program impacts are distributed inclusively and equitably. This RFI is meant to encourage the field of workforce and economic development to provide evidence-based guidance that will be used to plan the implementation of the $200 million Recompete Pilot Program.

1. For those who live or work in areas with high prime-age employment gaps, what barriers should be addressed to increase job placement/retention and/or job creation? What unique challenges and opportunities do you see in your community?

2. How might EDA determine how large of an investment is necessary to meaningfully advance the economy of a local labor market or community with a high prime-age employment gap? What data and information are important to that determination?

a. If implementation awards were limited to the statutory minimum of $20 million, what types of initial investments would most significantly increase employment rates?

3. What scale and types of economic development interventions would be most likely to advance the economy of a locality or region with a high prime-age employment gap? For example, should the program emphasize industry sectors or be sector agnostic?

a. Are there limitations due to what's currently allowable with EDA funding?

b. Given that each eligible community will bring its own unique set of challenges and opportunities, how should EDA evaluate whether any such investments, interventions, and/or policies would be most effective in an eligible community?

c. What features of existing block grant programs should EDA adopt or avoid to increase the likelihood of alleviating persistent economic distress and increasing employment? What about these features makes them effective or ineffective?

4. What economic development assets are most predictive of long-term success from a Recompete intervention?

5. What economic development assets does a local labor market and/or community need to have to take advantage of the Recompete Pilot Program?

6. What are best practices for building local public capacity that would prepare local labor markets and/or communities for Recompete implementation and other future funding?

7. What are the most significant distinctions in the interventions needed in smaller versus larger geographic areas, or local communities versus local labor markets as defined by the statute?

8. Please provide research and evidence of interventions that work in highly distressed labor markets and/or communities to create good jobs and/or connect un- or underemployed residents to good jobs.

9. Are there measures in addition to prime-age employment gap (for local labor markets) and prime-age employment gap and median household income (for local communities) recommended to reach areas that are either (a) most persistently distressed, or (b) most likely to show sustained economic development progress after intervention?

10. How can federal grants and cooperative agreements be structured to ensure the impacts of the Recompete Pilot Program are shared broadly and equitably?

11. The statute permits implementation investments only in areas with an approved Recompete Plan. What elements should Recompete Plans include, and against what criteria should EDA evaluate them?

12. How should EDA evaluate Tribal prime-age population given that data from the Department of the Treasury's Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund programs under title VI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 802 et seq. ) are unlikely to be available?

13. What should EDA consider in designing the program for its current funding level of $200 million given the $1 billion vision in the program's statutory authorization? How should those considerations affect EDA's design of the program now and potentially into future years?

14. What else should EDA consider when building this program?

15. What types of administrative or technical assistance will help the recipients of Recompete funding to be more successful during implementation?

16. How should EDA measure the success of the Recompete Pilot Program?

a. What would be the indications of a successful implementation investment under the Recompete Pilot Program?

17. How can the Recompete Pilot Program best complement and leverage other Federal, State, and local economic development investments ( e.g., HUD's Community Development Block Grant program, American Rescue Plan Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS and Science Act, etc.) so that persistent economic distress is alleviated successfully?

18. What is a realistic time period ( e.g., 5, 10, 15 years, other?) over which to evaluate the economic development impacts of the Recompete Pilot Program and why?

The Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Committee and Advisory Panel Chairs will meet to discuss when and how to conduct deep-dive public information workshops. They will continue development of the Prototype Management Strategy Evaluation (pMSE) and provide guidance to the project team, the topics include: (1) interactive catch management demonstration, (2) demonstration of pMSE model framework, and (3) initial testing of identified EBFM management procedures using the pMSE model framework and operating models. Discuss other business as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

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 three-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 which 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 which 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, Highly Migratory Species 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 non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion at the SEDAR 77 HMS Hammerhead Shark Assessment Webinar IX are as follows: discuss any leftover data issues that were not cleared up during the data process, answer any questions that the analysts have, and discuss model development and model setup. Finalize model discussions and decisions as possible.

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.

This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 business days prior to the meeting.

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

The following items of discussion are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order and any changes will be noted on the Council's website when possible.

The joint meeting will begin in a CLOSED SESSION from 9 a.m.-9:45 a.m. with introductions, approval of minutes (October 2022—closed session) and Rank Nominations for the 2022 Law Enforcement Officer/Team of the Year Award.

General session will begin at approximately 10 a.m. with introductions and adoption of agenda, and approval of minutes from the Joint LEC/LETC October 2022 meeting.

The Gulf Council LETC will receive an update on the Southeast For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting (SEFHIER) Program, and Modification of For-Hire Vessel Trip Declaration Requirements. They will review and discuss potential changes to Reef Fish harvest restrictions: Gray Triggerfish Commercial Trip Limit, Greater Amberjack Management Measures, and Gag Grouper Recreational Fishing Season; and, receive an update on the Council's Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures (SOPPs) regarding fishing violations.

The GSMFC LEC will review the IJF Program Activity for the Mangrove Snapper Profile Preparations and Commission Pubs.

The Committee will present the State Report Highlights from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and will discuss any Other Business items.

Written state reports are requested in advance and only highlights will be presented for time purposes during state reporting item.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on www.gulfcouncil.org.

The Law Enforcement Technical Committee consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NOAA OLE, USFWS, the USCG, and the NOAA Office of General Counsel for Law Enforcement.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

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

On 10/28/2022, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service(s) are added to the Procurement List:

The Committee finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Committee's Procurement List is effectuated because of the expiration of the Railroad Retirement Board Headquarters, Chicago, IL contract. The Federal customer contacted and has worked diligently with the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid performance disruption, and the possibility that the Railroad Retirement Board will refer its business elsewhere, this addition must be effective on February 28, 2023, ensuring timely execution for a March 1, 2023 start date while still allowing 5 days for comment. The Committee also published a notice of proposed Procurement List addition in the Federal Register on October 28, 2022 and did not receive any comments from any interested persons. This addition will not create a public hardship and has limited effect on the public at large, but, rather, will create new jobs for other affected parties—people with significant disabilities in the AbilityOne program who otherwise face challenges locating employment. Moreover, this addition will enable Federal customer operations to continue without interruption.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires a Federal agency to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number. 1 To comply with these requirements, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed extension of the currently approved collection of information listed below.

Title: Procedural Requirements for Requests for Interpretative, No-Action, and Exemptive Letters (OMB Control No. 3038-0049). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: This collection covers the information requirements for voluntary requests for, and the issuance of, interpretative, no-action, and exemptive letters submitted to Commission staff pursuant to the provisions of section 140.99 of the Commission's regulations, 2 and related requests for confidential treatment pursuant to section 140.98(b)  3 of the Commission's regulations.

The collection requirements described herein are voluntary. They apply to parties that choose to request a benefit from Commission staff in the form of the regulatory action described in section 140.99. Such benefits may include, for example, relief from some or all of the burdens associated with other collections of information, relief from regulatory obligations that do not constitute collections of information, interpretations, or extensions of time for compliance with certain Commission regulations. It is likely that persons who would opt to request action under section 140.99 will have determined that the information collection burdens that they would assume by doing so will be outweighed substantially by the relief that they seek to receive.

This information collection is necessary, and would be used, to assist Commission staff in understanding the type of relief that is being requested and the basis for the request. It is also necessary, and would be used, to provide staff with a sufficient basis for determining whether: (1) granting the relief would be necessary or appropriate under the facts and circumstances presented by the requestor; (2) the relief provided should be conditional and/or time-limited; and (3) granting the relief would be consistent with staff responses to requests that have been presented under similar facts and circumstances. In some cases, the requested relief might be granted upon the condition that those who seek the benefits of that relief fulfill certain conditions that are necessary to ensure that the relief granted by Commission staff is appropriate. Once again, it is likely that those who would comply with these conditions will have determined that the burden of complying with the conditions is outweighed by the relief that they seek to receive. This information collection also is necessary to provide a mechanism whereby persons requesting interpretative, no-action, and exemptive letters may seek temporary confidential treatment of their request and the Commission staff response thereto and the grounds upon which such confidential treatment is sought.

With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in section 145.9 of the Commission's regulations. 4

The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation to, review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from https://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Requirement will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its burden estimate for this information collection. The Commission has based its estimate of the annual number of respondents related to this information collection, in part, on the average number of interpretative, no-action, and exemptive letters issued by Commission staff in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The Commission generally estimates that each request was made by a unique respondent. To that number, the Commission is adding additional respondents that have incurred burden hours preparing requests for relief that did not generate a Commission staff letter in response.

This estimate includes the burden hours for preparing, filing, and updating such request letters as well as the burden of complying with any conditions that may be contained in any interpretative, no-action, or exemptive letters granting relief. It also includes burden hours required to prepare and submit related requests for confidential treatment. The burden hours associated with individual requests will vary widely, depending upon the type and complexity of relief requested, whether the request presents novel or complex issues, the relevant facts and circumstances, and the number of requestors or other affected entities.

The respondent burden is estimated to be as follows:

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 45.

Estimated Average Annual Burden Hours per Respondent: 40.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,800.

Frequency of Collection: Occasional.

Type of Respondents: Respondents include persons registered with the Commission (such as commodity pool operators, commodity trading advisors, derivatives clearing organizations, designated contract markets, futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, swap dealers, and swap execution facilities), persons seeking an exemption from registration, persons whose registration with the Commission is pending, trade associations and their members, eligible contract participants, and other persons seeking relief from discrete regulatory requirements.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

DoD is establishing the Privacy and Civil Liberties Complaints and Correspondence Records, DoD-0017, as a DoD-wide Privacy Act system of records. A DoD-wide system of records notice (SORN) supports multiple DoD paper or electronic recordkeeping systems operated by more than one DoD component that maintain the same kind of information about individuals for the same purpose. Establishment of DoD-wide SORNs helps DoD standardize the rules governing the collection, maintenance, use, and sharing of personal information in key areas across the enterprise. DoD-wide SORNs also reduce duplicative and overlapping SORNs published by separate DoD components. The creation of DoD-wide SORNs is expected to make locating relevant SORNs easier for DoD personnel and the public, and create efficiencies in the operation of the DoD privacy program.

This system of records supports the receipt, review, processing, tracking, and response to correspondence. The term “correspondence” includes records managed by a DoD Privacy and Civil Liberties Office that may include news, information, opinions, questions, concerns, issues, or general complaints, as well as any associated case files. The system consists of both electronic and paper records.

Additionally, DoD is issuing a Direct Final Rule elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. DoD SORNs have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division website at https://dpcld.defense.gov.

Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, DoD has provided a report of this system of records to the OMB and to Congress.

Purpose of Program: The purposes of this program are to (1) help address State-identified needs for personnel preparation in special education, early intervention, related services, and regular education to work with children, including infants, toddlers, and youth with disabilities; and (2) ensure that those personnel have the necessary skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been determined through scientifically based research, to be successful in serving those children.

Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority, which includes two competitive preference priorities within the absolute priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 662 and 681 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1462 and 1481)).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2023 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:

Associate Degree Preservice Program Improvement Grants to Support Personnel Working with Young Children with Disabilities .

Background:

Creating and maintaining inclusive and equitable early childhood systems requires that all young children, including infants, toddlers, and preschool children (young children) with disabilities and their families, have equitable access to early childhood opportunities and resources. This is particularly important for racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations of young children with disabilities and their families, including those who are multilingual. Qualified and competent personnel are vital to support high-quality inclusion and equitable participation in early childhood programs. Early childhood program personnel with associate degrees play critical roles in supporting inclusive and equitable early childhood programs for young children with disabilities, including those within diverse populations, as child care providers, preschool teachers, assistant teachers, and paraprofessionals.

To effectively support full and equitable participation of young children in these programs, early childhood program personnel with associate degrees need competencies  1 in these roles in order to individualize instruction and accommodations to support the children's development and learning; implement culturally responsive practices in the learning environment; promote children's social, emotional, and behavioral development; collect data to monitor progress; communicate effectively with families; and collaborate with other professionals.

Preservice preparation provides a foundation to support the acquisition of specialized competencies needed to deliver effective and equitable practices that support high-quality inclusion for all young children with disabilities, including those who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations.

Studies have shown, however, that many associate degree programs do not adequately prepare personnel to provide supports and evidence-based practices (EBPs) to serve young children with disabilities and their families in inclusive early childhood programs (Catlett et al., 2014; Catlett et al., 2016; Chang et al., 2005; Maxwell et al., 2006). Programs of study are also not consistently equity-based (National Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching, and Learning, 2018). Pedagogical practices in early childhood personnel preparation programs and professional development programs that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status would support personnel in being better prepared to create inclusive, supportive, equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for children.

Ensuring that associate degree students have access to high-quality preparation programs is key to creating and maintaining inclusive and equitable early childhood programs. High-quality preparation programs provide associate degree-seeking students with the foundational competencies to provide equitable and effective supports and instruction to young children with disabilities, including those who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations. High-quality preparation programs also can provide an on-ramp to further educational attainment and facilitate articulation agreements  2 with 4-year programs, where core competencies align with course objectives in bachelor's degree programs. The early intervention and early childhood special education field has a workforce crisis because of shortages of personnel, particularly shortages of multilingual personnel and limited racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity within available personnel (Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2021; IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association, 2022). While Black and Hispanic students enroll in higher numbers in community colleges (Hanson, 2022), Black and Hispanic adults are less likely than White adults to have a college degree (National Education Statistics, 2022; Mora, 2022). Supporting career pathways from associate degrees to bachelor's degrees is critical for developing a diverse workforce that has the competencies to promote positive and equitable outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families in inclusive early childhood programs.

This priority also will advance the Secretary's Supplemental Priority related to supporting a diverse educator workforce and professional growth to strengthen student learning. See Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, 86 FR 70612 (Dec. 10, 2021) (Supplemental Priorities) (Priority 3).

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund Associate Degree Preservice Improvement Grants to Support Personnel Working with Young Children with Disabilities to achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased capacity of community college faculty to design and deliver curriculum content that prepares associate degree students to work with young children with disabilities and their families, including those who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations, and support their full and equitable participation, development, and learning in early childhood programs.

(b) Increased number of early childhood program personnel with associate degrees who have the competencies to work with young children with disabilities and their families, including those who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations, and support their full and equitable participation, development, and learning in early childhood programs.

(c) Increased collaboration between 4-year institutions of higher education (IHEs) and community colleges to support articulation agreements and career pathways in early intervention and early childhood special education, to increase the number of associate degree graduates who enter bachelor's degree programs.

In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Address the need in the field for early childhood program personnel with associate degrees who have the competencies to serve young children with disabilities and their families, including those who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations, and support their full and equitable participation, development, and learning in early childhood programs; and

(2) Address the need for community college faculty to have the capacity to design and deliver content that will prepare associate degree students to serve young children with disabilities and their families, including those who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations, and support their full and equitable participation, development, and learning in early childhood programs.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Develop or refine a process to effectively enhance and redesign associate degree programs to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to develop partnerships with a minimum of three community colleges to enhance and revise the associate degree curricula within these community colleges to prepare early intervention, early childhood special education, and early childhood education personnel to equitably serve children ages birth through five with disabilities and their families, including those who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations. (In States where the age range for certification of early childhood personnel is other than birth through age 5 ( e.g., birth through age 3, birth through age 5, ages 3 through 5), we defer to the age range in such State's certification); and

Note: If an applicant has been awarded an Associate Degree Preservice Program Improvement Grant to Support Personnel Working with Young Children with Disabilities (Assistance Listing Number 84.325N) grant previously, the applicant may not partner with the same community colleges and must propose different community college partners, to expand the number of community colleges with enhanced programs of study.

(ii) Its proposed approach to partner with community colleges to enhance or redesign the associate degree programs' curricula by incorporating evidence-based practices  3 into courses and by providing at least one practicum experience in a setting that serves young children with disabilities and their families, including young children and families who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations. The applicant must describe—

(A) The approach the proposed project will use to identify and incorporate current research and EBPs in the development and delivery of the curriculum enhancement and redesign;

(B) The knowledge and competencies students will acquire in the enhanced curriculum; and

(C) How coursework and practicum experiences will enable the students to acquire competencies to: support young children with disabilities, including children who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations, with their development and learning; implement culturally and linguistically responsive instruction and intervention practices; work collaboratively with other practitioners; engage and communicate effectively with families; and support children's full and equitable participation in inclusive early childhood programs;

(2) Provide professional development to faculty in the community colleges to develop their capacity to enhance or redesign their associate degree program and implement the new content to prepare associate degree students to work with young children with disabilities and their families, including those who are multilingual and from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations; and

(3) Partner with community colleges to support the development of joint articulation agreements to create career pathways for associate degree students in early intervention and early childhood special education.

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project personnel and quality of management plan,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage 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, as appropriate;

(2) The project director and key project personnel have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The project director and other key project personnel will manage the components of the project;

(4) The time commitments of the project director and other key project personnel are adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project;

(5) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

(6) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including students in the program, families of young children in early childhood programs, early childhood educators, faculty, and community partners, among others, in its development and operation.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources,” how—

(1) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(2) The budget is adequate for meeting the project objectives.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” how the applicant will—

(1) Evaluate how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project have been met. To meet this requirement the applicant must describe—

(i) The relevant outcomes to be measured for the project, particularly the acquisition of faculty and scholars' competencies; and

(ii) The evaluation methodologies, data collection methods, and data analyses that will be used; and

(2) Collect, analyze, and use disaggregated data on scholars supported by the project to inform the proposed project on an ongoing basis.

(f) Address the following application requirements and assurances. The applicant must—

(1) Include, in appendix A, charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots and visuals that provide information directly relating to the application requirements for the narrative. Appendix A should not be used for supplementary information. Please note that charts, tables, figures, graphs, or screen shots, can be single-spaced when placed in appendix A;

(2) Include in appendix B any letters of commitment obtained from partner community colleges. Any letters of commitment should include information on the racial and ethnic demographics of students who attend the community college;

(3) Ensure that if the project maintains a website, it will be of high quality, with an easy-to-navigate design that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;

(4) Include, in the budget, attendance at a two- and one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, or virtually, during each year of the project period; and

Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period if the two- and one-half day project director's conference is conducted virtually.

(5) Provide an assurance that the project will submit the revised curriculum and syllabi for courses that are included in the enhanced associate degree programs if requested by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

Competitive Preference Priorities: Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following two priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional 3 points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 1 and an additional 3 points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2. Applicants should indicate in the abstract if one or both competitive preference priorities are addressed.

The priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Applications from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 4 Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCUs), 5 and other Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs)   6 (0 or 3 points) .

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Partnership with HBCU Community Colleges, TCU Community Colleges, or other MSI Community Colleges (0 or 3 points).

Under Competitive Preference Priority 2, an applicant must have a letter of commitment that demonstrates at least one of its community college partners is an HBCU community college, TCU community college, or other MSI community college.

References:

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1462 and 1481.

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, 86, 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 regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 304.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $2,000,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2024 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $190,000-$200,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $195,000.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $200,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 10.

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

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: IHEs and private nonprofit organizations.

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

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses a training indirect cost rate of 8 percent. This limits indirect cost reimbursement to an entity's actual indirect costs, as determined in its negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, or eight percent of a modified total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. For more information regarding training indirect cost rates, see 34 CFR 75.562. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see https://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: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs, nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application, and other public agencies. The 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 grantee.

4. Other General Requirements:

(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

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 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede the version published on December 27, 2021.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

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 40 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ × 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, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• 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 abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed below:

(a) Significance (10 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

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

(i) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare personnel for fields in which shortages have been demonstrated; and

(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in teaching and student achievement.

(b) Quality of project services (45 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.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;

(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice; and

(iii) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.

(c) Quality of project personnel and quality of management plan (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project and the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(2) 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.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel;

(ii) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;

(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project; and

(iv) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.

(d) Adequacy of resources (10 points).

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

(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization; and

(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(e) Quality of the project evaluation (15 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; and

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

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. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 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.

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program. These measures include (1) the percentage of preparation programs that incorporate scientifically based research or EBPs into their curricula; (2) the percentage of scholars completing the preparation program who are knowledgeable and skilled in EBPs that improve outcomes for children with disabilities; (3) the percentage of scholars who exit the preparation program prior to completion due to poor academic performance; and (4) the percentage of scholars completing the preparation program who are working in the area(s) in which they were prepared upon program completion.

The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the products and services provided by the project meet needs identified by stakeholders and may require the project to report on such alignment in its annual and final performance reports.

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 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, 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.

The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Migrant Education Program Regulations and Certificate of Eligibility.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0662.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households; State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 108,458.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 301,570.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) requests an extension with an adjustment to the currently approved information collection OMB No. 1810-0662. This collection of information is necessary to collect information under the Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program (MEP). Sections 1301-1309 of Part C of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), authorizes MEP. One can find regulations for MEP at 34 CFR 200.81-200.89. This information collection covers regulations with information collection requirements. These requirements pertain to information that State educational agencies (SEAs) must collect in order to properly administer the MEP.

The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Common Core of Data (CCD) School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS) 2022-2024.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0930.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, local, and Tribal governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 331.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,760.

Abstract: NCES annually publishes comprehensive data on the finances of public elementary/secondary schools through the Common Core of Data (CCD). For numerous years, these data have been released at the state level through the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) (OMB #1850-0067) and at the school district level through the Local Education Agency (School District) Finance Survey (F-33). (OMB #0607-0700). There is a significant demand for finance data at the school level. Policymakers, researchers, and the public have long voiced concerns about the equitable distribution of school funding within and across school districts. School-level finance data addresses the need for reliable and unbiased measures that can be utilized to compare how resources are distributed among schools within local districts. Education expenditure data are now available at the school level through the School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS).

The School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS) data collection is conducted annually by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the U.S. Department of Education (ED). In November of 2018, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved changes to the SLFS wherein variables have been added to make the SLFS directly analogous to the F-33 Survey and to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provisions on reporting expenditures per-pupil at the local education agency (LEA) and school-level. A previous package cleared in October 2021 approved data collection for FY 2021, 2022, and 2023 (OMB #1850-0930 v.3). This request includes considerable modifications to the previous package and will allow NCES to conduct in 2023 through 2025 the SLFS for fiscal years 2022 through 2024 (corresponding to school years 2021/22 through 2023/24) and to continue the collection of data that is analogous to the current ESSA expenditures per pupil provision. As an important new addition that is part of this request, the Department's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) proposes to engage NCES to assist OCR with collecting school level finance data as part of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). Pursuant to its authority under the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA), as well as its regulations, OCR has determined that the CRDC is necessary to ascertain or ensure compliance with the civil rights laws within its jurisdiction, and therefore established it as a mandatory collection.

Parts A and B of this submission present the justification for the information collection and an explanation of the statistical methods employed. Part C describes the SLFS instrument, Appendix A provides the SEA communication materials that will be used to conduct the SLFS data collection, Appendix B provides the SLFS data collection form and instructions, and Appendix C provides the survey of SEA's school-level finances fiscal data plan.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the MEP CIG program is to provide incentive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) that participate in a consortium with one or more other SEAs or other appropriate entities to improve the delivery of services to migratory children whose education is interrupted. Through this program, the Department provides financial incentives to SEAs that receive Title I, Part C (MEP) funding to participate in high-quality consortia to improve the intrastate and interstate coordination of migrant education programs by addressing key needs of migratory children whose education is interrupted.

Background: On March 3, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of final requirements for the CIG program (69 FR 10109) (2004 CIG Notice of Final Requirements (NFR)). In the 2004 CIG NFR, the Department established seven absolute priorities that promote key national objectives of the MEP. The Department added an eighth absolute priority when it published in the Federal Register a notice of final priority on March 12, 2008 (73 FR 13217) (2008 CIG Notice of Final Priority (NFP)).

For FY 2023, the Department is focusing the CIG competition on four of the eight absolute priorities. These absolute priorities were selected because they closely align with the Administration's priorities. Specifically, the FY 2023 competition will focus on improving the proper and timely identification and recruitment of eligible migratory children, improving the school readiness of preschool-aged migratory children, strengthening the involvement of migratory parents in the education of migratory students, and improving the education attainment of out-of-school migratory youth.

The FY 2023 competition also includes three competitive preference priorities from the Department's Notice of Final Priorities and Definitions—Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) ( https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-26615 ).

Through these absolute and competitive preference priorities, we encourage applicants to consider projects that are best addressed by an interstate or intrastate solution. For example, a project could facilitate interstate collaboration to provide continuous access to instructional technology that supports migratory children; another project could help educators of migratory children select appropriate and evidence-based digital tools that will accelerate learning recovery after COVID-19 and get needed services to migratory children as expeditiously as possible.

In addition, we encourage applications that propose projects to strengthen the involvement of migratory parents in the education of their children. For example, applicants may propose to identify and utilize existing evidence-based resources to build capacity of migratory parents to engage in the community and to access community resources, as well as connect them to organizations such as parent advocacy groups. Another project may support the implementation of education-related family engagement action plans created by consortium States to inform the implementation of MEP parent involvement and family engagement activities and services.

Applicants are also encouraged to propose projects that build relationships with organizations and agencies serving migratory children and their families to identify, recruit, serve, or assess the education and health-related needs of migratory children and out-of-school migratory youth. For example, applicants could propose to develop formal partnerships with Migrant and Seasonal Head Start; Migrant Health; the High School Equivalency Program (HEP); the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP); local farm associations and agribusinesses; the Department of Labor; or other Federal, State, or local entities.

Priorities: This competition includes four absolute priorities and three competitive preference priorities. Absolute Priorities 1, 2, and 3 are from the 2004 CIG NFR. Absolute Priority 4 is from the 2008 CIG NFP. In Absolute Priorities 2, 3, and 4, the term “scientifically based” has been replaced with “evidence-based,” as explained in the Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking section of this notice.

The competitive preference priorities are from the Supplemental Priorities.

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2023, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one or more of these priorities.

The applicant must clearly indicate in the abstract section of its application to which absolute priority it is applying. If an applicant is interested in proposing separate projects ( e.g., one that addresses Absolute Priority 1 and another that addresses Absolute Priority 2), the applicant must submit separate applications. The Department intends to create four funding slates for CIG applications—one for applications that meet Absolute Priority 1, a separate slate for applications that meet Absolute Priority 2, a separate slate for applications that meet Absolute Priority 3, and a fourth slate for applications that meet Absolute Priority 4. As a result, the Department may fund applications out of the overall rank order. The Department anticipates making at least one award on each slate, provided applications of sufficient quality are submitted, but the Department is not bound by these estimates.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1: Services designed to improve the proper and timely identification and recruitment of eligible migratory children whose education is interrupted.

Absolute Priority 2: Services designed (based on a review of evidence-based research) to improve the school readiness of preschool-aged migratory children whose education is interrupted.

Absolute Priority 3: Services designed (based on a review of evidence-based research) to strengthen the involvement of migratory parents in the education of migratory students whose education is interrupted.

Absolute Priority 4: Services designed (based on a review of evidence-based research) to improve the educational attainment of out-of-school migratory youth whose education is interrupted.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2023, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to an additional 10 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets one of the competitive preference priorities. Applicants may receive points for only one competitive preference priority. The applicant must indicate in the abstract section of its application which competitive preference priority, if any, it is addressing. While applicants are encouraged to address only one competitive preference priority, if an applicant chooses to address more than one competitive preference priority, the Department will instruct reviewers to score only the first competitive preference priority mentioned in the abstract.

The priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students, Educators, and Faculty (Up to 10 points).

Projects that are designed to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including impacts that extend beyond the duration of the pandemic itself, on the students most impacted by the pandemic, with a focus on underserved students and the educators who serve them, through projects addressing students' social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs through approaches that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational Resources and Opportunities (Up to 10 points).

Projects that are designed to promote education equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity for underserved students—

(a) In one of the following settings:

(1) Early learning programs.

(2) Career and technical education programs.

(3) Out-of-school-time settings.

(4) Adult learning;

(b) That examine the sources of inequity and inadequacy and implement responses and that may include establishing, expanding, or improving the engagement of underserved community members (including underserved students and families) in informing and making decisions that influence policy and practice at the school, district, or State level by elevating their voices, through their participation and their perspectives and providing them with access to opportunities for leadership ( e.g., establishing partnerships between civic student government programs and parent and caregiver leadership initiatives).

Competitive Preference Priority 3: Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community Engagement to Advance Systemic Change (Up to 10 points).

Projects that are designed to take a systemic evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for underserved students through establishing cross-agency partnerships, or community-based partnerships with local nonprofit organizations, businesses, philanthropic organizations, or others, to meet family well-being needs.

Definitions: The following definitions apply to this competition. The definitions of “demonstrates a rationale,” “evidence-based,” “logic model,” “project component,” and “relevant outcome” are from 34 CFR 77.1(c). The definitions of “early learning,” “educator,” and “underserved student” are from the Supplemental Priorities.

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Early learning means any (a) State-licensed or State-regulated program or provider, regardless of setting or funding source, that provides early care and education for children from birth to kindergarten entry, including, but not limited to, any program operated by a child care center or in a family child care home; (b) program funded by the Federal Government or State or local educational agencies (including any IDEA-funded program); (c) Early Head Start and Head Start program; (d) non-relative child care provider who is not otherwise regulated by the State and who regularly cares for two or more unrelated children for a fee in a provider setting; and (e) other program that may deliver early learning and development services in a child's home, such as the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program; Early Head Start; and Part C of IDEA.

Educator means an individual who is an early learning educator, teacher, principal or other school leader, specialized instructional support personnel ( e.g., school psychologist, counselor, school social worker, early intervention service personnel), paraprofessional, or faculty.

Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

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.

Underserved student means a migrant student (which may include children in early learning environments and students in K-12 programs).

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: The term “scientifically based” has been replaced with the term “evidence-based,” as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) (APA) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)). There is good cause to waive rulemaking in this case because the term “scientifically based” and its definition are no longer in statute. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Secretary has determined that obtaining public comment on the removal of the term “scientifically based” and the adoption of the term “evidence-based” is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

The APA also generally requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Because this final regulatory action merely updates outdated regulations, the Secretary also has good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of these regulatory changes under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6398(d).

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75 (except 75.232), 76, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 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 2004 CIG NFR. (e) The 2008 CIG NFP. (f) The notice of final requirement published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2013 (78 FR 79613). (g) The MEP regulations in 34 CFR 200.81-200.89. (h) The Supplemental Priorities.

Type of Award: Formula grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $3,000,000.

Estimated Range of Awards: $50,000-$150,000.

The actual size of an SEA's award will depend on the number of SEAs that participate in high-quality consortia and the size of those SEAs' MEP formula grant allocations.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $100,000.

Maximum Award: An SEA cannot receive an incentive award that exceeds its MEP Basic State Formula Grant allocation or $250,000, whichever is less, for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 30 SEA awards. An SEA that participates in a consortium may receive only one incentive grant award regardless of the number of consortia in which it participates.

Project Period: Up to 36 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs receiving MEP Basic State Formula Grants, in a consortium with one or more other SEAs or other appropriate entities. An application for an incentive grant must be submitted by an SEA that will act as the “lead SEA” for the proposed consortium.

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

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. Pursuant to the 2004 CIG NFR, the supplement-not-supplant provisions in sections 1118(b) and 1304(c)(2) of the ESEA are applicable to this program.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this competition may award subgrants. Pursuant to ESEA section 1302, the Secretary makes grants to SEAs, or combinations of such agencies, to establish or improve, directly or through local operating agencies, programs of education for migratory children.

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 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede the version published on December 27, 2021.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) 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.

5. Use of CIG Funds: SEAs in consortia receiving awards must implement the activities described in their project applications as a condition of their receipt of funds. CIG awards are treated as additional funds available to an SEA under the MEP Basic State Formula Grant program. Moreover, general requirements governing the use and reporting of awarded funds would be governed by provisions of 34 CFR part 76, which govern State-administered formula grant programs, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR part 75.210 and are as follows:

(a) Significance (10 points). The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

(1) 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)

(2) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies. (Up to 5 points)

(b) Quality of the project design (30 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

(1) 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) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (Up to 7 points)

(3) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population. (Up to 5 points)

(4) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice). (Up to 8 points)

(c) Quality of project services (30 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(1) 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, sex, age, or disability. (Up to 3 points)

(2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services. (Up to 7 points)

(ii) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services. (Up to 10 points)

(iii) The extent to which the technical assistance services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources. (Up to 5 points)

(iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services. (Up to 5 points)

(d) Quality of the management plan (10 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (Up to 2 points)

(2) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (Up to 3 points)

(3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (Up to 5 points)

(e) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the project evaluation, the Secretary considers:

(1) 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 10 points)

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (Up to 10 points)

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any 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 also may notify you informally.

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 as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance 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.

5. Performance Measures: Consortium grantees are required to report on their project's effectiveness based on the project objectives, performance measures, and scheduled activities outlined in the consortium's application.

In addition, all grantees are required, under 2 CFR 200.329, to report on program performance indicators as part of their Consolidated State Performance Report. The program performance indicators established by the Department for the MEP, of which the Consortium Incentive Grants are a component, are—

(a) The percentage of MEP students that scored at or above proficient on their State's annual reading/language arts assessments in grades 3-8;

(b) The percentage of MEP students that scored at or above proficient on their State's annual mathematics assessments in grades 3-8;

(c) The percentage of MEP students who were enrolled in grades 7-12, and graduated or were promoted to the next grade level; and

(d) The percentage of MEP students who entered 11th grade that had received full credit for Algebra I or a higher mathematics course.

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 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), 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.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

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

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

EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public participation process for registration actions, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions. Please see EPA's public participation website for additional information on this process ( https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/public-participation-process-registration-actions ).

File Symbols: 1021-EITE, 1021-EIAO, 1021-EIAI, 1021-EITR, 1021-EITN. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0772. Applicant: McLaughlin Gormley King Company, d/b/a MGK, 7325 Aspen Lane N Minneapolis, MN 55428. Product names: Sabadilla 10% Alkaloid Extract; MGK Formula 31422 Aerosol; MGK Formula 31421 (RTU); MGK Formula 31731 (RTU); MGK Formula 3159 [10%, 0.1%, 0.1%, 0.1%, 4.2%]. Active ingredient: Cevadine Mixture with Veratridine. Proposed classification/Use: Outdoor, non-food use; spot, crack and crevice. Contact: RD.

File Symbol: 7001-TTIL. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0642. Applicant: JR Simplot Company, 16777 Howland Road, Lathrop, CA 95330. Product name: No Mas TM . Active ingredient: Herbicide—ferrous sulfate heptahydrate at 100%. Proposed use: Non-food use for moss control on turf, lawns, and base of tree trunks. Contact: BPPD.

File Symbol: 29964-GE. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0989. Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International 8325 NW 62nd Avenue Johnston, IA 50131, USA. Product name: DP910521 Maize Insect Protected, Herbicide-Tolerant Corn. Active ingredient: Insecticide—Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1B.34 protein and the genetic material necessary (PHP79620 T-DNA) for its production in corn event DP‐91Ø521-2 at 0.04%. Proposed use: Plant-Incorporated-Protectant (PIP) for use in maize. Contact: BPPD.

File Symbol: 29964-GG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0018. Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 7100 NW 62nd Avenue, P.O. Box 1000, Johnston, Iowa, 50131. Product name: DAS1131 Maize Insect Protected, Herbicide-Tolerant Corn. Active ingredient: Insecticide— Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Da2 protein and the genetic material necessary (PHP88492 T-DNA) for its production in corn event DAS-Ø1131-3. Proposed use: Plant-Incorporated-Protectant (PIP) for use in maize. Contact: BPPD.

File Symbol: 91163-E. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0849. Applicant: Texas Corn Producers Board, 4205 N Interstate 27, Lubbock, Texas 79403. Product name: FourSure. Active ingredients: Fungicides— Aspergillus flavus strains TC16F, TC35C, TC38B, and TC46G at 0.00024% each. Proposed use: For application to corn to displace aflatoxin-producing strains of Aspergillus flavus. Contact: BPPD.

File Symbol: 97144-G. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0002. Application: Reliox Corporation, 8475 Western Way, Suite 155, Jacksonville, FL 32256. Product Name: Whiff! (with ReliOx Resin). Active Ingredient: Antimicrobial—Styrene divinylbenzene and ethylstyrene copolymer, chloromethyl trimethylamine functionalized in the tribromide form (Reliox resin) at 100% nominal concentration. Proposed Use: Disinfectant and sanitizer on hard, non-porous surfaces in commercial settings. Contact: Michael Varco, AD.

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

This notice is directed to the general public and may be of specific interest to persons ( e.g., industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), animal owners, veterinarians, and academia) who are or may be interested in regulation of parasite treatment products applied topically to animals or in genetically engineered pest animals for use as pest control tools. Because other entities may also be interested in this notice, the agencies have not attempted to describe all entities that may be interested in this subject.

Information about this meeting is available through a link on the OPP website available at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides. Supporting materials are available in the docket for this meeting, identified by docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0103, at https://www.regulations.gov.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information through https://www.regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting your comments.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see Tips for Effective Comments at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Currently, EPA and FDA determine regulatory oversight of pesticides and new animal drugs based on the rationale described in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies signed in 1971 and revised in 1973. Since that time, pesticide and animal drug technologies—and both agencies' understanding of these technologies—have evolved.

For example, parasite treatment products applied topically to animals generally are regulated by EPA if they remain on the skin to control only external parasites ( e.g., fleas, ticks) and by FDA if they are absorbed systemically into the bloodstream to control internal parasites ( e.g., intestinal worms). The agencies now understand that many of the topically administered products currently regulated by EPA do not remain on the skin and are actually absorbed into the bloodstream, highlighting challenges with the current approach and raising different safety concerns than originally anticipated.

Additionally, genetically engineered (“GE”) pest animals, which are gaining interest as a pest control tool, were not envisioned 50 years ago when the original regulatory approach was developed. As agreed in the 2016 National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products, EPA and FDA have considered how to update their respective responsibilities with the goal of developing an efficient, transparent, and predictable approach for overseeing GE insects. Recently, Executive Order 14081, issued September 12, 2022, has further directed the agencies to improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory process for biotechnology products, underscoring the need for continued coordination between the agencies on biotechnology.

The agencies' current approach to determining whether EPA or FDA is the appropriate regulator of certain products does not effectively reflect or accommodate scientific advancement, and it has become clear in some cases that the current approach has resulted in misalignment between product characteristics and the agency better equipped to regulate the product. A modernized approach would ensure that the oversight of these products better aligns with each agency's expertise, accounts for scientific advancement, avoids redundancy, better protects animal health and safety, and improves regulatory clarity for regulated entities, animal owners, veterinarians, and other stakeholders.

Additional information on each of these key areas is provided in the whitepaper in the docket.

The virtual public meeting will focus on the whitepaper and the following questions. We are not seeking input or comments about any specific products, other federal agencies' product oversight, or other topics outside the scope of the whitepaper and the questions below. We are particularly interested in receiving comments from the public on the following:

1. What do you perceive as the strengths and weaknesses of each agency in regulating these types of products?

2. Are there additional or different challenges that EPA and FDA did not identify in the whitepaper?

3. How can EPA and FDA communicate with their stakeholders about the regulation of these products in a clearer and more transparent manner?

4. For regulated entities, how have you historically determined which agency to approach first to bring your product to market?

5. For consumers, do you know who is regulating the products you use on your animal(s)? If you have a concern or complaint about a specific product, do you know which agency to contact?

6. How should EPA and FDA modify product oversight to better align with each agency's mission and expertise?

7. What difficulties would you envision if EPA and FDA were to modify product oversight to better align with each agency's mission and expertise, and how could they be mitigated?

EPA and FDA are seeking public comments through several planned activities including:

• Through this Federal Register document, EPA is announcing that it is co-hosting a virtual public meeting with FDA on the date identified in DATES to seek input from stakeholders on the agencies' current approaches to the oversight of various products regulated as either pesticides by EPA or new animal drugs by FDA. The agenda and instructions for registration for this meeting are available through a link on the OPP website available at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides.

• EPA and FDA are announcing the availability of and are soliciting comment on the whitepaper and the questions posed in Unit II.B.

• Following the public meeting and the close of the comment period, EPA and FDA will consider comments received in determining next steps.

The whitepaper is available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov; identified as docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0103. In addition, EPA and FDA may include additional background documents in the docket as the materials become available.

To participate in the virtual public meeting, please follow the instructions in this unit.

To ensure proper receipt of comments, it is imperative that you identify docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0103 in the subject line on the first page of your comments.

1. Written comments. You are encouraged to provide written comments that are submitted using the instructions in ADDRESSES and Unit I.B. and C., on or before the date set in the DATES section.

2. Oral comments. If you want to make brief oral comments during the virtual public meeting, please indicate this interest during registration for the virtual public meeting on or before March 15, 2023. Please follow the registration instructions available through a link on the OPP website available at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides.

After the agencies receive all registrations for oral comments, they will determine the amount of time to allot to each commenter and email that information to all commenters.

This meeting is virtual and will occur via webcast. For information on how to register and then view the webcast, please refer to the registration instructions available through a link on the OPP website available at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides.

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

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

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

EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

EPA Registration Number: 100-739, 100-740. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0856. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC 410 Swing Road Greensboro, NC 27419 Active ingredient: Difenoconazole. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Dried Shelled Pea and Bean (except Soybean) Crop Subgroup 6C (Seed treatment). Contact: RD.

EPA Registration Numbers: 5905-580, 62719-87, and 62719-533. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0890. Applicant: Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606. Active ingredient: Triclopyr. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed use: Sugarcane. Contact: RD.

File Symbol: 69132-L. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0016. Applicant: Purac America, Inc., 7905 Quivira Rd., Lexena, KS 66215. Active ingredient: L-lactic acid. Product type: In-can preservative. Proposed use: In-can preservative for controlling microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) that cause spoilage and/or fouling in industrial, commercial and consumer (household) products, such as liquid detergents, laundry products, fabric softeners, soaps, liquid cleaners, all-purpose cleaners, disinfectants and sanitizers, furniture and floor care, cleaning wipes, shampoos (carpet, upholstery, animal, industrial), leather care, shower gels, inks, adhesives, silicone emulsions, and surfactants. Contact: AD.

EPA Registration Numbers: 7969-335 and 7969-336. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0887. Applicant: BASF Corporation 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active ingredient: Cyflumetofen. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed uses: Cucurbit crop group 9; crop group expansions for berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G and fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; and new field use on pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8-10B. Contact: RD.

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

This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.

EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing sulfoxaflor, a currently registered active ingredient. Notice of receipt of the applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public participation process for registration actions, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions. Please see EPA's public participation website for additional information on this process ( https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/public-participation-process-registration-actions ).

EPA is taking this action pursuant to FIFRA section 3(c)(4), 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4), and 40 CFR 152.102.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

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

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

In July 2019, EPA's Office of Pesticide Program granted a number of amendments to add new uses and make other labeling changes to three existing sulfoxaflor products registered for use under FIFRA. Those amendments were challenged in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Center for Food Safety v. Reagan , 56 F.4th 648 (9th Cir. 2022). Petitioners in that case contended that EPA failed to provide notice and opportunity for comment under FIFRA section 3(c)(4) on the 2010 application for use of sulfoxaflor on citrus, cotton, cucurbits, soybean, and strawberry crops and, for uses registered in 2016, removal of restrictions limiting use to post-bloom applications on berries, canola, okra, ornamentals, pome fruit, potato, stone fruit, fruiting vegetables, nuts, succulent and dry beans; prohibiting use on crops grown for seed; prohibiting tank mixing; and removing a 12' on-field aerial buffer. The Court agreed with the Petitioners on this issue, requiring EPA to issue a new FIFRA section 3(c)(4) notice with an opportunity for comment on those uses. This notice is intended to address that part of the Court's mandate.

This unit provides the following information about the applications received and on which comments are being sought: The EPA File Symbol or Registration number(s) and EPA docket ID number for the application; The name and address of the applicant; The name of the active ingredient, product type and proposed uses; and the division to contact for that application. Additional information about the application may also be available in the docket.

• EPA File Symbol: 62719-631, 62719-623, 62719-625. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889. Applicant: Corteva Agriscience, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46268. Active Ingredient: Sulfoxaflor. Product Type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: After conducting an extensive risk analysis, including review of one of the agency's largest datasets on the effects of a pesticide on bees, the Agency restored the 2015 vacated uses in 2019 on: citrus, cotton, cucurbits, soybeans, strawberry. The Agency also removed the following 2016 mitigations in 2019: A 12 foot on-field aerial buffer; prohibition for use on crops grown for seed; removal of the tank mix restriction; removal of restrictions limiting use to post-bloom applications on berries, canola, okra, ornamentals, pome fruit, potato, stone fruit, fruiting vegetables, nuts, succulent and dry beans. Contact: RD.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-1256.

Title: Application for Connect America Fund Phase II and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction Support.

Form Number: FCC Form 683.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not-for-profit institutions, and State, Local or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 530 respondents and 930 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2-12 hours (on average).

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirements, on occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection 47 U.S.C. 154, 214, 254 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 5,860 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Although most information collected in FCC Form 683 will be made available for public inspection, the Commission will withhold certain information collected in FCC Form 683 from routine public inspection. Specifically, the Commission will treat certain financial and technical information submitted in FCC Form 683 as confidential. In addition, an applicant may use the abbreviated process under 47 CFR 0.459(a)(4) to request confidential treatment of the audited financial statements that are submitted during the post-selection review process. However, if a request for public inspection for this technical or financial information is made under 47 CFR 0.461, and the applicant has any objections to disclosure, the applicant will be notified and will be required to justify continued confidential treatment. To the extent that an applicant seeks to have other information collected in FCC Form 683 or during the post-selection review process withheld from public inspection, the applicant may request confidential treatment pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses:

The Commission is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for this revised information collection. On November 18, 2011, the Commission released the USF/ICC Transformation Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., FCC 11-161 ( USF/ICC Transformation Order and/or FNPRM ), which comprehensively reformed and modernized the high-cost program within the universal service fund to focus support on networks capable of providing voice and broadband services. Among other things, the Commission created the Connect America Fund (CAF) and concluded that support in price cap areas would be provided through a combination of “a new forward-looking model of the cost of constructing modern multi-purpose networks” and a competitive bidding process (CAF Phase II auction or Auction 903). The Commission also sought comment in the accompanying USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM on proposed rules governing the CAF Phase II auction, including basic auction design and the application process.

In the CAF Phase II auction, service providers competed to receive support of up to $1.98 billion over 10 years to offer voice and broadband service in unserved high-cost areas. The information collection requirements reported under this collection are the result of several Commission decisions to implement the reform adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and move forward with conducting the CAF Phase II auction. In the April 2014 Connect America Order, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., FCC 14-54, the Commission adopted various rules regarding participation in the CAF Phase II auction, the term of support, and the eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation process. In the Phase II Auction Order, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., FCC 16-64, the Commission adopted rules to govern the CAF Phase II auction, including the adoption of a two-stage application process, which includes a pre-auction short-form application to be submitted by parties interested in bidding in the CAF Phase II auction and a post-auction long-form application that must be submitted by winning bidders seeking to become authorized to receive CAF Phase II auction support. The Commission concluded, based on its experience with auctions and consistent with the record, that this two-stage application process balances the need to collect information essential to conducting a successful auction and authorizing CAF Phase II support with administrative efficiency.

On January 30, 2018, the Commission adopted a public notice that established the final procedures for the CAF Phase II auction, including the long-form application disclosure and certification requirements for winning bidders seeking to become authorized to receive CAF Phase II auction support. See Phase II Auction Procedures Public Notice, WC Docket No. 17-182 et al., FCC 18-6. The Commission also adopted the Phase II Auction Order on Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., FCC 18-5, which modified the Commission's letter of credit rules to provide some additional relief for CAF Phase II auction support recipients by reducing the costs of maintaining a letter of credit. On January 19, 2023, WCB released a public notice announcing that the Commission had concluded its review of CAF Phase II auction long-form applications. See WCB Concludes CAF II Application Review, Long-Forms Made Public, AU Docket No. 17-182 et al., DA 23-49.

The Commission proposes to eliminate the information collection requirements related to the CAF Phase II auction FCC Form 683 now that the Commission's review of CAF Phase II auction long-form applications has concluded. All other information collection requirements remain unchanged.

On February 7, 2020 the Commission released the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, WC Docket Nos. 19-126, 10-90, FCC 20-5 which will commit up to $20.4 billion over the next decade to support up to gigabit speed broadband networks in rural America. The funding was allocated through a multi-round, reverse, descending clock auction that favored faster services with lower latency and encouraged intermodal competition in order to ensure that the greatest possible number of Americans will be connected to the best possible networks, all at a competitive cost.

To implement the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction (or Auction 904), the Commission adopted new rules for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, including the adoption of a two-stage application process. Like with the CAF Phase II auction, this process includes a pre-auction short-form application to be submitted by parties interested in bidding in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction (FCC Form 183) and a post-auction long-form application that must be submitted by winning bidders (or their designees) seeking to become authorized to receive Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support (FCC Form 683). The Commission received approval for the short-form application (FCC Form 183) in a separate collection under the OMB control number 3060-1252.

This information collection includes the disclosures and certifications adopted by the Commission that must be made by winning bidders seeking to become authorized for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support and the requirement that Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support recipients maintain a letter of credit. Any additional revisions or new collections for OMB review that address other reforms adopted in the Order will be submitted at a later date.

The Commission therefore proposes to revise this information collection to maintain these Rural Digital Opportunity Fund requirements.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Request.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New information collection.

Respondents: Individuals or Households, Business or other for-profit, and Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 770 respondents; 770 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.08 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a.

Total Annual Burden: 62 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $5,124.00.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes. The online form is used to collect information necessary to process a proper FOIA/Privacy Act (PA) request relating to a subject matter provided by the requester. This form includes a link to a Privacy Act Statement which outlines the statutory authority for the information collection, the purpose of the collection, and the routine uses under which the information may be disclosed outside of the FCC, as described in the FCC System of Records Notice, FCC/OMD-17—Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act Requests.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: FOIA confidential and proprietary information is protected in accordance with FCC regulations at 47 CFR 0.457(d). When a request for confidential or proprietary information is submitted, it is handled in accordance with 47 CFR 0.457(d).

Privacy Act requests are made available only to the individual who is the subject of the record, who has provided proof or affirmation of identity, and is not made publicly available.

A description of how this information is collected, maintained, and disclosed is provided in the FCC System of Records Notice, FCC/OMD-17—Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act Requests and in the Privacy Act Statement linked in the online form.

Needs and Uses: The online form is used to collect information necessary to process a proper FOIA request relating to a subject matter provided by the requester. Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, details what makes a proper FOIA request. A proper request must include: (1) a reasonable description of the record and (2) is made in accordance with published agency rules stating time, place, fees (if any) and procedures to be followed.

Respondents can request records at any time. The request must describe each requested record in sufficient detail to enable the FCC staff to locate the record. The online form is used to collect requester's information (address, contact information, etc.) and a detailed description of the records sought. The FOIA requester is asked to provide information that would assist the FCC in locating responsive records (if they exist). This information is essential to the accurate search and retrieval of records responsive to FOIA/PA requests. Additionally, the requester may include information, if applicable, about fee categories, fee waivers, and expedited processing.

This form will enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and minimize the burden of the collection of information on those responding.

The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: MICHAEL RADIO COMPANY, LLC, KLLM(FM), FAC. ID NO. 762455, FROM: WHEATLAND, WY, TO: WEST LARAMIE, WY, FCC FILE NO. 0000205045; GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF AMARILLO, KRGK(FM), FAC. ID NO. 766480, FROM: BIG SPRING, TX, TO: SWEETWATER, TX, FCC FILE NO. 0000207569; SOLID ROCK FOUNDATION, KVWD(FM), FAC. ID NO. 766506, FROM: SWEETWATER, OK, TO: MERRITT, OK, FCC FILE NO. 0000207441; CENTRAL FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., WCYZ(FM), FAC. ID NO. 191546, FROM: SILVER SPRINGS SHORE, FL, TO: OCALA, FL, FCC FILE NO. 0000204932; CENTRAL FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., WHGV(FM), FAC. ID NO. 76433, FROM: LA CROSSE, FL, TO: GAINESVILLE, FL, FCC FILE NO. 0000206026; ALLIANCE RADIO, LLC, WPNA-FM, FAC. ID NO. 74177, FROM: HIGHLAND PARK, IL, TO: NILES, IL, FCC FILE NO. 0000210663; and BRADLEY GOEHL, KKBW, FAC. ID NO. 762409, FROM: MULLIN, TX, TO: LAKE BROWNWOOD, TX, FCC FILE NO. 0000210602. The full text of these applications is available electronically via the Licensing and Management System (LMS), https://apps2int.fcc.gov/dataentry/public/tv/publicAppSearch.html.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0844.

Title: Carriage of the Transmissions of Television Broadcast Stations: Section 76.56(a), Carriage of qualified noncommercial educational stations; Section 76.57, Channel positioning; Section 76.61(a)(1)-(2), Disputes concerning carriage; Section 76.64, Retransmission consent.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 370 respondents and 2,550 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 5 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this action is contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 325, 338, 614, 615, 631, 632, and 653 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 325, 338, 534, 535, 551, 552, and 573.

Total Annual Burden: 2,220 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: Under Section 614 of the Communications Act and the implementing rules adopted by the Commission, commercial TV broadcast stations are entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's television market. Under Section 325(b) of the Communications Act, commercial TV broadcast stations are entitled to negotiate with local cable systems for carriage of their signal pursuant to retransmission consent agreements in lieu of asserting must carry rights. This system is therefore referred to as “Must-Carry and Retransmission Consent.” Under Section 615 of the Communications Act, noncommercial educational (NCE) stations are also entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's market; however, noncommercial TV broadcast stations *16939 are not entitled to retransmission consent.

In 2019, the Commission adopted new rules governing the delivery and form of carriage election notices. Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket Nos. 17-105, 17-317, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-69, 34 FCC Rcd 5922(2019) (2019 Report and Order). That decision modernized the carriage election notice rules by moving the process online for most broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), but the Commission sought comment on how to apply these updated rules to certain small broadcast stations and MVPDs.

In 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that resolved the remaining issues regarding carriage election notice rules for small broadcast stations and MVPDs. Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket Nos. 17-105, 17-317, Report and Order, FCC 20-14, 2020 WL 948697 (rel. Feb. 25, 2020) (2020 Report and Order). Pursuant to that decision, the obligations of certain small broadcasters and MVPDs were slightly modified.

This information collection is being revised to reflect the changes to 47 CFR 76.64(h) as well as other new obligations adopted in the 2020 Report and Order, which require review and approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

47 CFR 76.64(h)(5) is amended to require low power television stations and non-commercial educational translator stations that are qualified under 47 CFR 76.55 and retransmitted by an MVPD to, beginning no later than July 31, 2020, respond as soon as is reasonably possible to messages or calls from MVPDs that are received via the email address or phone number the station provides in the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS) database.

A qualified Low Power Television (LPTV) station that changes its carriage election must send an election change notice to each affected MVPD's carriage election-specific email address by the carriage election deadline. Such change notices must include, with respect to each station covered by the notice: The station's call sign, the station's community of license, the DMA where the station is located, the specific change being made in election status, and an email address and phone number for carriage-related questions. LPTV notices to cable operators need to identify specific cable systems for which a carriage election applies only if the broadcaster changes its election for some systems of the cable operator but not all. In addition, the broadcaster must carbon copy ElectionNotices@FCC.gov, the Commission's election notice verification email inbox, when sending its carriage elections to MVPDs.

All qualified LPTV stations, whether being carried pursuant to must carry or retransmission consent, must send an email notice to all MVPDs that are or will be carrying the station no later than the next carriage election deadline of October 1, 2020. Qualified LPTVs must do so even if they are not changing their carriage status from the current election cycle. These notifications must be sent to an MVPD's carriage election-specific email address, must be copied to ElectionNotices@FCC.gov, and must include the same information required for a change notification except that the notification may simply confirm the existing carriage status rather than a change in status.

All qualified NCE translator stations must provide email notice to all MVPDs that are or will be carrying the translator no later than the next carriage election deadline of October 1, 2020. Similar to qualified LPTVs, these notifications must be sent to an MVPD's carriage election-specific email address, must be copied to ElectionNotices@FCC.gov, and must include the station's call sign, the

OMB Control Number: 3060-0400.

Title: Part 61, Tariff Review Plan (TRP).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,747 respondents; 4,148 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-53 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time, on occasion, annual or biennial reporting requirements, and certification requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory Authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, and 251(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. See 47 U.S.C. 201, 202 and 203, and 251(b)(5).

Total Annual Burden: 60,576 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe are confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission has developed standardized Tariff Review Plans (TRPs) that set forth the summary material that incumbent LECs (ILECs) file to support revisions to the rates in their interstate access service tariffs. The TRPs display basic data on rate development in a consistent manner, thereby facilitating review of the ILEC rate revisions by the Commission and interested parties. The TRPs have served this purpose effectively in past years.

Title: OGE Form 201 Request an Individual's Ethics Documents.

Agency Form Number: OGE Form 201.

OMB Control Number: 3209-0002.

Type of Information Collection: Extension with modifications of a currently approved collection.

Type of Review Request: Regular.

Respondents: Individuals requesting access to executive branch public financial disclosure reports and other covered records.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 19,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,167 hours.

Abstract: The OGE Form 201 collects information from, and provides certain information to, persons who seek access to OGE Form 278 Public Financial Disclosure Reports, including OGE Form 278-T Periodic Transaction Reports, and other covered records. The form reflects the requirements of the Ethics in Government Act, subsequent amendments pursuant to the STOCK Act, and OGE's implementing regulations that must be met by a person before access can be granted. These requirements include the address of the requester, as well as any other person on whose behalf a record is sought, and acknowledgement that the applicant is aware of the prohibited uses of executive branch public disclosure financial reports. See 5 U.S.C. 13107(b) and (c) and 13122(b)(1) and 5 CFR 2634.603(c) and (f). Executive branch departments and agencies are encouraged to utilize the OGE Form 201 for individuals seeking access to public financial disclosure reports and other covered documents. OGE permits departments and agencies to use or develop their own forms as long as the forms collect and provide all of the required information.

OGE currently has OMB approval for two versions of the form, a PDF version and OGE's online application. The online version enables the applicant to electronically fill out, submit, and receive access to copies of the public financial disclosure reports certified by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

OGE is proposing several changes to OGE Form 201, with the goals of (1) making the form more appropriate for use throughout the executive branch, and (2) providing applicants with clarifying information about the use of the form. The changes were developed with feedback from agency ethics officials across the executive branch, through a listening session and written comments. To the extent appropriate, the comments and feedback from agency ethics officials have been incorporated into the proposed revised form. The proposed changes are summarized below.

OGE recently made nonsubstantive changes to the electronic version of the Form 201, simplifying the name from “Request to Inspect or Receive Copies of Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports or Other Covered Records” to “Request an Individual's Ethics Documents.” OGE now proposes to apply the new name to the PDF version as well, so that all versions of the form will have the same name.

OGE proposes adding approximately two pages of supplemental information to the PDF version of the form in order to provide guidance to applicants regarding the use of the form. Specifically, the supplemental information provides guidance on which documents can be obtained by request via the form (including a description of such documents), which documents can be obtained from OGE as opposed to an individual's employing agency, and when and how to submit a request using the PDF version of the form. The changes avoid the use of the term “other covered records,” which was a point of confusion for applicants in the past. Instead, the supplemental information simply describes all documents available through use of the form, including a chart. OGE proposes to remove section III because that information will now be found more easily in the supplemental information.

OGE proposes to make a number of changes to the PDF version of the form to align the form with plain language principles and to improve user experience. These changes include: adding the title to the face of the PDF version of the form; removing OGE's name, address, telephone number and fax number from the top of the form; adding “Your” in front of the name, mailing address, occupation, and telephone number fields; adding parentheticals containing the word “required” next to required fields; grouping fields 3 and 3a in section I together; and reformatting section I in order to make it easier for applicants to specify the type of report and time period in field 5, if applicable, and provide examples to the applicants in the instructions. OGE also proposes to add a continuation page to allow more space for fields 5 and 5a.

OGE proposes moving the “Agency Use Only” box on the PDF version of the form to the end of section II (“Notice of Action”), marking it “optional,” and expanding it. Moving it to the end of section II will group together all portions of the form to be completed by the applicant, thereby minimizing the potential for missing information or omitting a signature that would delay processing. The proposed additions add space for information on requests that are not filled and additional notes in order to provide more information to applicants about why a document was or was not released. Likewise, OGE proposes to remove the checkbox in section II indicating that “Copies of the report(s) or other covered record(s) you requested are enclosed” as duplicative of the information in the revised “Agency Use Only” box.

OGE proposes changing the applicant choices on all versions of the form by changing “private citizen” to “member of the public;” combining “law firm” and “other private organization” into simply “private organization;” and adding an option for “other.” The purpose of these changes is to modernize the language and make selecting a choice easier for the applicant.

In the applicant signature section on all versions of the form, OGE proposes to broaden language to address all potential requested records. The revised language would read: “I am aware that in completing this official government form that any intentionally false or misleading statement, certification, or response provided in this form is a violation of law punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001.”

Finally, on the PDF version of the form, OGE proposes adding the option for applicants to provide an email address in lieu of a mailing address, while also removing the “Pick-up” option. These changes are based on agency feedback that almost every request is filled using email and that few agencies allow for applicants to pick up documents. Use of email also helps with record keeping and cuts down significantly on processing time, allowing applicants to receive their documents quickly. OGE also proposes to remove the checkbox for the “Picked up by” from section II, as that option would be eliminated. The online application currently requires applicants to provide an email address and applicants who use the online application may only receive a response via email. OGE now proposes to remove the unnecessary street address field from the online application, to reduce the information burden on applicants.

A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this information collection was published on November 2, 2022 (87 FR 66188). OGE did not receive any comments in response. However, after further review OGE proposes to make additional nonsubstantive changes to both versions of the form designed to improve user experience and readability. The additional changes are as follows:

Request for Comments: Agency and public comment is invited specifically on the need for and practical utility of this information collection, the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate, the enhancement of quality, utility and clarity of the information collected, and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology). Comments received in response to this notice will be summarized for and included with the OGE request for extension of OMB paperwork approval. The comments will also become a matter of public record.

Specifically, OGE seeks public comment on the following:

• What problems do you have using the form?

• Are there sections of the form or instructions that are unclear?

• Is there information provided that is confusing?

• What additional information would be helpful?

The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), provides certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. The law governs the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records (meaning, Federal agency records about individuals retrieved by name or other personal identifier) are matched with records of other Federal or non-Federal agencies. The Privacy Act requires agencies involved in a matching program to the following:

1. Obtain approval of a Computer Matching Agreement, prepared in accordance with the Privacy Act, by the Data Integrity Board of each Federal agency that is a source, or recipient of data used in the matching program. 5 U.S.C. 522a(o)(1), (u)(3)(A) and (u)(4).

2. Provide adequate advance notice of the matching program, including a copy of the agreement, to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(A)(i) and (r).

3. Publish advance notice of the matching program in the Federal Register . 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(12).

4. Make the Computer Matching Agreement available to the public. 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(A)(ii).

5. Notify the individuals whose information will be used in the matching program that the information they provide is subject to verification through matching, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(1)(D).

6. Verify match findings before suspending, terminating, reducing, or making a final denial of an individual's benefits or payments, or taking other adverse action against the individual, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(p).

7. Provide an annual report of the matching program activities to Congress and OMB, and make the report available to the public. 5 U.S.C. 552a(u)(3)(D).

This matching program meets these requirements.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the source agency, and State Public Assistance Agencies (SPAAs) are non-Federal agencies.

Sections 402, 1137, and 1903(r) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. secs. 602(a), 1320b-7, and 1396b(r)).

The matching program will provide participating SPAAs with VA's compensation and pension data on a periodic basis to use in determining public assistance applicants' and recipients' eligibility for benefits under the Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and general assistance programs, and to use in helping relevant veterans to better understand similar benefits available through the VA that may be better alternatives. The matching program helps ensure fair and equitable treatment in the delivery of benefits attributable to funds provided by the Federal Government.

The categories of individuals involved in the matching program are the following:

• Individuals applying for or receiving Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, and/or general assistance benefits (public assistance clients); and

• Individuals receiving VA pay or pension benefits.

The categories of records used in the matching program are identifying information, compensation, and pension data.

On an approximately quarterly basis, VA will provide DoD/DMDC with a file containing VA benefit record data for most VA benefit and compensation recipients. SPAAs will also provide DoD/DMDC with a non-Federal file containing identifying information, including Social Security Numbers (SSNs), about public assistance clients. DoD/DMDC will compare the SSNs in each SPAA file to the VA file and will provide the SPAA with match results containing the following data elements (as applicable) about each public assistance client whose SSN matches the SSN of an individual receiving VA compensation or pension benefits:

VA File Number; Veteran/Beneficiary/Apportionee SSN and SSN Verification Indicator; Payee Type Code; Award Type, Award Line Type, and Award Status Codes; Gender Code; Last Name/First Name/Middle Name; Beneficiary Birth Date; Veteran/Spouse Aid and Attendance Code; Station Number; Spouse; Minor Child; School Child; Helpless Child; Parent; Combined Degree; Entitlement Type Code; Change Reason; Suspense Reason; Last Paid Date; Effective Date; Gross Amount; Net Award Amount; Payment Amount; Frequency Pay Type Code; Income for VA Purposes Amount; Beneficiary/Spouse Annual Amounts (for Wages, Insurance, Interest, Social Security, Civil Service Retirement, Military, Railroad Retirement Board, Black Lung, and Rest); Beneficiary/Spouse Rest of Exclusion Amount; Medical Expense/Education Expense/Last Expense/Hardship Amounts; Receivable/Receivable Amount; Monthly Deductions/Deduction Amount; Proceeds/Proceeds Amount; Address Type Indicator; Address Name/Fiduciary; Address Fiduciary Type; Address Name Beneficiary; Corporate Format Address (Address Lines One, Two, and Three, City Name, State Name, ZIP Code Prefix and Suffix, Country Type Name, Foreign Postal Code, Province Name, Territory Name, Military Postal Type, Military Post Office); and, Benefits Delivery Network Treasury Address and ZIP Code Prefix.

The VA data used in this matching program will be disclosed from the following system of records, as authorized by routine use 35: “Compensation, Pension, Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Records—VA (58VA21/22/28),” 86 FR 61858 (Nov. 8, 2021).

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is requesting approval to collect data for the National Paralysis Resource Center (NPRC) to understand how and to what extent the NPRC is meeting its goals. The NPRC provides resources to people living with paralysis, their caregivers, and their support network. ACL is responsible for oversight of the NPRC, which has been administered by the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation since its authorization in 2009. This data collection effort will be focused on evaluating specific major activities of the NPRC: (a) the Quality of Life (QOL) Grants Program; (b) the Peer and Family Support Program (PFSP); and (c) the Promotional Activities, Outreach, and Collaboration program.

This evaluation seeks to identify barriers and challenges to operating the NPRC, document best practices for other Resource Centers, and recommend areas for improvement.

Specifically, this IC will help ACL to understand how each major NPRC activity aims to achieve the following goals, and to what extent the activities affect related outcomes:

a. Improving the health and quality of life of individuals living with paralysis of all ages, their families, and their support network;

b. Raising awareness of members of the target populations about paralysis;

c. Increasing access of members of the target populations to services relevant to individuals with paralysis;

d. Increasing the empowerment, confidence, and independence of individuals living with paralysis;

e. Strengthening support networks for individuals living with paralysis; and

f. Improving and increasing opportunities for community living for individuals living with paralysis and their caretakers.

To gain an in-depth understanding of the perspectives of mentors and peers participating in the PFSP, QOL program subgrantees, and people who serve as regional champions in the Promotional Activities, Outreach, and Collaboration program, eight focus groups will be conducted with no more than eight people per focus group. Additionally, a web-based survey will be administered to a maximum of 400 PFSP peers, 180 PFSP mentors, and 300 people served by QOL subgrantees to understand respondents' experiences with the NPRC.

This data will contribute to documenting how each of the NPRC's major activities are delivered and the extent to which they improve the quality of life of people living with paralysis, their caregivers, and their support networks.

Findings can inform practice for the NPRC and other Resource Centers. This evaluation will also help to identify how the NPRC can better meet the stated goals of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to, “protect and strengthen equitable access to high quality and affordable healthcare,” and to, “strengthen social well-being, equity, and economic resilience.”  1

This meeting will provide FDA with the opportunity to hear directly from patients and patient representatives about their experiences with Long COVID, including how Long COVID affects their daily life, the symptoms that matter most to them, their current approaches to treating Long COVID, and what they consider when determining whether or not to participate in a clinical trial. Long COVID, also known as post-COVID syndrome, post-acute sequalae of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), long-haul COVID, or post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, is defined as persistence of COVID-19 symptoms 4 weeks beyond SARS-CoV-2 infection. Literature has reported two categories of Long COVID known as subacute or ongoing COVID-19 symptoms (4-12 weeks of persistent symptoms post-infection), and chronic or post-COVID syndrome (12 weeks or more of persistent symptoms post-infection). SARS-CoV-2 may cause cell damage to multiple organs in an infected person. The most commonly reported symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, pain, palpitations, shortness of breath, cough, insomnia, anxiety, depression, constipation, and nausea. Since Long COVID was recently recognized, there is currently no standardized framework for diagnosis and treatment. While no medicines have been approved to treat Long COVID, symptoms may be treated with medication, exercise, diet modification, and meditation. FDA is interested in adult and pediatric patients' perspectives on the following topics: (1) health effects and daily impacts; (2) current approaches to treatment; and (3) clinical trial participation.

For each topic, a brief discussion by a patient panel will begin the dialogue. This discussion will be followed by a facilitated discussion where FDA will invite patients and patient representatives from the viewing audience to provide comments by calling into the meeting via phone, or by submitting through the meeting platform live comments which may be read during the meeting by the meeting facilitator.

In addition to input generated through this public meeting, FDA is interested in receiving patient and patient representative input through written comments, which can be submitted to the public docket (see ADDRESSES ). FDA's questions will be available on the meeting website and as part of the information provided in the public docket. When submitting comments, if you are commenting on behalf of a patient, please indicate that you are doing so, and answer the questions as much as possible from the patient's perspective.

FDA will post the agenda and other meeting materials approximately 5 days before the meeting at: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/public-meeting-patient-focused-drug-development-long-covid-04252023.

On April 25, 2023, FDA is conducting a public meeting on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Long COVID. FDA is interested in obtaining patient perspectives on the impact of Long COVID on daily life and patient views on treatment approaches, as well as clinical trial participation.

Registration: To register for the public meeting, visit https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LongCOVIDPFDD. Persons without access to the internet can call 301-796-9208 to register.

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Shannon Sparklin (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) no later than April 18, 2023.

Panelist Selection: Patients or patient representatives who are interested in presenting comments as part of the initial panel discussions will be asked to indicate in their registration which topic(s) they wish to address. These patients or patient representatives also will be asked to send PatientFocused@fda.hhs.gov a brief summary of responses to the topic questions by April 4, 2023. Panelists will be notified of their selection approximately 7 days before the public meeting. We will try to accommodate all patients and patient stakeholders who wish to speak, either through the panel discussion or audience participation; however, the duration of comments may be limited by time constraints.

Streaming Webcast of the Public Meeting: This public meeting will be streamed via a webcast in both English and Spanish languages. Please register for the webcast by visiting https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LongCOVIDPFDD.

The English-language webcast can be accessed via: https://fda.yorkcast.com/webcast/Play/4eba453a2412474e98fff1fabcc63ac51d. The Spanish-language webcast can be accessed via: https://fda.yorkcast.com/webcast/Play/0385884d5655420fabd3a55a237926691d. Simply click on the link and hit the “play” button and it will start. A test signal will be playing 30 minutes prior to the event, so you can click on the link at any point during that time to start. You will hear music playing during the test period and then the event will begin at 10 a.m. ET. If you would like to check your system now, you can click on the link and the page will open with a “waiting” statement showing.

Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the public meeting is available, it will be accessible on the meeting website at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/public-meeting-patient-focused-drug-development-long-covid-04252023.

I. Background

An increase in purchase and consumption of plant-based milk alternatives has occurred over the last 10 years. Many products are labeled with names that include the term “milk.” Plant-based milk alternatives are made from liquid-based extracts of plant materials, such as tree nuts, legumes, seeds, or grains. FDA has established a standard of identity or compositional requirements for milk (see 21 CFR 131.110) but has not established standards of identity or compositional requirements for plant-based milk alternatives. The composition, including the nutrient profile, of these plant-based milk alternative products varies depending on the plant source(s), processing methods, and added ingredients.

We are committed to clear and transparent food labels that are truthful and not misleading. We are also committed to using our tools and authorities to empower consumers with information to quickly ascertain the types of products they are purchasing for themselves and their families and enhance their ability to make informed choices about the foods they buy and eat. To further this goal, in the Federal Register of September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49103), FDA issued a notice requesting comment on the labeling of plant-based alternatives with names that include the names of dairy foods. We invited comment on a variety of issues, including how consumers use plant-based dairy alternatives, how consumers understand terms included in the names of plant-based dairy alternatives, and whether consumers are aware of and understand differences between plant-based dairy alternatives and their dairy counterparts. We received over 13,000 comments, which helped to inform the development of this draft guidance.

We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Labeling of Plant-based Milk Alternatives and Voluntary Nutrient Statements: Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance provides our view on the naming of plant-based milk alternatives and recommendations on voluntary nutrient statements for the labeling of these products. The draft guidance does not address other plant-based dairy alternatives such as plant-based cheese, yogurt, or kefir alternatives. The draft guidance is limited to plant-based milk alternatives because: (1) most comments and consumer research submitted to the notice were limited to plant-based milk alternatives; (2) the overall market for plant-based milk alternatives is greater than the market for other plant-based dairy alternatives such as yogurts and cheeses; and (3) data indicates that consumers may not understand the nutritional differences between plant-based milk alternatives and a potential public health concern may exist if plant-based milk alternatives are substituted for milk.

We are issuing the draft guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent our current thinking on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

This draft guidance, once finalized, provides recommendations on the naming of plant-based milk alternatives and on voluntary nutrient statements for the labeling of these products. The draft guidance's recommendations for labeling plant-based beverages that are used in place of milk will provide consumers with additional nutrition information to help them compare these products to milk and make informed dietary choices.

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

The estimates in table 1 are based on our experience with similar labeling programs. We estimate that each year 56 manufacturers will relabel their products following recommendations found in the draft guidance. We estimate that each manufacturer will relabel 6 products for 336 total annual disclosures (56 manufacturers × 6 labels). Each disclosure will take an estimated 1 hour to complete for an annual third-party disclosure burden of 336 hours (336 disclosures × 1 hour). We estimate that there will be an annual capital cost of $500,000 associated with relabeling. This is the cost of designing a revised label and incorporating it into the manufacturing process. We believe that this will be a one-time burden per respondent.

Although FDA welcomes comments on any aspect of the guidance, we particularly invite comment on the following:

• The voluntary nutrient statement recommendations provided in section III.2 of the draft guidance. We acknowledge that the labeling of some plant-based milk alternatives may have space constraints that limit listing of multiple nutrients in the voluntary nutrient statement. Therefore, we are interested in comments about the placement of and possible space constraints for the voluntary nutrient statement on product labels.

• FDA is recommending nutrient disclosure statements on the labels of plant-based milk alternatives that contain less of the following nutrients compared to milk: calcium, protein, vitamin A, vitamin D, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, riboflavin, and vitamin B12. We chose these specific nutrients because the Dietary Guidelines for Americans identifies the Dairy Group as being a key contributor of those nutrients and to align with the nutritional standards set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service for fluid milk substitutes served in the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, and Child and Adult Care Food Program (USDA criteria) (see 7 CFR 210.10(d)(3), 220.8(d), and 226.20(g)(3)).

• For the purpose of this draft guidance, are the USDA criteria that identifies minimum levels of nutrients for fluid milk substitutes the most appropriate criteria to use? If yes, why? If not, what criteria ( i.e., nutrients and nutrient levels, minimums versus ranges of nutrient levels, etc.) should we consider and why? Please provide information, research, and data to help us understand your reasoning.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/guidance-documents-regulatory-information-topic-food-and-dietary-supplements, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov .

Purpose: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of State are charged with co-leading the U.S. delegation to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and will convene an informal Stakeholder Listening Session.

The Stakeholder Listening Session is designed to seek input from stakeholders and subject matter experts to help inform and prepare for U.S. government engagement with the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body.

Matters To Be Discussed: The listening session will discuss potential areas that could be included in a pandemic accord to promote pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Topics will include those found in the Zero Draft of the Pandemic Accord. The Zero draft of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) can be found at this website: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/index.html. Participation is welcome from stakeholder communities, including:

RSVP: Persons seeking to attend or speak at the listening session must register by March 6, 2023.

Registrants must include their full name and organization, if any, and indicate whether they are registering as a listen-only attendee or as a speaker participant to OGA.RSVP@hhs.gov.

Requests to participate as a speaker must include:

1. The name of the person desiring to participate;

2. The organization(s) that person represents, if any;

3. Identification of the primary topic of interest.

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 Collection: Challenge and Prize Competition Solicitations.

Type of Collection: Father generic extension.

Abstract: The Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a request for an extension of generic clearance approval of the information collected for challenge and prize competition solicitations. Burden hours were increased from 333 to 558.3 total burden hours to provide more time for respondents to complete forms that may include more questions.

Challenges and prize competitions enable HHS to tap into the expertise and creativity of the public in new ways as well as extend awareness of HHS programs and priorities. Within HHS, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) has taken lead responsibility in coordinating challenges and prize competitions and implementing policies regarding the use of these tools. HHS's goal is to engage a broader number of stakeholders who are inspired to work on some of our most pressing health issues, thus supporting a new ecosystem of scientists, developers, and entrepreneurs who can continue to innovate for public health.

The generic clearance is necessary for HHS to launch several challenges or prize competitions annually in a short turnaround. The information collected for these challenges and prize competitions will generally include the submitter's or other contact person's first and last name, organizational affiliation and role in the organization (for identification purposes); email address or other contact information (to follow up if the submitted solution is selected as a finalist or winner); street address (to confirm that the submitter or affiliated organization is located in the United States, for eligibility purposes); information confirming whether the submitter's age is 13 years or older (to ensure compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. 6501-6505 (COPPA)) or 18 years or older (to ensure necessary consents are obtained); and a narrative description of the solution. HHS may also request information indicating the submitter's technical background, educational level, ethnicity, age range, gender, and race (to evaluate entrants' diversity and backgrounds), how the submitter learned about the challenge or prize competition and what the submitter currently understands about the HHS agency hosting the challenge or prize competition (to gauge the effect of the challenge or prize competition on increasing public awareness of HHS programs and priorities, and generally to enable HHS to improve its outreach strategies to ensure a diverse and broad innovator constituency is fostered through the use of challenges and prize competitions). Finally, HHS may ask for additional information tailored to the particular challenge or prize competition through structured questions. This information will enable HHS to more effectively create and administer challenges and prize competitions.

Upon entry or during the judging process, solvers under the age of 18 will be asked to confirm parental consent, which will require them to obtain and provide a parent or guardian signature in a format outlined in the specific criteria of each challenge or prize competition in order to qualify for the contest. To protect online privacy of minors, birthdate may be required by the website host to ensure the challenge platform meets the requirements of COPPA. Eligibility to win a cash prize will be outlined in the specific criteria of each contest and will only apply to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or private entities incorporated in and maintaining a primary place of business in the U.S. To administer the cash prize, HHS will need to collect additional relevant payment information—such as Social Security Number and/or Taxpayer ID and information regarding the winners' financial institutions—in order to comply with financial accounting and income tax reporting processes.

Likely Respondents: Likely respondents include individuals, businesses, and state and local governments who choose to participate in a challenge or prize competition hosted or overseen ( i.e., via contract, etc.) by HHS.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

The currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: EIV System User Access Authorization Form and Rules of Behavior and User Agreement.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0267.

Type of Request: Renewal of currently approved collection.

Form Number: 52676 and 52676I.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: In accordance with statutory requirements at 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended (most commonly known as the Federal Privacy Act of 1974), the Department is required to account for all disclosures of information contained in a system of records. Specifically, the Department is required to keep an accurate accounting of the name and address of the person or agency to which the disclosure is made. The Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) System (HUD/PIH-5) is classified as a System of Records, as initially published on July 20, 2005, in the Federal Register at page 41780 (70 FR 41780), and as amended and published on September 1, 2009, in the Federal Register on page 45235 (74 FR 45235).

As a condition of granting access to the EIV system, each prospective user of the system must (1) request access to the system; (2) agree to comply with HUD's established rules of behavior; and (3) review and signify their understanding of their responsibilities of protecting data protected under the Federal Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 522a, as amended). As such, the collection of information about the user and the type of system access required by the prospective user is required by HUD to: (1) identify the user; (2) determine if the prospective user in fact requires access to the EIV system and in what capacity; (3) provide the prospective user with information related to the Rules of Behavior for system usage and the user's responsibilities to safeguard data accessed in the system once access is granted; and (4) obtain the signature of the prospective user to certify the user's understanding of the Rules of Behavior and responsibilities associated with his/her use of the EIV system.

HUD collects the following information from each prospective user: Public Housing Agency (PHA) code, organization name, organization address, prospective user's full name, HUD-assigned user ID, position title, office telephone number, facsimile number, type of work which involves the use of the EIV system, type of system action requested, requested access roles to be assigned to prospective user, public housing development numbers to be assigned to prospective PHA user, and prospective user's signature and date of request. The information is collected electronically and manually (for those who are unable to transmit electronically) via a PDF-fillable or Word-fillable document, which can be emailed, faxed or mailed to HUD. If this information is not collected, the Department will not be in compliance with the Federal Privacy Act and be subject to civil penalties.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on December 1, 2022 at 87 FR 73774.

Title of Information Collection: FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing Involving the Loss Mitigation Program.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0589.

Type of Request: Revision.

Form Numbers: HUD-27011, HUD-90035, HUD-90041, HUD-90045, HUD-90051, HUD-90052.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: FHA's Loss Mitigation program options (24 CFR 203.501) and incentives efforts provide mortgagees with reimbursement for using tools to bring a delinquent FHA-insured mortgage loan current in as short a time as possible, to provide an alternative to foreclosure to the extent possible, and to minimize losses to the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund. Home retention options promote reinstatement of the mortgage, allowing the mortgagor to retain home ownership, while disposition options assist mortgagors who cannot recover with an alternative to foreclosure. The HUD forms used are part of the collection effort for non-performing insured mortgage loans.

Respondents: Mortgagees or Mortgagors.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 412,966.

Estimated Number of Responses: 1,254,958.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Average Hours per Response: 1.38 hours.

Total Estimated Burdens: 1,736,478.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the receipt of an application from G3 enterprises (applicant) for a 20-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed as endangered San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica; kit fox), the threatened Central Valley distinct population segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ), the threatened California red-legged frog ( Rana draytonii ), and the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta lynchi ), incidental to the construction of the Byron Sand Mine Evo East Quarry Expansion Project in Contra Costa County, California.

We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's habitat conservation plan (HCP), and on the Service's preliminary determination that this proposed ITP qualifies as “low effect,” and may qualify for a categorical exclusion pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1501.4), the Department of the Interior's (DOI) NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46), and the DOI's Departmental Manual (516 DM 8.5(C)(2)). To make this preliminary determination, we prepared a draft environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, both of which are also available for public review.

Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 et seq. ) and Federal regulations (50 CFR part 17) prohibit the taking of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the ESA. Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), we may issue permits to authorize take of listed fish and wildlife species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32. For more about the Federal habitat conservation plan (HCP) program, go to https://www.fws.gov/service/habitat-conservation-plans.

For the proposed project, the Service would issue an ITP to the applicant for a period of 20 years for certain covered activities (described below). The applicant has requested an ITP for four covered species.

The geographic scope of the draft HCP encompasses an 80-acre (ac) parcel, which encompasses both a 20-ac mine expansion area and a 60-ac mitigation area and is adjacent to the project site. The Evo East Expansion Project consists of a total disturbed area of 20 ac, which includes an estimated 15-ac mine expansion area and an estimated 5-ac overburden storage area where topsoil from the quarry will be stored for later use in reclamation. The proposed expansion and overburden areas are directly adjacent to the existing Evo East Quarry. The project would expand the approved Evo East footprint to the southeast, creating a single contiguous quarry that encompasses approximately 50 ac total. The Evo East Expansion Area would be mined in a sequential manner, with rejected material placed on depleted mining areas to avoid the need for separate reject material storage. The existing mine infrastructure would be used to complete mining operations. The remaining 60 ac within the plan area would not be disturbed and would be set aside as mitigation for the project. The proposed project is located at the southwest corner of Vasco Road and Camino Diablo Road in Byron, Contra Costa County, California.

The proposed ESA section 10 ITP would allow take of four covered species from covered activities in the proposed HCP area. The applicant is requesting incidental take authorization for covered activities, including mining the approximately 15-ac site as well as utilizing an approximate 5-ac overburden pile that would occur in the project area. The applicant is proposing to implement a number of project design features, including best management practices, as well as general and species-specific avoidance and minimization measures to minimize the impacts of the take from the covered activities.

The federally listed as endangered San Joaquin kit fox, the threatened Central Valley DPS of the California tiger salamander, the threatened California red-legged frog, and the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp are proposed to be included as covered species in the proposed HCP.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that the proposed applicant's project, including the construction of the quarry expansion project, would individually and cumulatively have a minor, nonsignificant effect on the proposed covered species and the human environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would be a “low-effect” ITP that individually or cumulatively would have a minor effect on the proposed covered species and may qualify for application of a categorical exclusion pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations, DOI's NEPA regulations, and the DOI Departmental Manual. A “low-effect” incidental take permit is one that would result in (1) minor or negligible effects on species covered in the HCP; (2) nonsignificant effects on the human environment; and (3) impacts that, when added together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions, would not result in significant cumulative effects to the human environment.

We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice and the documents we are making available for comment. We particularly seek comments on the following:

1. Biological information concerning the species;

2. Relevant data concerning the species;

3. Additional information concerning the ranges, distribution, population sizes, and population trends of the species;

4. Current or planned activities in the area and their possible impacts on the species;

5. The presence of archeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act; and

6. Any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed development and permit action.

Before including your address, phone number, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—might be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

We will evaluate the application, associated documents, and any public comments we receive as part of our NEPA compliance process to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. If we determine that those requirements are met, we will conduct an intra-Service consultation under section 7 of the ESA for the Federal action of potentially issuing an ITP. If the intra-Service consultation confirms that issuance of the ITP will not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the covered species.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and 43 CFR part 46).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 22, 2022 (87 FR 43889). No comments were received.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of response.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA or Act), 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., imposes certain requirements for child custody proceedings that occur in State court when a child is an “Indian child.” The regulations, primarily located in Subpart I of 25 CFR 23, provide procedural guidance for implementing ICWA, which necessarily involves information collections to determine whether the child is Indian, provide notice to the Tribe and parents or Indian custodians, and maintain records. The information collections are conducted during a civil action (i.e., a child custody proceeding). While these civil actions occur in State court, and the U.S. is not a party to the civil action, the civil action is subject to the Federal statutory requirements of ICWA, which the Secretary of the Interior oversees under the Act and general authority to manage Indian affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9.

Title of Collection: Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Proceedings in State.

OMB Control Number: 1076-0186.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals/households and State/Tribal governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 7,556.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 98,069.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 15 minutes to 12 hours, depending on the activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 301,811.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $364,972.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The purpose of the withdrawal established by this PLO is to protect the Zortman-Landusky Mine area and facilitate reclamation and stabilization of the site.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public lands are hereby withdrawn from location or entry under the United States mining laws, but not from the mineral leasing or mineral materials disposal laws.

The areas described aggregate 912.33 acres, according to the official plats of the surveys of the said lands on file with the Bureau of Land Management.

2. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order, unless as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date, pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended.

The purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires the withdrawal extension in order to continue to protect and preserve the USFS-managed Crystal Park Recreation Area, facilities, and capital improvements.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, PLO No. 6958 (58 FR 11968 (1993)), which withdrew 220 acres of National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect and preserve Crystal Park Recreation Area, is hereby extended for an additional 30-year period.

2. The withdrawal extended by this Order will expire on March 1, 2053, unless, as a result of review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines the withdrawal shall be further extended.

The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before February 4, 2023. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

KEY: State, County, Property Name, Multiple Name (if applicable), Address/ Boundary, City, Vicinity, Reference Number.

Authority: Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.

On September 2, 2021, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Causam Enterprises, Inc. (“Causam”) of Raleigh, North Carolina. 86 FR 49345-46 (Sept. 2, 2021). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain smart thermostats, load control switches, and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-9, 16, 19-21, 23-28, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,805,552 (“the '552 patent”); claims 1-8, 10, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-29 of U.S. Patent No. 9,678,522 (“the '522 patent”); claims 1-11, 13-16, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268 (“the '268 patent”); and claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,396,592 (“the '592 patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”). Id. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following nine entities as respondents: Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. of Tysons, Virginia; Alarm.com Inc. of Tysons, Virginia; Ecobee, Inc. of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; EnergyHub, Inc. of Brooklyn, New York; Itron, Inc. of Liberty Lake, Washington; Itron Distributed Energy Management, Inc. of Liberty Lake, Washington (“Itron Distributed”); Resideo Smart Homes Technology (Tianjin) of Tianjin, China; Resideo Technologies, Inc. of Austin, Texas (“Resideo Technologies”); and Xylem Inc., of Rye Brook, New York (“Xylem”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party in this investigation. Id.

On December 10, 2021, the ALJ issued an ID granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to Xylem based upon settlement. Order No. 7 (Dec. 10, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 10, 2022).

On April 21, 2022, the ALJ issued an ID granting a motion (1) to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to substitute new respondent Ademco Inc. of Melville, New York for respondent Resideo Technologies and (2) to terminate the investigation as to respondent Itron Distributed; claim 21 of the '552 patent; claims 5, 14, and 17 of the '522 patent; claims 5, 13, and 16 of the '268 patent; and claims 8 and 9 of the '592 patent based upon withdrawal of the allegations in the complaint. Order No. 12 (Apr. 21, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (May 17, 2022).

The Chief ALJ (“CALJ”) held an evidentiary hearing from June 28-July 1, 2022 and received post-hearing briefs thereafter (this investigation was reassigned from ALJ Shaw to Chief ALJ Cheney on June 17, 2022).

On November 16, 2022, the CALJ issued the final ID finding no violation of section 337 as to the asserted patent claims. The ID found that by appearing and participating in the investigation and not contesting jurisdiction, the parties have consented to personal jurisdiction at the Commission. ID at 17. The ID also found that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the accused products. Id. The ID further found that the importation requirement under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B) is satisfied. Id. at 16 (citing JX-0015C, JX-0016C, JX-0017C, JX-0018C (stipulations between the parties as to importation)). The ID, however, found that Causam failed to demonstrate that it has standing to assert a claim of infringement for any of the Asserted Patents. Id. at 17-26. The ID also found that Causam failed to prove infringement of the asserted claims, and that Respondents failed to show that any of the asserted claims are invalid. Id. at 40-120, 177-224. Finally, the ID found that Causam proved the existence of a domestic industry that practices the Asserted Patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). Id. at 120-177. The ID included the CALJ's recommended determination on remedy and bonding (“RD”). The RD recommended that, should the Commission find a violation, issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders would be appropriate. ID/RD at 225-230. The RD also recommended imposing a bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of entered value for covered products imported during the period of Presidential review. Id. at 230-32.

On November 28, 2022, Causam filed a petition for review of the ID and Respondents filed a contingent petition for review of the ID. On December 6, 2022, the parties filed responses to the petitions.

Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the final ID, the parties' submissions, the petitions for review, and the response thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1) the final ID's findings as to Causam's standing to assert infringement of the asserted patents; (2) the final ID's findings on obviousness; and (3) the final ID's domestic industry findings.

The Commission, upon review, takes no position on (1) whether Causam has standing to assert infringement of the asserted patents; (2) whether the asserted patent claims are invalid for obviousness; and (3) whether Causam satisfied the technical or economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission adopts all findings in the final ID that are not inconsistent with the Commission's determination.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

Background. —On January 23, 2018, the President, pursuant to section 203 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2253), issued Proclamation 9694, imposing a safeguard measure on imports of certain large residential washers and parts thereof in the form of tariff-rate quotas. The proclamation was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2018 (83 FR 3553). The measure took effect on February 7, 2018, for a period of three years and one day, or through February 7, 2021, as modified by Proclamation 9887 of May 16, 2019 (84 FR 23425), Proclamation 9902 of May 31, 2019 (84 FR 26323), and Proclamation 9979 of January 23, 2020 (85 FR 5125). The President imposed the measure following receipt of a report from the Commission in December 2017 under section 202 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252) that contained an affirmative determination, remedy recommendations, and certain additional findings (see Large Residential Washers, Inv. No. TA-201-076, USITC Publication 4745, Dec. 2017).

On December 8, 2020, in response to a petition filed on behalf of Whirlpool Corporation, Benton Harbor, Michigan, the Commission issued its determination and report pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2254(c)), finding that the safeguard measure continued to be necessary to prevent or remedy the serious injury to the domestic industry, and that there was evidence that the domestic industry was making a positive adjustment to import competition (see Large Residential Washers: Extension of Action, Inv. No. TA-201-076, USITC Publication 5144, December 2020). On January 14, 2021, the President issued Proclamation 10133 (86 FR 6541, January 21, 2021), pursuant to section 203(e)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2253(e)(1)(B)), extending the safeguard measure on large residential washers and parts thereof through February 7, 2023.

Section 204(d) of the Act requires the Commission, following termination of a relief action, to evaluate the effectiveness of the action in facilitating positive adjustment by the domestic industry to import competition, consistent with the reasons set out by the President in the report submitted to the Congress under section 203(b) of the Act. The Commission is required to submit a report on the evaluation to the President and the Congress no later than 180 days after the day on which the relief action was terminated. Section 204(d)(2) requires the Commission to hold a hearing in the course of conducting its evaluation.

For further information concerning the conduct of the investigation, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 206, subparts A and F (19 CFR part 206).

Participation in the investigation and public service list. —Persons wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, not later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https://edis.usitc.gov. ) No in-person paper-based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice.

Limited disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and CBI service list. —Pursuant to 206.54(e) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make CBI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigation in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 206.17 of the rules, provided that the application is made not later than 21 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . The Secretary will maintain a separate service list for those parties authorized to receive CBI under the APO.

Hearing. —As required by statute, the Commission has scheduled a hearing in connection with this investigation. The hearing will be held beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 1, 2023. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before May 25, 2023. Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the investigation, may in their discretion for good cause shown, grant such a request. Requests to appear as remote witness due to illness or a positive COVID-19 test result may be submitted by 3pm the business day prior to the hearing. Further information about participation in the hearing will be posted on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/calendarpad/calendar.html.

All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on May 30, 2023. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than 4 p.m. on May 31, 2023. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2) and 201.13(f) of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions. —Each party is encouraged to submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. The deadline for filing prehearing briefs is May 24, 2023. Parties may also file posthearing briefs. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is June 8, 2023. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigation may submit a written statement concerning the matters to be addressed in the report on or before June 8, 2023. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8, 206.7, and 206.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's rules. Any confidential business information that is provided will be subject to limited disclosure under the APO (see above) and may be included in the report that the Commission sends to the President and the U.S. Trade Representative. The Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's procedures with respect to filings.

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, will not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 206.8 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by the public service list) and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Authority: This investigation is being conducted under authority of 204(d) of the Trade Act of 1974; this notice is published pursuant to section 206.3 of the Commission's rules.

Background. —On December 5, 2022, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (87 FR 53774, September 1, 2022) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Staff report. —A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review has been placed in the nonpublic record, and will be made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review on March 1, 2023. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

Written submissions. —As provided in § 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, 2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before March 9, 2023 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by March 9, 2023. However, should the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's procedures with respect to filings.

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Determination. —The Commission has determined that this review is extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

The Commission instituted this investigation on December 30, 2022, based on a complaint filed by Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. of Jupiter, Florida and AGIS Software Development LLC of Marshall, Texas (collectively, “AGIS”). 87 FR 80568-69 (Dec. 30, 2022). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain location-sharing systems, related software, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970; 9,467,838; 9,445,251; 9,749,829; and 9,820,123. Id. at 80568. The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id.

The notice of investigation named 26 respondents: Google LLC of Mountain View, California; Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. of Suwon, Republic of Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, Guangdong, China; TCL Technology Group Corporation of Huizhou, Guangdong, China; TCL Electronics Holdings Limited of Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited of Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong; TCT Mobile (US) Inc. of Irvine, California; Lenovo Group Ltd. of Beijing, China; Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, North Carolina; Motorola Mobility LLC of Chicago, Illinois; HMD Global of Espoo, Finland; HMD Global OY of Espoo, Finland; HMD America, Inc. of Miami, Florida; Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony Mobile Communications, Inc. of Tokyo, Japan; ASUSTek Computer Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer International of Fremont, California; BLU Products of Doral, Florida; Panasonic Corporation of Osaka, Japan; Panasonic Corporation of North America of Secaucus, New Jersey; Kyocera Corporation of Kyoto, Japan; Xiaomi Corporation of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; Xiaomi H.K. Ltd. of Kowloon City, Hong Kong; Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. of Beijing, China; and Xiaomi Inc. of Beijing, China. Id. at 80569. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also named as a party. Id.

On January 27, 2023, AGIS filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to substitute Panasonic Holdings Corporation for the presently named respondent Panasonic Corporation. The motion states that (i) OUII and respondents Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, and Kyocera Corporation do not oppose the motion and (ii) the remaining respondents take no position on the motion. Mot. at 1. No responses to the motion were filed.

On February 1, 2023, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion. The ID finds that, in accordance with Commission Rule 210.14(b) (19 CFR 210.14(b)), “good cause exists for amending the complaint to substitute Panasonic Holdings Corporation in place of named Respondent Panasonic Corporation” because “amending the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to reflect the proper name of the Respondent will aid in the development of the Investigation and is necessary to avoid prejudicing the public interest and rights of the parties to the Investigation.” ID at 2. No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed.

The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The complaint and notice of investigation are amended to substitute Panasonic Holdings Corporation in place of the named respondent Panasonic Corporation.

The Commission vote for this determination took place on February 17, 2023.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal and metal and nonmetal mines. Under Section 103(g) of Mine Act, a representative of miners, or any individual miner where there is no representative of miners, may submit a written or oral notification of an alleged violation of the Mine Act or a mandatory standard or that an imminent danger exists. The notifier has the right to obtain an immediate inspection by MSHA. A copy of the notice must be provided to the operator, with individual miner names redacted. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2022 (87 FR 59461).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.

Agency: DOL-MSHA.

Title of Collection: Hazardous Conditions Complaints.

OMB Control Number: 1219-0014.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits institutions.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,785.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 1,785.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 357 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.