This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email csanders@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to David Mussatt at dmussatt@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (202) 794-9856.

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

These committee meetings are available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email svillanueva@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Sarah Villanueva at svillanueva@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-434-515-0204.

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

Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given fewer than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting, as the Committee's project needs to reach completion before their term ends.

I. Abstract

This request is for an extension of a currently approved generic clearance for the collection of routine information requested of respondents in challenges and competitions that the Department of Commerce posts on the General Service Administration (GSA)'s Challenge.gov website since passage of the America COMPETES Act of 2011. In order for DOC to launch competitions quickly and effectively on a continual basis, DOC seeks generic clearance to collect information for these challenges and competitions, which will generally include first name, last name, email, city, state and when applicable other demographic information. It can also include other information necessary to evaluate submissions and understand their impact related to the general goals of the competition. Upon entry or during the judging process, applicants under the age of 18 may be asked to confirm parental consent, requiring students under 18 to have a parent's signature on a parental consent form provided by the DOC in order to qualify for the contest. For certain challenges we may also need to collect data such as types of data sets used in the solution, types of software tools used in the solution, and information regarding uses of proprietary software ( i.e., licenses or use agreements). Information obtained from participants will be used by the program managers (challenge manager), technical reviewers, and other agency officials (such agency counsels.

In 2011, Federal agencies including DOC were given prize authority for administering challenges and competitions. Section 105(a) of the America Competes Act, adds Section 24 to the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq. ) that addresses provisions for challenges and competitions with prizes conducted by Federal agencies. Challenges and competitions enable DOC to tap into the expertise and creativity of the public in new ways. DOC evaluates submissions and typically awarded monetary or non-monetary prizes to winning entries. DOC may sponsor challenges and competitions in a wide variety of areas to increase public participation and solicit new ideas on a wide array of topics important to the agency's mission. DOC's goal is to engage a broader number of stakeholders who are inspired to work on some of our most pressing issues.

The information collected will be used to understand whether the participant has met the technical requirements for the challenge, assist in the technical review and judging of the solutions that are provided, and assess how the competition was administered. Information may be collected during the competition or after its completion.

This clearance applies to challenges posted on Challenge.gov , which uses a common platform for the solicitation of challenges from the public. Each agency designs the criteria for its solicitations based on the goals of the challenge and the specific needs of the agency. There is no standard submission format for solution providers to follow, and there is no set schedule for the issuance of challenges; they are developed and issued on an “as needed” basis in response to issues the federal agency wishes to solve.

The primary method of collection will be electronic. Some supporting documents may be emailed, mailed, or collected in person.

OMB Control Number: 0690-0031.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission [Extension of a current information collection].

Affected Public: Individuals or Households, Businesses or for-profit organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government, etc.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,100.

Estimated Time per Response: 10-30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 800.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: Nominal.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Requests: One-time.

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may 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.

I. Abstract

This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

In March 2018, the Administration of President Trump launched the President's Management Agenda (PMA) and established new Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals. Excellent service was established as a core component of the mission, service, stewardship model that frames the entire PMA, embedding a customer-focused approach in all of the PMA's initiatives. This model was also included in the 2018 update of the Federal Performance Framework in Circular A-11, ensuring `excellent service' as a focus in future agency strategic planning efforts. The PMA included a CAP Goal on Improving Customer Experience with Federal Services, with a primary strategy to drive improvements within twenty-five of the nation's highest impact programs. This effort is supported by an interagency team and guidance in Circular A-11 requiring the collection. of customer feedback data and increasing the use of industry best practices to conduct customer research.

The continuation of this information collection will enable the Department of Commerce to act in accordance with OMB Circular A-11 Section 280 to ultimately transform the experience of its customers to improve both efficiency and mission delivery and increase accountability by communicating about these efforts with the public.

Commerce will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance to identify services' accessibility, navigation, and use by customers, and make improvements in service delivery based on customer insights gathered through developing an understanding of the user experience interacting with Government. To support this, OMB Circular A-11 Section 280 established government-wide standards for mature customer experience organizations in government and measurement. To enable Federal programs to deliver the experience taxpayers deserve, they must undertake three general categories of activities: conduct ongoing customer research, gather, and share customer feedback, and test services and digital products.

These data collection efforts may be either qualitative or quantitative in nature or may consist of mixed methods. Additionally, data may be collected via a variety of means, including but not limited to electronic or social media, direct or indirect observation ( i.e., in person, video and audio collections), interviews, questionnaires, surveys, and focus groups. DOC will limit its inquiries to data collections that solicit strictly voluntary opinions or responses. Steps will be taken to ensure anonymity of respondents in each activity covered by this request.

All High Impact Service Providers listed at https://www.performance.gov/cx/HISPList.pdf are required to ask questions in these domains of their customers. However, all agencies are encouraged to conduct their customer experience measurements in line with these standard measures.

As discussed in OMB guidance, agencies should identify their highest-impact customer journeys (using customer volume, annual program cost, and/or knowledge of customer priority as weighting factors) and select touchpoints/transactions within those journeys to collect. feedback. For the purposes of this collection, Federal customer experience will focus on real-time transaction-level measures.

The results will be used to improve the delivery of Federal services and programs. It will also provide government-wide data on customer experience that can be displayed on www.performance.gov to help build transparency and accountability of Federal programs to the customers they serve.

As a general matter, these information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, and religious beliefs.

The Department of Commerce will only submit collections under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

The collections are voluntary.

The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government.

The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies. Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future.

Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained. Information gathered is intended to be used for general service improvement and program management purposes.

Upon agreement between OMB and the agency all or a subset of information may be released as part of A-11, Section 280 requirements only on performance.gov. Summaries of customer research and user testing activities may be included in public-facing customer journey maps.

Additional release of data must be done coordinated with OMB. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the Agency, its customers and stakeholders, and OMB as it monitors agency compliance on Section 280. These responses will inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on services will be unavailable.

The Department of Commerce will collect this information by electronic means, when possible, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, technical discussions; and customer experience activities such as feedback surveys, focus groups, user testing, and in-person interviews.

The Department of Commerce may also utilize observational techniques to collect this information.

OMB Control Number: 0690-0035.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission, extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 300,000.

Estimated Time per Response: Varied, dependent upon the data collection method used. The possible response time to complete a questionnaire or survey may be 3 minutes or up to 2 hours to participate in an interview or focus group.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 27,725.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Public: Zero.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Affected Public: Collections will be targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future. For the purposes of this request, “customers” are individuals, businesses, and organizations that interact with a Federal Government agency or program, either directly or via a Federal contractor. This could include individuals or households; businesses or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal governments; Federal government; and Universities.

Comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Background

On February 1, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India. 1 On January 3, 2023, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the Order, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 On January 17, 2023, Commerce received a timely notice of intent to participate from ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube LLC, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman Industries, Inc. (collectively, the domestic interested parties). 3 The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a group of domestic producers engaged in the production of cold-drawn mechanical tubing in the United States.

On February 1, 2023, Commerce received a timely and adequate substantive response from the domestic interested parties. 4 We received no substantive responses from any other interested parties, including the Government of India, nor was a hearing requested. On February 24, 2023, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties. 5 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order.

The merchandise covered by the Order is certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel. For a complete description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 6

All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Pursuant to sections 751I(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the rates listed below:

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

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

Background

On November 1, 2022, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 2020-2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). 1 This review covers 14 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel), POSCO, 2 and 12 non-selected companies. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 3 On December 1, 2022, we received case briefs from the petitioners  4 and from the mandatory respondents, Hyundai Steel and POSCO. 5 On December 15, 2022, the petitioners and Hyundai Steel submitted rebuttal briefs. 6 On February 2, 2023, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results of review until April 28, 2023. 7 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the Order   8 are hot-rolled steel. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 9

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on the comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes for the final results of review.

The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely on the basis of facts available.

In this review, we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for one of the mandatory respondents, Hyundai Steel, that is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, because the second mandatory respondent, POSCO's margin is de minimis, Commerce assigned to the companies not individually examined, listed in the chart below, a margin of 0.88 percent based on Hyundai Steel's calculated weighted-average dumping margin.

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021.

Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

For Hyundai Steel, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the entries by that importer will be liquidated without regard to antidumping duties. Because POSCO's weighted-average dumping margin is zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate POSCO's entries without regard to duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by either of the individually examined respondents for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

For the companies identified above that were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the rate established in these final results of review.

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

Upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register , the following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of hot-rolled steel entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the companies subject to this review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer has been covered in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 6.05 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation for this proceeding. 10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Agenda Tuesday May 16, 2023 Through Thursday, May 18, 2023

The agenda will include: (a) the simpler modeling working group report; (b) WAIRKC final SAFE; (c) PIGKC final SAFE; (d) AIGKC final SAFE; (e) PIBKC proposed models; (f) BBRKC proposed model runs; (g) Snow crab proposed model runs; (h) Tanner crab proposed models; (i) Bering sea red crab stock structure template; (j) unobserved mortality ongoing research discussion; (k) BSFRF update; and (m) additional topics. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2990 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2990.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2990.

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

During this meeting, the SSC will review the most recent survey and fishery data and the previously recommended 2024 Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for Atlantic Surfclam, Ocean Quahog, Butterfish, Chub Mackerel, Golden Tilefish, and Blueline Tilefish. The SSC will also receive an introductory overview of the recently peer reviewed Spiny Dogfish and Bluefish research track stock assessment information. The Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office will give an overview on the development and peer review outcomes for the Mid-Atlantic/New England Catch Accounting and Monitoring System (CAMS). The SSC will also develop guidance for Council consideration on constant/average ABC recommendations and possible updates to the overfishing limit (OFL) coefficient of variation (CV) guidance document. The SSC may take up any other business as necessary.

A detailed agenda and background documents will be made available on the Council's website ( www.mafmc.org ) prior to the meeting.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

Agenda Wednesday, May 10, 2023-Thursday, May 11, 2023

The May 2023 FMAC agenda will include: (a) updates since the last FMAC meeting; (b) an abbreviated 2022 Observer Annual report; (c) discussion of draft 2024 Annual Deployment Plan (ADP) and partial coverage cost efficiencies analysis, (d) electronic monitoring (EM) issues and prioritization, and (e) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2936 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smartphone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2992. If you are attending the meeting in-person please note that all attendees will be required to wear a mask.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2992.

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

The Council will host a presentation from Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute staff on the State Reef Fish Survey. The presentation will include information on why the survey was created, how the survey is conducted, species that are included, and information on landings. A question-and-answer session will follow the presentation. Members of the public will have the opportunity to participate in the discussion. The presentation is for informational purposes only and no management actions will be taken.

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

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

Agenda Monday, May 8, 2023

The Ecosystem Committee agenda will include: (a) Programmatic EIS, (b) Public Comment, (c) Committee discussion and next steps, and (d) Scheduling and other items. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2989 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2989.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2989.

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

The agenda for the following four in-person public hearings and two webinars are as follows: Council staff will begin with a presentation on the purpose, need, and proposed management alternatives in Reef Fish Amendment 56. The Council is currently considering modifications to Gag status determination criteria, catch limits, sector allocation, rebuilding timeline, annual catch targets, and recreational fishing season.

Staff and a Council member will be available to answer any questions, and the public will have the opportunity to provide testimony on the amendment and other related testimony.

Monday, May 8, 2023; via webinar. Visit www.gulfcouncil.org website and click on the “meetings” tab for registration information. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Monday, May 15, 2023; Destin Community Center; 101 Stahlman Avenue, Destin, FL 32541; phone: (850) 654-5184; Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) Lab, 552 1st Street, Cedar Key, FL 32625; Courtyard Gulf Coast Town Center Hotel, 10050 Gulf Center Drive, Fort Myers, FL 33913; phone: (239) 332-4747.

Wednesday, May 17, 2023; Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) Auditorium, 100 8th Avenue SE, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone: (727) 502-4769.

Tuesday, May 30, 2023; via webinar. Visit www.gulfcouncil.org website and click on the “meetings” tab for registration information. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES ), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

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

The USPTO is authorized under section 10 of the AIA to set or adjust by rule all patent and trademark fees established, authorized, or charged under title 35 of the United States Code and the Trademark Act of 1946, respectively. This authority was extended through September 15, 2026, by the Study of Underrepresented Classes Chasing Engineering and Science Success Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-273). Patent and trademark fees set or adjusted by rule under section 10 of the AIA may only recover the aggregate estimated costs to the USPTO for processing, activities, services, and materials relating to patents and trademarks, respectively, including administrative costs of the office with respect to each. Congress set forth the process for the USPTO to follow in setting or adjusting patent and trademark fees by rule under section 10 of the AIA, including additional procedural steps in the rulemaking proceeding for issuance of regulations under this section. Congress requires the relevant advisory committee to hold a public hearing regarding proposed fees after receiving the proposal from the USPTO. Congress, likewise, requires the relevant advisory committee to prepare a written report on proposed fees and the USPTO to consider the relevant advisory committee's report before finally setting or adjusting fees.

The USPTO is planning to exercise its fee setting authority to set or adjust patent fees. The USPTO will publish a proposed patent fee schedule and related supplementary information for public viewing no later than May 4, 2023, on the fee setting and adjusting section of the USPTO website, www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting. The PPAC will hold a public hearing regarding the proposed patent fee schedule on the date indicated in this notice. The USPTO will assist the PPAC in holding the hearing by providing resources to organize the hearing and notifying the public. Following the PPAC public hearing and considering all comments, advice, and recommendations, the USPTO, if it continues with the fee setting process, will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register , setting forth its proposed patent fees.

Average prime offer rates (APORs) are annual percentage rates derived from average interest rates, points, and other loan pricing terms currently offered to consumers by a representative sample of creditors for mortgage loans that have low-risk pricing characteristics. APORs have implications for data reporters under Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, and creditors under Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026. Regulation C requires covered financial institutions to report, for certain transactions, the difference between a loan's annual percentage rate (APR) and the APOR for a comparable transaction. 1 Under Regulation Z, a loan meets the general qualified mortgage (QM) definition if the APR exceeds the APOR for a comparable transaction by less than the applicable threshold as of the date the interest rate is set. 2 The difference between the APR and APOR also determines whether certain QM definitions provide the creditor with a conclusive or rebuttable presumption of compliance, 3 and whether the creditor must comply with certain provisions for high-cost or higher-priced mortgage loans. 4

Currently, to calculate APORs, the CFPB uses pricing data from the Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS) on three products—30-year fixed-rate mortgage; 15-year fixed-rate mortgage; and five-year variable-rate mortgage—and pricing data from CFPB's own internal survey on one-year variable-rate mortgages. The CFPB calculates APORs on a weekly basis using the methodology set forth in a statement available to the public on the FFIEC's website.

The CFPB is publishing this notice to inform the public that a revised methodology statement is now available. In September 2022, the CFPB learned that Freddie Mac planned to change the public version of PMMS to no longer include points, fees, and adjustable rates data used by the CFPB to construct APORs. To address the imminent unavailability of certain data previously relied on to calculate APORs, the CFPB identified a suitable temporary alternative source of survey data. After evaluating potential sources, the CFPB determined that data from Intercontinental Exchange Mortgage Technology (ICE Mortgage Technology) is currently the most suitable option to replace PMMS. ICE Mortgage Technology provides a data source that has sufficient pricing data for the variables and base products that the CFPB requires to calculate APORs. With this switch over to ICE Mortgage Technology data, the CFPB is transitioning to using additional base products (such as a 20-year fixed-rate mortgage and a 10/6-month ARM) and removing others (such as the 1-year variable-rate mortgage) to ensure there is a firm basis for estimating APORs. 5 Having data for more than two kinds of fixed-rate mortgage products and more than two kinds of variable-rate mortgage products provides a firmer basis for estimating rates across a full range of fixed-rate and variable-rate mortgage products. The CFPB will therefore use the following eight base products to calculate APORs: 30-year fixed-rate mortgage; 20-year fixed-rate mortgage; 15-year fixed-rate mortgage; 10-year fixed-rate mortgage; 10/6-month ARM; 7/6-month ARM; 5/6-month ARM; and 3/6-month ARM.

The CFPB has updated the FFIEC's website to note this change in the source of survey data and published a revised methodology statement that reflects corresponding changes in the methodology. The CFPB will begin using ICE Mortgage Technology data and the revised methodology to calculate APORs on or after April 21, 2023. The CFPB will continue to post the survey data used to calculate APORs on the FFIEC's website every week at https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/tools/rate-spread and will continue to identify the source of the survey data on that web page.

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: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2024 Amendment #1.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0928.

Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 833,139.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 519,605.

Abstract: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), is a federally authorized survey of student achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12 in various subject areas, such as mathematics, reading, writing, science, U.S. history, civics, geography, economics, technology and engineering literacy (TEL), and the arts. The National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (Pub. L. 107-279 Title III, section 303) requires the assessment to collect data on specified student groups and characteristics, including information organized by race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, disability, and limited English proficiency. It requires fair and accurate presentation of achievement data and permits the collection of background, noncognitive, or descriptive information that is related to academic achievement and aids in fair reporting of results. The intent of the law is to provide representative sample data on student achievement for the nation, the states, and subpopulations of students and to monitor progress over time. NAEP consists of two assessment programs: the NAEP long-term trend (LTT) assessment and the main NAEP assessment. The LTT assessments are given at the national level only and are administered to students at ages 9, 13, and 17 in a manner that is very different from that used for the main NAEP assessments. LTT reports mathematics and reading results that present trend data since the 1970s. In addition to the operational assessments, NAEP uses two other kinds of assessment activities: pilot assessments and special studies. Pilot assessments test items and procedures for future administrations of NAEP, while special studies (including the National Indian Education Study (NIES), the Middle School Transcript Study (MSTS), and the High School Transcript Study (HSTS)) are opportunities for NAEP to investigate particular aspects of the assessment without impacting the reporting of the NAEP results.

The request to conduct NAEP in 2024 (OMB #1850-0928 v.28) was approved in March 2023. Since that package's submission for public comment and OMB review, NCES has canceled the Middle School Transcript Study (MSTS) due to budgetary limitations. This is the first of three additional 30-day packages to be submitted in March, May, and August 2023 in order to update all materials in time for the data collection in early 2024. This revision updates the scope of Part A to remove all references to the MSTS, Appendix D2 to include early communication materials in both English and Spanish, and Appendices J1, J2, J3, and J-S to include the initial operational survey questionnaires (SQ) (not including COVID-19 Learning Recovery SQs, Pilot, or NIES, as those will be in Amendments #2 and #3). A detailed revision memo is included to assist readers in understanding the changes proposed in this package. There have been no changes to the burden or costs to the Federal Government in this Amendment #1.

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: Case Service Report (RSA-911).

OMB Control Number: 1820-0508.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 312.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 12,236,731.

Abstract: The Case Service Report (RSA-911) is used to collect individual level data on State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program participants on a quarterly basis. The data collected in this report are mandated by section 101(a)(10) and 607 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Act) and section 116(d) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. In addition, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) uses data reported through this collection to support its other responsibilities under the Act. Section 14(a) of the Act calls for the evaluation of programs authorized under the Act, as well as an assessment of the programs' effectiveness in relation to cost. Many of these evaluations use RSA-911 data. RSA also uses data captured through the RSA-911 during the conduct of both the annual review and periodic on-site monitoring of VR agencies required by section 107 of the Act to examine the effectiveness of program performance. Other important management activities, such as the provision of technical assistance, program planning, and budget preparation and development, are greatly enhanced through the use of RSA-911 data. In addition, RSA uses RSA-911 data in the exchange of data under a data sharing agreement with the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as required by section 131 of the Act. Finally, the RSA-911 is considered to be one of the most robust databases in describing the demographics of the disabled population in the country and as such is used widely in researchers' disability-related analyses and reports.

The current RSA-911 expires on 05/31/2024, which occurs during Program Year 2023 (07/01/2023-06/30/2024). Because RSA must collect the same performance data for the entirety of a Program Year, RSA must begin Program Year 2024 with approval of this proposed revision in place. Thus, RSA is proposing to extend with revisions the RSA-911 for three years. If this revision is approved, VR agencies will collect and report data under this collection for Program Years 2024 through 2026. (07/01/2024-06/30/2027).

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-5184; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Programs for Improving Energy Efficiency in Buildings; (3) Type of Review: extension; (4) Purpose: The proposed collection will enable DOE to understand the universe of organizations participating in building load management programs, including the following four voluntary programs: the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program, the Home Energy Score Program, the Better Buildings Residential Network, and the Zero Energy Ready Home Program. DOE encourages and assists the people and organizations that voluntarily participate in energy efficiency programs to build or renovate buildings for the purposes of improved efficiency, reliability, and affordability. The partners who voluntarily participate in the programs include: home builders, building trades and building-related associations, home design professionals, home energy raters and auditors, home inspectors, building consultants, manufacturers of building products, retailers, utility companies, financial institutions, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, energy program administrators and implementers, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR sponsors, state or local government energy offices or agencies, and other organizations that believe peer sharing will help them improve their effectiveness in encouraging effective energy upgrades. DOE proposes to continue to collect information such as names of program participants and names of organizations and addresses; estimates of how many homes they can get to participate in the programs; information about building stock (no building owner information is collected), and load management strategies. The collected information helps DOE understand the participating partners' activities and progress toward achieving scheduled milestones enabling DOE to make decisions about the best way to respond to partners' needs to improve their operations and actions to lower energy consumption and improve affordability; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 672; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 45,189. (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 19,365. (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: zero dollars. DOE estimates that there are no additional costs to participants other than the costs associated with the burden hours.

Statutory Authority: The U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 149, Subchapter IX, Part A, Section 16191—Energy Efficiency.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 5, 2023, by James R. Carlisle, Acting Director, Building Technologies Office, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

I. Background

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) promulgated its first Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) regulations, applicable to new LSI engines, in 1999 and they remained unchanged until CARB's 2008 Amendments. 1 EPA authorized these first LSI regulations on May 15, 2006. 2 CARB adopted the initial LSI Fleet Requirements (LSI Fleet Requirements), applicable to fleet operators on March 2, 2007. EPA granted California an authorization for the initial LSI Fleet Requirements in 2012. 3 The LSI Fleet Requirements were designed to address hydrocarbon (HC) and nitrogen oxide (NO X ) emissions from existing LSI engines operating in California and required fleets to meet certain fleet average emission level (FAEL) standards. CARB adopted its 2008 LSI Amendments on November 21, 2008. The 2008 LSI Amendments created two new engine categories below one-liter displacement, with new, more stringent exhaust and evaporative emission standards applicable to new engines. These amendments also provided clarification as to when CARB's off-road sport or utility regulations apply to certain LSI engines. 4 CARB adopted its 2010 LSI Amendments on December 17, 2010. EPA issued an authorization decision for the 2008 and 2010 amendments in 2015. 5 The 2010 LSI Amendments expanded the “Limited Hours of Use Provision” to encompass equipment operated not more than 200 hours per year subsequent to January 1, 2011, and extended the preexisting compliance extension period if CARB has not verified a retrofit emission control system, or if one is not commercially available, from one year to two years. 6 At its July 21, 2016, public hearing, the CARB Board approved for adoption the 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments. By letter dated March 15, 2021, CARB submitted a request to EPA for an authorization to enforce the 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments and asked that EPA consider its amendments as accompanying enforcement procedures for standards already authorized in EPA's 2015 decision. 7 The 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments include reporting requirements ( e.g., initial and annual reports, equipment transfer and sales reports, and an extension of existing reporting requirements for fleet operators subject to FAEL). The 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments also include new labeling requirements wherein, based on operator provided information, CARB will issue the operators a unique Equipment Identification Number (EIN) for each item of equipment reported, and the EIN will become the basis for a manufacturer's equipment labels with a number of associated requirements. 8

On August 16, 2021, EPA issued a notice seeking comment on CARB's 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments as accompanying enforcement procedures. 9

CAA section 209(e)(1) prohibits states and local governments from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or requirement relating to the control of emissions from certain new nonroad vehicles or engines. 10 The CAA also preempts states from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions from all other nonroad engines or vehicles. 11 CAA section 209(e)(2)(A), however, requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to adopt and enforce standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from such vehicles or engines not preempted by CAA section 209(e)(1) if California determines that California standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. However, EPA shall not grant such authorization if it finds that: (1) The protectiveness determination of California is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3) California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with CAA section 209. 12 On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule (“the 1994 rule”) that sets forth, among other things, regulations providing the criteria, as found in CAA section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle emission standards. 13 EPA revised these regulations in 1997. 14

As stated in the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA has historically interpreted CAA section 209(e)(2)(iii) “consistency” inquiry to require that California standards and enforcement procedures be consistent with CAA sections 209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that subsection in the context of CAA section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers). 15 In order to be consistent with CAA section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with CAA section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with CAA section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to CAA section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if he finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the CAA. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with CAA section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the Federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements. 16 When considering whether to grant authorizations for accompanying enforcement procedures tied to standards (such as record keeping and labeling requirements) for which an authorization has already been granted, EPA has evaluated: (1) Whether the enforcement procedures are so lax that they threaten the validity of California's determination that its standards are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards, and (2) whether the Federal and California enforcement procedures are consistent. 17

In MEMA the Court stated that the Administrator's role in a CAA section 209 proceeding is to “consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.”  18 The court in MEMA I considered the standard of proof under CAA section 209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an “accompanying enforcement procedure” (as opposed to the standards themselves): (1) Protectiveness in the aggregate and (2) consistency with section 202(a) findings. The Court instructed that “the standard of proof must take account of the nature of the risk of error involved in any given decision, and it therefore varies with the finding involved. We need not decide how this standard operates in every waiver decision.”  19 The Court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be `clear and compelling evidence' to show that proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards. 20 The Court noted that this standard of proof also accords with the Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and welfare. 21 With respect to the consistency finding, the Court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence.

Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standard of proof under CAA section 209 concerning a waiver request for “standards,” as compared to accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that the Court's analysis would not apply with equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: “[E]ven in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation—the existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are technologically feasible—Congress intended that the standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.”  22 Opponents of the waiver or authorization bear the burden of showing that the criteria for a denial of California's waiver or authorization request have been met. As found in MEMA I, this obligation rests firmly with opponents of the waiver or authorization in a CAA section 209 proceeding:

The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver or authorization decision. As the Court in MEMA I stated: “here, too, if the Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' ”  24 Therefore, the Administrator's burden is to act “reasonably.”  25

In previous waiver and authorization decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review based on specifically listed criteria was to ensure that the Federal government did not second-guess state policy choices. As the Agency explained in one prior waiver decision: “It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator . . . Since a balancing of risks and costs against the potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I believe I am required to give very substantial deference to California's judgments on this score.”  26 Similarly, EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a Congressional intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on “ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy” to California's judgment. 27 This interpretation is supported by relevant discussion in the House Committee Report for the 1977 Amendments to the CAA. Congress had the opportunity through the 1977 Amendments to restrict the preexisting waiver provision but elected instead to expand California's flexibility to adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission controls. The report explains that the amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen the preexisting California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying intent of that provision, that is, to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. 28

On August 16, 2021, EPA issued a notice for comment regarding CARB's 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments. The notice requested the public provide EPA with comment on issues relevant to EPA's consideration of the accompanying enforcement procedures established within the 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments, specifically whether California's 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments: (a) undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal standards; (b) affect the consistency of California's requirements with CAA section 209; or (c) raise any other new issues relating to the three authorization criteria affecting EPA's previous waiver or authorization determinations. 29

EPA did not receive a request for a public hearing. As a consequence, EPA did not hold a public hearing on this matter. EPA did receive one comment, from the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), which asked EPA to deny California's authorization request and to revise the Agency's 1994 rule implementing CAA section 209(e) to prevent California from both adopting and enforcing its state regulations until after EPA has waived preemption under CAA section 209. The commenter requested that EPA deny California's request because it believes the State is enforcing its nonroad emissions regulations prior to an EPA authorization. OPEI states that California's position is inconsistent with the due process protections intended under CAA section 209, including safeguards for the public such as California's requiring a waiver or authorization to be granted in order to enforce the state's emission standards. In addition to denying California this authorization, OPEI requested EPA: (1) Revisit its 1994 rule and change its interpretation to bar California from adopting and enforcing its regulations prior to EPA issuing a waiver or authorization; (2) clarify adoption dates, implementation dates and lead times, and enforcement terms; and (3) establish that the effective dates and lead times for CARB rules requiring an EPA waiver or authorization must consider the timing of the waiver submission and approval process.

Our analysis of the 2008 LSI Amendments in the context of the full authorization criteria is set forth below.

CAA section 209(e)(2)(A)(i) of the CAA instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the Agency finds that California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its amendments are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. In adopting the 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments, CARB's Board approved Resolution 16-10, in which it expressly declared, “ `the Board hereby determines, in accordance with the CAA, section 209(e)(2), that the amendments adopted herein do not undermine the Board's previous determination that the regulation's emission standards, other emission related requirements, and associated enforcement procedures are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.' ”  30 CARB further stated that the 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments “do not reduce the stringency of the FAEL standards established by the initial LSI Fleet Requirements but will instead enable CARB to more effectively enforce the LSI Fleet Requirements.”  31 CARB also pointed out that there are no Federal standards to regulate engines that have been placed into service, such as regulations applicable to fleet operators, under the CAA and, therefore, there is no question that California's standards are at least as protective as Federal standards.

EPA requested but did not receive any comment on whether the 2016 LSI Fleet Amendment undermine California's previous protectiveness determination. We cannot find that California's 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments undermine California's previous determination that its standards and accompanying enforcement procedures, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. Thus, we cannot deny CARB's request for authorization of its amendments based on this criterion.

Section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if California's standards and enforcement procedures are not consistent with “this section.” The 1994 rule sets forth, among other things, regulations providing the criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle emission standards. EPA has historically interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(iii) “consistency” inquiry to require, at minimum, that California standards and enforcement procedures be consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that subsection in the context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers). 32 EPA has interpreted this last subsection in the context of motor vehicle waivers. Thus, this can be viewed as a three-pronged test as evaluated below.

To be consistent with CAA section 209(a), California's 2016 LSI Amendments must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. California's 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments expressly apply only to nonroad engines and do not apply to engines used in motor vehicles as defined by CAA section 216(2). We did not receive any comments on California's consistency with CAA section 209(a). Therefore, EPA cannot deny California's request on the basis that California's 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments are not consistent with CAA section 209(a).

To be consistent with CAA section 209(e)(1), California's 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments must not affect new farm or construction equipment or vehicles that are below 175 horsepower, or new locomotives or new engines used in locomotives. CARB notes that its 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments do not affect such permanently preempted vehicles or engines. EPA did not receive any comments regarding California's consistency with section 209(e)(1). Therefore, EPA cannot deny California's request on the basis that California's 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments are not consistent with section 209(e)(1).

The requirement that California's standards be consistent with CAA section 209(b)(1)(C) effectively requires consistency with section 202(a). EPA has interpreted consistency with section 202(a) using a two-pronged test: (1) Whether there is sufficient lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet the standards and other requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance in the time frame provided, and (2) whether the California and Federal test procedures are sufficiently compatible to permit manufacturers to meet both the state and Federal test requirements with one test vehicle or engine. 33 The scope of EPA's review of whether California's action is consistent with CAA section 202(a) is narrow. The determination is limited to whether those opposed to the authorization have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with the Federal test procedures. 34

Congress has stated that the consistency requirement of section 202(a) relates to technological feasibility. 35 CAA section 202(a)(2) states, in part, that any regulation promulgated under its authority “shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.” Section 202(a) thus requires the Administrator to first determine whether adequate technology already exists; or if it does not, whether there is adequate time to develop and apply the technology before the standards go into effect. The latter scenario also requires the Administrator to decide whether the cost of developing and applying the technology within that time is feasible.

The 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments include reporting requirements ( e.g., initial and annual reports, equipment transfer and sales reports, and an extension of existing reporting requirements for fleet operators subject to fleet average emission limits). The 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments also include new labeling requirements wherein, based on operator provided information, CARB will issue the operators a unique EIN for each item of equipment reported and become the basis of a manufacturer's equipment labels with a number of associated requirements. EPA did not receive any comments suggesting that CARB's accompanying enforcement procedures are technologically infeasible. Consequently, based on the record, EPA cannot deny California authorization of its 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments based on technological infeasibility.

California's 2016 LSI Amendments do not alter the testing required under the previously granted LSI Fleet authorization. California states in its authorization support document, “[t]he 2016 LSI Fleet Amendments also do not raise any issue regarding incompatibility between California and Federal test procedures because EPA has no comparable requirements. 36 We did not receive any comment regarding inconsistency with Federal test procedures that would provide EPA a basis to deny this authorization. Consequently, based on the record, EPA cannot deny California an authorization on the basis of inconsistency with Federal test procedures.

I. Executive Summary A. What action is the Agency taking?

This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from 3/01/2023 to 3/31/2023. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs, and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.

EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/status-pre-manufacture-notices. This information is updated on a weekly basis.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., a chemical substance may be either an “existing” chemical substance or a “new” chemical substance. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory of Chemical Substances (TSCA Inventory) is classified as a “new chemical substance,” while a chemical substance that is listed on the TSCA Inventory is classified as an “existing chemical substance.” (See TSCA section 3(11).) For more information about the TSCA Inventory please go to: https://www.epa.gov/inventory.

Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN, or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).

TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: https://www.epa.gov/chemicals-under-tsca.

Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register certain information, including notice of receipt of a PMN/SNUN/MCAN (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (biotech exemption); an application for a TME, both pending and concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on the new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.

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

No.

1. Submitting confidential business information (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.

In the past, EPA has published individual notices reflecting the status of TSCA section 5 filings received, pending or concluded. In 1995, the Agency modified its approach and streamlined the information published in the Federal Register after providing notice of such changes to the public and an opportunity to comment (see the Federal Register of May 12, 1995 (60 FR 25798) (FRL-4942-7)). Since the passage of the Lautenberg amendments to TSCA in 2016, public interest in information on the status of section 5 cases under EPA review and, in particular, the final determination of such cases, has increased. In an effort to be responsive to the regulated community, the users of this information, and the general public, to comply with the requirements of TSCA, to conserve EPA resources and to streamline the process and make it more timely, EPA is providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/status-pre-manufacture-notices. This information is updated on a weekly basis.

For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices screened by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer ( i.e., domestic producer or importer), the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the notice, and the chemical substance identity.

As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI. Submissions which are initial submissions will not have a letter following the case number. Submissions which are amendments to previous submissions will have a case number followed by the letter “A” ( e.g., P-18-1234A). The version column designates submissions in sequence as “1”, “2”, “3”, etc. Note that in some cases, an initial submission is not numbered as version 1; this is because earlier version(s) were rejected as incomplete or invalid submissions. Note also that future versions of the following tables may adjust slightly as the Agency works to automate population of the data in the tables.

In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC, a notation of the type of amendment ( e.g., amendment to generic name, specific name, technical contact information, etc.) and chemical substance identity.

In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information that has been received during this time period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.

If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1246.

Title: FCC Reasonable Accommodation forms.

Form Number(s): FCC Form 5626, FCC Form 5627.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; Federal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 18 respondents; 36 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.16 hours-5 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. Statutory authority for these collections is contained in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; see also 29 CFR part 1630; Establishing Procedures to Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable Accommodation; EEOC, Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 29 CFR part 1615.

Total Annual Burden: 98 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $3,400.

Needs and Uses: This information will be used by the Office of Workplace Diversity to process, track, and maintain the confidentiality of reasonable accommodation requests submitted on FCC Form 5626 and FCC Form 5627.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1243.

Title: Sections 1.9020(n), 1.9030(m), 1.9035(o), Community notification requirement for certain contraband interdiction systems; Section 20.18(r), Contraband Interdiction System (CIS) requirement; Section 20.23(a), good faith negotiations.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities and state, local or Tribal Governments.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 25 respondents and 66 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 8-16 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: There is no obligation to respond; response required to obtain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, and 332.

Total Annual Burden: 664 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: On March 24, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission released a Report and Order, Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Devices in Correctional Facilities, GN Docket No. 13-111, FCC 17-25 (Report and Order), in which the Commission took important steps to help law enforcement combat the serious threats posed by the illegal use of contraband wireless devices by inmates. Across the country, inmates have used contraband devices to order hits, run drug operations, operate phone scams, and otherwise engage in criminal activity that endangers prison employees, other inmates, and innocent members of the public. In the Report and Order, the Commission streamlined the process of deploying contraband wireless device interdiction systems—systems that use radio communications signals requiring Commission authorization—in correctional facilities. The action will reduce the cost of deploying solutions and ensure that they can be deployed more quickly and efficiently. In particular, the Commission waived certain filing requirements and provided for immediate approval of the spectrum lease applications needed to operate these systems.

The effectiveness of Contraband Interdiction System (CIS) deployment requires all carriers in the relevant area of the correctional facility to execute a spectrum lease with the CIS provider. Even if the major Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) licensees negotiate expeditiously and in good faith, if one CMRS licensee in the area fails to engage in lease negotiations in a reasonable time frame or at all, the CIS solution will not be effective. The lack of cooperation of even a single wireless provider in a geographic area of a correctional facility can result in deployment of a system with insufficient spectral coverage, subject to abuse by inmates in possession of contraband wireless devices operating on frequencies not covered by a spectrum lease agreement. While some carriers have been cooperative, it is imperative that all CMRS licensees be required to engage in lease negotiations in good faith and in a timely fashion. Therefore, the Commission adopted a rule requiring that CMRS licensees negotiate in good faith with entities seeking to deploy a CIS in a correctional facility. If, after a 45 day period, there is no agreement, CIS providers seeking Special Temporary Authority (STA) to operate in the absence of CMRS licensee consent may file a request for STA with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), with a copy served at the same time on the CMRS licensee, accompanied by evidence demonstrating its good faith, and the unreasonableness of the CMRS licensee's actions, in negotiating an agreement. The CMRS licensee may then file a response with WTB, with a copy served on the CIS provider at that time, within 10 days of the filing of the STA request.

The supplementary information provided along with the STA application by the CIS provider will be used by WTB to determine whether the CIS provider has negotiated in good faith, yet the CMRS licensee has not negotiated in good faith. The CMRS licensee may use the evidence accompanying the STA application to craft a response. WTB will analyze the evidence from the CIS providers and the CMRS licensee's response to determine whether to issue STA to the entity seeking to deploy the CIS.

The Commission explored whether it should impose a requirement that the community in the vicinity of a correctional facility where a CIS is installed be notified of the installation. The Commission explained that a goal of the proceeding is to expedite the deployment of technological solutions to combat the use of contraband wireless devices, not to impose unnecessary barriers to CIS deployment. Consistent with that goal, the Commission found that a flexible and community-tailored notification requirement for certain CISs outweighed the minimal burden of notification and furthered the public interest. After careful consideration of the record, the Commission imposed a rule that, 10 days prior to deploying a CIS that prevents communications to or from mobile devices, a lessee must notify the community in which the correctional facility is located, and the Commission amended its spectrum leasing rules to reflect this requirement. The Commission agreed with commenters that support notification of the surrounding community due to the potential for accidental call blocking and the public safety issues involved. The information provided in the notification will put the houses and businesses in the surrounding community on notice that a CIS will be deployed in the vicinity that has the potential for accidental call blocking.

Acknowledging the importance of ensuring the availability of emergency 911 calls from correctional facilities, and the fact that delivering emergency calls to public safety answering points (PSAPs) facilitates public safety services and generally serves the public interest, the Commission amended its rules to require that CIS providers regulated as private mobile radio service (PMRS) must route all 911 calls to the local PSAP. That said, the Commission also acknowledged the important role state and local public safety officials play in the administration of the 911 system. Accordingly, although the CIS provider is required to pass through emergency 911 calls, the PSAPs can inform the CIS provider that they do not want to receive calls from a given correctional facility. By allowing the PSAPs to decline the emergency 911 calls, the Commission recognized the reported increased volume of PSAP harassment through repeated inmate fraudulent 911 calls. The information provided by the PSAP or emergency authority will result in the CIS provider not passing through E911 calls from a particular correctional facility.