The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six-month advance notice in the Federal Register of establishment of new recreation fee sites. In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2309.13, Chapter 30, the Forest Service will publish the proposed new recreation fee for public notice and comment in local newspapers and other local publications. Most of the new recreation fee revenues would be spent where they are collected to enhance the visitor experience at the new recreation fee site.

An expanded amenity recreation fee of $75 per night would be charged for rental of the Trail River Cabin. The recreation fee revenues would support operation and maintenance of the cabin. Reservations for rental of the cabin could be made online at www.recreation.gov or by calling 877-444-6777. Reservations would cost $8.00 per reservation.

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six-month advance notice in the Federal Register of establishment of new recreation fee sites. In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2309.13, Chapter 30, the Forest Service will publish the proposed new recreation fees for public notice and comment in local newspapers and other local publications. Most of the new recreation fee revenues would be spent where they are collected to enhance the visitor experience at the new recreation fee sites.

An expanded amenity recreation fee of $5 per site per night would be charged at the Aspen Glade, Brown Mountain, Deer Creek, Frye Lake, Hugh Otte, Jack Creek, Lily Lake, Little Popo Agie, Little Sunlight, Warm Springs, and Wood River Campgrounds. An expanded amenity recreation fee of $10 per night would be charged at the Wild Iris Campground. The recreation fee revenues would enhance recreation opportunities, improve customer service, and address maintenance needs. Reservations for the campgrounds could be made online at www.recreation.gov or by calling 877-444-6777. Reservations would cost $8.00 per reservation.

Title: Locatable Minerals.

OMB Number: 0596-0022.

Expiration Date of Approval: June 30, 2018.

Type of Request: Reapproval of an information collection request.

Abstract: This information collection request is necessary to ensure that potential adverse environmental impacts associated with locatable mineral operations on National Forest System (NFS) lands are minimized to the extent practicable. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 228.5 require mining operators, with some exceptions, to notify the authorized Forest Service officer of their intent to conduct a locatable mineral operation on NFS lands by filing a proposed plan of operations. All information identified in 36 CFR part 228 must be included in the proposed plan of operations. Forest Service form FS-2800-5, Plan of Operations for Mining Activities on National Forest System Lands, is available for use by mining proponents and operators to simplify this process. The information required by 36 CFR 228.4(c), (d), and (e) in a proposed plan of operations includes:

1. The name and legal mailing address of operators (and claimants if they are not the same) and their lessees, assigns, or designees.

2. A map or sketch showing information sufficient to locate:

a. The proposed area of operations on the ground.

b. Existing and/or proposed roads or access routes to be used in connection with the operation as set forth in 36 CFR 228.12 on access.

c. The approximate location and size of areas where surface resources will be disturbed.

3. Information sufficient to describe:

a. The type of operations proposed and how they would be conducted.

b. The type and standard of existing and proposed roads or access routes.

c. The means of transportation used or to be used as set forth in 36 CFR 228.12.

d. The period during which the proposed activity will take place.

e. Measures to be taken to meet the requirements for environmental protection in 36 CFR 228.8.

This information collection request is crucial to protecting surface resources, including plants, animals, and their habitat, and addressing public safety on NFS lands. The authorized Forest Service officer will use the collected information to ensure that prospecting for and exploration, development, and production of mineral resources are conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner; that these mineral operations are integrated into planning and management of other resources using principles of ecosystem management; and that lands disturbed by mineral operations are reclaimed using the best scientific knowledge and returned to other productive uses. If this information were not collected, the Forest Service would not be able to comply with its regulations, and locatable mineral operations could result in undue damage to surface resources in the NFS.

Estimated Annual Burden per Respondent: 224 hours.

Type of Respondents: Mining proponents and operators.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 198.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 44,352 hours.

Comment is invited on (1) whether this information collection request is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information collected will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the information collection request, 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 information collection request on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

This listening effort will allow stakeholders to provide feedback on the following questions:

• What is your top priority for the VMLRP and/or VSGP in the next decade?

• What are the greatest challenges that you see facing food animal veterinary practice, with respect to the VMLRP and VSGP, in the coming decade?

• What improvements or enhancements would you make to VMLRP and VSGP?

• What are the most promising opportunities/solutions for food animal veterinary practice, with respect to the VMLRP and VSGP, in the coming decade?

NIFA welcomes stakeholder input from any group or individual interested in food animal veterinary services in the U.S., including but not limited to governmental agencies, academic institutions, State Animal Health Officials, applicants, current or former awardees, current or former food animal veterinary practitioners, producers, and any other interested parties.

NIFA is eager to obtain stakeholder comments on the current challenges and needed breakthroughs as well as the priorities, solutions, and opportunities that will facilitate long-term sustainable services in food animal veterinary medicine.

Implementation Plans: All input will become a part of the official record and available on the NIFA website, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/ . Stakeholder input received from the two mechanisms is treated equally. The challenges, needed breakthroughs, and priorities identified by this effort will be evaluated in conjunction with input from NIFA staff. This information will be critical for NIFA's evaluation and improvements of existing VMLRP and VSGP operations.

In the Federal Register of August 25, 2023, in FR Doc number 2023-18386, on page 58246, in the first column, correct the DATES caption to read: Applicable August 25, 2023.

On June 23, 2023, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained Commerce's second remand redetermination concerning the LTFV investigation of CORE from Taiwan. Accordingly, Commerce issued a third amended final determination for the LTFV investigation of CORE from Taiwan. 1 In the third amended final Federal Register notice, Commerce inadvertently listed July 3, 2023 as the applicable date of the notice. However, with the issuance of this notice of correction, we confirm that the correct applicable date of the third amended final determination is August 25, 2023 (the initial date of publication of the third amended final determination notice in the Federal Register ).

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and (e) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

In the notice of opportunity to request administrative review for June anniversary orders, Commerce inadvertently listed an incorrect period of review (POR) for this proceeding. 1 Commerce noted this error in its August Initiation Notice in which it initiated the reviews for this proceeding using the correct POR of August 25, 2021, through May 31, 2023. 2 Commerce also noted the error in a subsequent opportunity notice, giving parties a further opportunity to request an administrative review using the correct POR. 3 Commerce received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on raw honey from Vietnam pursuant to both the June Opportunity Notice and the August Opportunity Notice.

Commerce received numerous review requests pursuant to the June Opportunity Notice. 4 Commerce received one review request pursuant to the August Opportunity Notice for Spring Honeybee Co., Ltd. Further, we note that while a review request was submitted for Thai Hoa Mat Bees Rasing Co., Ltd. pursuant to the June Opportunity Notice, Commerce did not initiate a review for this company in its August Initiation Notice. 5 Commerce is hereby initiating an administrative review for both Spring Honeybee Co., Ltd. and Thai Hoa Mat Bees Rasing Co., Ltd. See “Initiation of Review” section below.

All deadlines referenced in the August Initiation Notice apply to those companies upon which Commerce initiated a review in the August Initiation Notice ( e.g., Notice of No Sales, Particular Market Situation, Separate Rates, Duty Absorption Reviews). Commerce intends to conduct respondent selection based on the publication date of this notice. Additionally, the preliminary and final results deadlines remain aligned with the initiation of this proceeding made pursuant to the August Initiation Notice   6 regardless of whether a review was requested pursuant to the June Opportunity Notice or the August Opportunity Notice.

In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for the administrative review initiated pursuant to requests made for the order identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of this initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted within seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments within five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( e.g., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this AD proceeding ( e.g., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review, or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection.

Parties are requested to: (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (Q&V) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

The following applies to Spring Honeybee Co., Ltd. and Thai Hoa Mat Bees Raising Co., Ltd., the companies for which we are now initiating a review:

With respect to antidumping administrative reviews, if a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the POR, it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . All submissions must be filed electronically at https://access.trade.gov, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. 7 Such submissions are subject to verification, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act. Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on Commerce's service list.

On September 11, 2023, the Department published an NIA for new awards for FY 2024 for the Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences, Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice, and Statistical and Research Methodology in Education Grant Programs, ALNs 84.305B, 84.305D, and 84.305N. (88 FR 62352). We are correcting the contact information for the 84.305N competition.

Corrections:

In FR Doc. No. 2023-19497, appearing on pages 62352-62356 of the Federal Register of September 11, 2023, we make the following corrections:

On page 62356, in the fifth column of the table, in the row labeled “Digital Learning Platform Network Research Teams”, we remove “ Erin.Higgens@ed.gov ” and, in its place, add “ Erin.Higgins@ed.gov ”.

Also on page 62356, in the fifth column of the table, in the row labeled “Career and Technical Education Network Research Teams”, we remove “(202) 321-1299” and, in its place, add “(202) 987-0835”.

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 #3.

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: 860,132.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 470,250.

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 initial request for clearance of NAEP 2024 received OMB approval in April 2023 (OMB #1850-0928 v.28). Amendment #1 to the NAEP 2024 clearance package received OMB approval in June 2023 (OMB #1850-0928 v.29), and Amendment #2 was approved in August 2023. Between Amendment #2 and Amendment #3, NCES made the decision to no longer use school staff to proctor accommodation sessions as previously included in early versions of Amendment #2. These changes are reflected in Amendment #3, and the communication materials, burden hours, and costs to the Federal Government to remove these activities as a result. The increased cost to the Federal Government is due to the need to hire additional Field Staff to conduct these separate sessions, resulting in an additional $3,700,000. This revision provides minor updates Part A to detail the removal of the staff proctored accommodation sessions in the burden table and addition of teacher and school questionnaires for the Field Trial to the burden table, updates to communication materials placeholders in Part B as well as adding a reference to Best Practices materials (Section B.3), updated and added final communication materials to Appendix D, new Assessment Management System (AMS) screenshots in Appendix I, and minor update to two items in Appendix J1 removing subitem text, and revised eNAEP and NAEPq login screenshots and paper booklet covers in J1, J2, J3, and J-S.

On September 9, 2022, NFE Altamira filed an application (Application)  1 with DOE's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) under section 3 of the NGA. 2 In the Application, NFE Altamira stated that it was submitting the Application in connection with the development of a floating liquefaction and export terminal project proposed by its affiliate, Mexico FLNG S. de R.L. de C.V. 3 This proposed facility, known as New Fortress Energy's Altamira FLNG Project (Project), 4 would be located off the coast of Altamira, Tamaulipas, Mexico, in the Gulf of Mexico. 5

NFE Altamira requests long-term, multi-contract authorization to export U.S.-sourced natural gas to Mexico, and after liquefaction in Mexico, to other countries as described below, in a combined total volume equivalent to 158 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas (0.43 Bcf per day (Bcf/d)). 6 NFE Altamira seeks to export this volume of natural gas for the following purposes:

(i) To use approximately 13 Bcf/yr (0.03 Bcf/d) in Mexico as “fuel in the liquefaction process and [ ] process gas loss during the pretreatment process;”  7 and

(ii) To use approximately 145 Bcf/yr of natural gas (0.40 Bcf/d) of natural gas in the proposed Project, where the U.S.-sourced natural gas would be liquefied, then re-exported  8 as liquefied natural gas (LNG) by vessel to:

(a) Any country with which the United States has entered into a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas (FTA countries), under NGA section 3(c);  9 and

(b) Any other country with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries), under NGA section 3(a). 10

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, and to comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-12, Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information, January 3, 2017, this notice will incorporate two new routine uses that permit FERC to disclose information as necessary in response to an actual or suspected breach that pertains to a breach of its own records or to assist another agency in its efforts to respond to a breach that was previously published separately at 87 FR 35543 and added 11 routine uses that are consistent with OPM guidance. The following sections have been updated: dates; addresses; for further contact information; system name and number; system location; system manager; authority for maintenance of the system; purpose; categories of individuals covered by the system; categories of records in the system; routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purpose of such; policies and practices for storage of records; policies and practices for retrieval of records; policies and practices for retention and disposal of records; administrative, technical, and physical safeguards; record access procedures; contesting record procedures; notification procedures; and history.

Menopause is often a time of tremendous transition and change for women. The effects of menopause on the PK and PD of drugs are largely unknown. Sex hormone changes during menopause may affect the metabolic pathways of drugs by affecting drug metabolizing enzymes. Hormone changes may also affect other pathways that play an important role for drug disposition and excretion. In addition, many women experience weight gain at menopause. Together, these changes associated with menopausal transition have the potential to affect the PK of medications used for indications not related to menopause. Furthermore, physiologic changes in menopause may result in altered sensitivity to drug response independent of changes in PK. This public workshop will provide insight into identifying the research and data gaps regarding the potential impact of menopause on PK/PD, highlighting areas with the greatest need for further research and exploration.

This public workshop will include presentations and session discussions by experts in the fields of clinical pharmacology, obstetrics and gynecology, endocrinology, and clinical care. Each session will include a Q&A session to respond to questions from attendees.

Registration: To register for the public workshop, please visit the following website: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/public-meetings-workshops-and-webinars/menopause-potential-impact-clinical-pharmacology-and-opportunities-future-research-10112023. Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, and telephone.

Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lisa Lineberger at OWHmeetings@fda.hhs.gov no later than October 10, 2023.

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

Submission of Petitions: Food Additive, Color Additive (Including Labeling), Submission of Information to a Master File in Support of Petitions; and Electronic Submission Using Form FDA 3503-21 CFR 70.25, 71.1, and 171.1 and 21 CFR parts 172, 173, 179, and 180 OMB Control Number 0910-0016—Extension.

Section 409(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(a)) provides that a food additive shall be deemed to be unsafe, unless: (1) the additive and its use, or intended use, are in conformity with a regulation issued under section 409 that describes the condition(s) under which the additive may be safely used; (2) the additive and its use, or intended use, conform to the terms of an exemption for investigational use; or (3) a food contact notification submitted under section 409(h) is effective. Food Additive Petitions (FAPs) are submitted by individuals or companies to obtain approval of a new food additive or to amend the conditions of use permitted under an existing food additive regulation. Section 171.1 of FDA's regulations (21 CFR 171.1) specifies the information that a petitioner must submit in order to establish that the proposed use of a food additive is safe and to secure the publication of a food additive regulation describing the conditions under which the additive may be safely used. Parts 172, 173, 179, and 180 (21 CFR parts 172, 173, 179, and 180) contain labeling requirements for certain food additives to ensure their safe use.

Section 721(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(a)) provides that a color additive shall be deemed to be unsafe unless the additive and its use are in conformity with a regulation that describes the condition(s) under which the additive may safely be used, or the additive and its use conform to the terms of an exemption for investigational use issued under section 721(f). Color Additive Petitions (CAPs) are submitted by individuals or companies to obtain approval of a new color additive or a change in the conditions of use permitted for a color additive that is already approved. Section 71.1 of the Agency's regulations (21 CFR 71.1) specifies the information that a petitioner must submit to establish the safety of a color additive and to secure the issuance of a regulation permitting its use. FDA's color additive labeling requirements in § 70.25 (21 CFR 70.25) require that color additives that are to be used in food, drugs, cosmetics, or medical devices be labeled with sufficient information to ensure their safe use.

FDA scientific personnel review FAPs to ensure the safety of the intended use of the additive in or on food, or that may be present in food as a result of its use in articles that contact food. Likewise, FDA personnel review CAPs to ensure the safety of the color additive prior to its use in food, drugs, cosmetics, or medical devices.

Respondents may transmit FAP or CAP regulatory submissions in electronic format or paper format to the Office of Food Additive Safety in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) using Form FDA 3503. Form FDA 3503 helps the respondent organize their submission to focus on the information needed for FDA's safety review. Form FDA 3503 can also be used to organize information within a master file submitted in support of petitions according to the items listed on the form. Master files can be used as repositories for information that can be referenced in multiple submissions to the Agency, thus minimizing paperwork burden for food and color additive approvals.

We improved the information collection by using the CFSAN Online Submission Module (COSM). COSM provides a real-time user interface process that assists respondents in preparing and making submissions to CFSAN. COSM is a web-based tool that supports electronic submissions, thereby eliminating the need for printing and mailing of paper submissions. COSM is available 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Further information about COSM, including user instruction, is available on the internet at: https://www.fda.gov/food/registration-food-facilities-and-other-submissions/cfsan-online-submission-module-cosm.

Description of respondents: Respondents are businesses engaged in the manufacture or sale of food, food ingredients, color additives, or substances used in materials that come into contact with food.

In the Federal Register of February 1, 2023 (88 FR 6757), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. Although one comment was received, it was not responsive to the four collection of information topics solicited.

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

We have adjusted our burden estimate, which has resulted in a decrease to the currently approved burden by 1 hour. Our estimate of burden attributable to FAPs or CAPs is based on our experience with the information collection, which has not changed since our last review, and reflects the average number of petitions we have received annually over a period of 10 years. The attendant burden we estimate also reflects an industry average, although burden associated with individual petitions may vary depending on the complexity of the petition, and the amount and type of data needed for scientific analysis.

CAPs are subject to fees. The listing fee for a CAP ranges from $1,600 to $3,000, depending on the intended use of the color additive and the scope of the requested amendment. A complete schedule of fees is set forth in 21 CFR 70.19. An average of one Category A and one Category B CAP is expected per year. The maximum CAP fee for a Category A petition is $2,600, and the maximum CAP fee for a Category B petition is $3,000. Because an average of two CAPs are expected per calendar year, the estimated total annual cost burden to petitioners for this startup cost would be less than or equal to $5,600 ((1 × $2,600) + (1 × $3,000) listing fees). There are no capital costs associated with CAPs.

The labeling requirements for food and color additives were designed to specify the minimum information needed for labeling in order that food and color manufacturers may comply with all applicable provisions of the FD&C Act and other specific labeling Acts administered by FDA. Label information does not require any additional information gathering beyond what is already required to assure conformance with all specifications and limitations in any given food or color additive regulation. Label information does not have any specific recordkeeping requirements unique to preparing the label. Therefore, because labeling requirements under § 70.25 for a particular color additive involve information required as part of the CAP safety review process, the estimate for number of respondents is the same for §§ 70.25 and 71.1, and the burden hours for labeling are included in the estimate for § 71.1. Also, because labeling requirements under parts 172, 173, 179, and 180 for particular food additives involve information required as part of the FAP safety review process under § 171.1, the burden hours for labeling are included in the estimate for § 171.1.

Personalized medicine has often been described as the use of individual characteristics, such as genetic markers or other measurable traits, to guide disease prevention or treatment among existing products (Ref. 1). An improved understanding of the molecular basis of disease along with the availability of sensitive diagnostic tools has led to the increasing opportunity to create individualized products based upon such genetic markers or measurable traits. These individualized therapies can now be developed for a single patient (or a very small number of patients) based on designing or engineering a product that specifically targets the mechanism underlying a patient's (or small number of patients') illness (Ref. 2). The opportunities and challenges associated with individualized therapies span the entire development pathway; from robust and consistent manufacturing with assurance of product quality, to nonclinical models and tools to characterize safety and activity, to the generation, collection, and assessment of clinical evidence from an individual patient (or a very small number of patients) (Refs. 3 and 4). For the purposes of this RFI, these types of products will be referred to as individualized CGTs. Examples of these emerging areas of research include:

• Products designed for the same indication with the same mode of action. For instance, a personalized vaccine for pancreatic cancer that consists of autologous dendritic cells pulsed with patient-specific neoantigen peptides (Ref. 5).

• Products designed for different indications with different modes of action. For instance, two gene therapy vector products for separate rare genetic neurological diseases, where both products utilize the same vector backbone but contain different transgene inserts.

This RFI is specifically seeking input on the scientific challenges and opportunities for individualized CGTs. The outcomes of this RFI are meant to complement other ongoing and planned CBER town halls, workshops, and discussion papers designed to educate and seek feedback on a broad range of considerations for the development of CGTs (Ref. 6). The purpose of this RFI is limited to planning purposes only and should not be construed as a policy, a solicitation for applications, or an obligation on the part of the government to provide support for any ideas identified in response to it.

FDA is requesting information regarding major scientific challenges and opportunities to advance the development of individualized CGTs, with a specific focus on the areas outlined below, including manufacturing ( e.g., product quality), nonclinical development ( e.g., toxicology, proof of concept, biodistribution), clinical development ( e.g., assessing safety and efficacy), and additional questions to consider ( e.g., additional scientific needs, best practices, opportunities for collaborations).

All CGTs, including individualized CGTs, need to be manufactured with sufficient quality, purity, and potency to ensure that each batch of the product has adequate safety and full potential to achieve the intended therapeutic outcome. In the case of CGTs for rare diseases, where a single batch of product may be sufficient to treat a small number of patients diagnosed with the rare disease, it can be challenging to develop a consistent manufacturing process and robust control strategy for future batches of the product for additional patients diagnosed with the same rare disease.

Additionally, the manufacturing of some individualized CGTs may need to be tailored to each patient, leading to high variability among each batch of the individualized product. For example, autologous CAR-T cell products are derived from a patient's own cells, and variability in this starting material leads to variability in the drug product. It can be challenging to understand and control the impact of this variability on the safety and efficacy of the product. As additional examples, a tumor neoantigen vaccine may be based on the genetic sequence of the individual patient's tumor, and some genome editing products may be customized to treat the individual patient's genetic mutation. The tailored manufacturing processes needed for these types of products can be difficult to standardize and can also result in significant variability among batches.

• Given the challenges to develop consistent manufacturing strategies for CGTs designed for a very small number of patients or an individual patient, how can manufacturers leverage their prior experience manufacturing one CGT to support subsequent development and approval of another related, but distinct CGT (potential areas for leveraging may include manufacturing process validation, control strategy, assay validation, and drug product stability studies)?

• When the batch size of a CGT is very small, what are some challenges and solutions regarding the volume of product (or number of vials) needed for batch release testing, stability testing, retention of reserve samples, and comparability studies?

• What are some challenges and solutions for individualized CGTs that need to be tested and released rapidly, either because the product has a very short shelf life or because the patient's clinical status may be rapidly declining and treatment is urgently needed?

• For many individualized CGT products, each batch is tailored to an individual patient ( e.g., autologous CAR-T cells, tumor neoantigen vaccines, certain genome editing products). For such products, what are some challenges and solutions for assuring that each batch has adequate potency to achieve the intended therapeutic effect?

• What are some challenges and solutions for individualized genome editing products that aim to treat monogenic diseases for which the target gene has different mutations in different patients?

There are several challenges in translating nonclinical data to humans for individualized CGTs. Because the final investigational product is unique to an individual or a small number of subjects, it often is not possible to evaluate the final clinical product in nonclinical studies. Additionally, many individualized CGTs target antigens that are human-specific and thus lack relevant animal models to inform safety and activity. An example includes T-Cell receptor-engineered T cells that target a patient-specific neoantigen, or a shared target in the context of an HLA allele specific to a small group of human subjects. There are also opportunities and challenges to utilizing prior knowledge from nonclinical studies of other approved or investigational individualized CGTs that may be leveraged for a related product under development for different populations or indications. An example includes two or more gene therapy vector products for different rare genetic diseases that utilize the same vector backbone while containing different transgene inserts.

With continued scientific advances in the CGT field, it is also important to consider the use of computational approaches to support nonclinical evaluation of individualized CGTs. Computational approaches may present an opportunity to quickly and efficiently screen product safety or activity, but may pose additional challenges in their consistent use and validation.

• What nonclinical studies could be leveraged in support of a related product using similar technologies? What nonclinical studies are important to conduct with each final clinical product?

• What nonclinical development approaches could be considered when there are no relevant animal models or animal models are unable to replicate each individual disease/condition?

• For patient-specific products where evaluating each individual product is infeasible or impractical, what is the role for nonclinical studies conducted with representative product(s)?

• What are the opportunities and challenges with using computational approaches to support nonclinical development?

Assessing efficacy can be a particular challenge in clinical studies of individualized CGTs, particularly for rare diseases with heterogeneous presentations. Randomized controlled designs are desired for interpretability of results, but may be unfeasible or unethical for various reasons in rare disease clinical trials. However, natural history data may be limited and/or lack suitability to support outcome assessments. Additional specific challenges in individuals or small groups include development and interpretation of novel endpoints, limitations in statistical analyses to understand treatment effects, and determining appropriate study design and duration to assess clinically meaningful benefit. An example may be a newly identified specific genetic mutation associated with a unique phenotypic presentation of disease, where only a few individuals with the specific mutation have been identified, and the natural history of disease is poorly understood. Adaptive, Bayesian, and other trial designs may provide different opportunities or challenges, and the approach will likely need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Understanding clinical safety of individualized CGTs may also be difficult and may depend on relevant available data for similar products or other treatments for the disorder or similar disorders.

• What are challenges and strategies/opportunities with interpreting efficacy data from individual patients (including expanded access) and small groups of patients? What opportunities are there in leveraging prior and/or collective experiences?

• What strategies can be utilized to accumulate and interpret safety data in personalized/individualized CGTs?

• For genetic disorders with clear genotype-phenotype associations for disease manifestations or severity, what opportunities are there for tailoring treatments and study design to specific genotypes/phenotypes?

• What additional major scientific challenges to advance the development of individualized CGTs should be considered?

• What existing best practices or scientific approaches should be leveraged to address any of these challenges? Are there specific opportunities for collaborations to advance the development of individualized CGTs?

• Are there specific areas where flexibility in regulatory approaches would improve the feasibility of developing and commercializing individualized CGTs?

The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register , but websites are subject to change over time.

FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry, investigators, and institutional review boards entitled “Considerations for the Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products During Major Disruptions Due to Disasters and Public Health Emergencies.” Disasters and public health emergencies (PHEs) have the potential to cause major disruptions in the conduct of clinical trials for medical products. Such events can include, but are not limited to, weather events, military conflicts, infectious disease outbreaks, and bioterrorist attacks. The purpose of the guidance is to provide general considerations to assist sponsors, investigators, and institutional review boards in assuring the safety of trial participants, maintaining compliance with good clinical practice, and minimizing risks to trial integrity during disasters and PHEs that may lead to major disruption of clinical trial conduct and operations. The appendix to the guidance further explains these general considerations in a question-and-answer format.

FDA recognizes that disasters and PHEs can cause major disruptions to the conduct of clinical trials of medical products. For example, disasters or PHEs can lead to population quarantines, trial site closures, travel limitations, interruptions to the supply chain for the investigational product, or other considerations related to the type of disaster or emergency. These challenges can create difficulties for complying with protocol-specified procedures, including administering or using the investigational product or adhering to protocol-specific visits and laboratory/diagnostic testing. This final guidance provides recommendations on how to manage major disruptions to clinical trials during disasters and PHEs to help ensure the protection of participants and the ability of clinical trials to generate evidence to support regulatory decision-making during these times.

The final guidance provides recommendations for helping to address those challenges, including, among other things, recommendations related to the safety of trial participants, whether to continue or suspend a trial, protocol amendments and deviations, study monitoring, alternative delivery of the investigational product, remote safety and endpoint assessment, informed consent, and reporting of adverse events. Some of the recommendations in this final guidance provide less burdensome approaches that can be utilized, when appropriate, in the conduct of clinical trials during major disruptions due to a disaster or PHE and that are consistent with public health. For example, the guidance provides recommendations regarding a change to virtual, rather than in-person, clinical trial visits when necessary.

In March 2020, FDA first published the guidance for industry entitled “Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency” (COVID-19 Conduct guidance) to support public health efforts following a declaration, under section 319 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of a public health emergency related to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2). The COVID-19 Conduct guidance focused on addressing the COVID-19 PHE.

In the Federal Register of March 13, 2023 (88 FR 15417), FDA listed the COVID-19-related guidance documents that would no longer be effective after the PHE declared under the PHS Act expired on May 11, 2023. The March 13, 2023, notice also listed COVID-19-related guidance documents that FDA was revising to continue in effect for 180 days after the expiration of the PHE declaration to provide a period for stakeholder transition and then would no longer be in effect, and documents that FDA was revising to continue in effect for 180 days after the expiration of the PHE declaration, during which time FDA planned to further revise the guidances with any appropriate changes based on comments received and the Agency's experience with implementation. The COVID-19 Conduct guidance was included in the latter category and was revised to remain in effect for 180 days post-expiration of the PHE declaration. FDA believes that most of the recommendations set forth in the COVID-19 Conduct guidance are applicable outside the context of the COVID-19 PHE to major disruptions to clinical trial conduct in the setting of disasters and PHEs more broadly. Consistent with what we said in the Federal Register of March 13, 2023, FDA is therefore issuing this revised final guidance, which supersedes the COVID-19 Conduct guidance. FDA's revisions include broadening the guidance's scope to apply during disasters and PHEs, removing several outdated questions, clarifying recommendations regarding use of risk-based approaches for monitoring clinical investigations, clarifying recommendations concerning charging for investigational products, and making other editorial changes to improve clarity and consistency.

FDA is issuing this guidance for immediate implementation in accordance with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(g)(3)) without initially seeking prior comment because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(2) and section 701(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(h)(1)(C)(i))). Specifically, we are not seeking prior comment because disasters and PHEs may occur without notice and, as we have learned from experience during the COVID-19 PHE, may rapidly cause major disruptions to clinical trial conduct. It is thus important to public health to provide guidance on approaches to assure the safety of trial participants and minimize risks to trial integrity during such major disruptions. Moreover, portions of the guidance reflect a less burdensome approach that is consistent with public health and that can be used during a disaster or PHE when appropriate. Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the recommendations in the COVID-19 Conduct guidance, and FDA considered those comments when revising the guidance to apply those recommendations to disasters and public health emergencies more broadly. Although this guidance document is being implemented immediately, it remains subject to comment in accordance with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (§ 10.115(g)(3)(D)).

The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Considerations for the Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products During Major Disruptions Due to Disasters and Public Health Emergencies.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 11 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0303; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 320 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0630; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.

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

1. United States Provisional Patent Application No. 62/004,335 filed May 29, 2014, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-US-01];

2. PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2015/033129 filed May 29, 2015, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-PCT-02];

3. Australian Patent No. 2015266818 issued January 16, 2020, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-AU-03];

4. Brazilian Patent Application No. BR112016027805-4 effective filing date of May 29, 2015, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-BR-04];

5. Canadian Patent Application No. 2,950,192 effective filing date of May 29, 2015, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-CA-05];

6. Chinese Patent No. ZL201580031789.X issued May 4, 2021, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-CN-06];

7. European Patent No. 3149031 issued December 18, 2019, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-EP-07];

a. Validated in: AL, AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, LV, MK, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, SM and TR.

8. Israeli Patent No. 248797 issued September 1, 2021, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-IL-08];

9. Japanese Patent No. 6742991 issued August 19, 2020, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-JP-09];

10. Korean Patent No. 10-2445667 issued September 16, 2022, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-KR-10];

11. Mexican Patent No. 375379 issued September 25, 2020, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-MX-11];

12. Saudi Arabian Patent No. 7456 issued January 5, 2021, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-SA-12];

13. United States Patent No. 10,174,098 issued January 8, 2019, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-US-13];

14. Hong Kong Patent No. HK1236203 issued January 8, 2021, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-HK-14];

15. United States Patent No. 10,870,687 issued December 22, 2020, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-US-15];

16. European Patent Application No. 19217074.4 filed December 17, 2019, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-EP-16];

17. Australian Patent No. 2019283892 issued May 13, 2021, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-AU-17];

18. Japanese Patent No. 6997267 issued December 20, 2021, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-JP-53];

19. Saudi Arabian Patent Application No. 520412601 filed August 10, 2020, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-SA-54];

20. Hong Kong Patent Application No. 42020020661.3 filed November 24, 2020, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-HK-55];

21. Mexican Patent Application No. MX/a/2020/010035 filed September 24, 2020, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-MX-56];

22. United States Patent No. 11,434,272 issued September 6, 2020, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-US-57];

23. Australian Patent No. 2021202227 issued February 23, 2023, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-AU-58];

24. Chinese Patent Application No. 20210399056.9 filed April 14, 2021, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-CN-59];

25. Israeli Patent No. 282518 issued July 2, 2022, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-IL-60];

26. Hong Kong Patent Application No. 42022046605.6 filed January 19, 2022, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-HK-62];

27. Japanese Patent No. 7291196 issued June 6, 2023, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-JP-63];

28. Israeli Patent Application No. 290655 filed February 16, 2022, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-IL-64];

29. United States Patent Application No. 17/816,496 filed August 1, 2022, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-US-65];

30. Korean Patent Application No. 2022-7032043 filed September 15, 2022, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-KR-66];

31. Australian Patent Application No. 2023200608 filed February 6, 2023, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-AU-01]; and

32. Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-091878 filed June 2, 2023, entitled “Anti-Human Papillomavirus 16 E7 T Cell Receptors” [HHS Reference No. E-176-2014-0-JP-01].

The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned and/or exclusively licensed to the government of the United States of America.

The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to the following:

“Development, manufacture and commercialization of autologous T cell therapy products that are genetically engineered to have stable expression of a T cell receptor (TCR) targeting human papillomavirus (“HPV”)-16 E7, as claimed in the Licensed Patent Rights, for the treatment of HPV-associated cancers and premalignant conditions in humans.”

The E-176-2014 patent family is primarily directed to an isolated TCR reactive to HPV 16 E7 antigen in the context of HLA-A*02. HPV describes a group of human viruses known to cause malignancy. Of the group, HPV-16 is the most prevalent strain. Approximately 90% of adults are estimated to have been exposed at some point in their lifetime. HPV drives transformation of infected cells through the expression of certain oncoproteins, chiefly E5, E6 and E7. The latter two are constitutively expressed in malignant cells and are necessary to maintain a transformed state, rendering them useful therapeutic targets.

This Notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published Notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially and may be made publicly available.

License applications submitted in response to this Notice will be presumed to contain business confidential information and any release of information from these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

The following and all continuing U.S. and foreign patents/patent applications thereof are available for licensing: PCT Application No. PCT/US22/018639, filed March 3, 2022, and entitled “La protein as a novel regulator of osteoclastogenesis.” The Lupus autoantigen (La) protein is a master regulator of osteoclasts. The technology involves a novel mechanism for precise regulation of osteoclastogenesis through the manipulation of surface La protein. The ability of osteoclasts to remodel bone can be modulated by: (1) administering an effective amount of La protein or (2) administering an agent that modulates La protein expression or activity. Current solutions for bone diseases are usually broad-spectrum treatments that either coat the skeletal system or inhibit osteoclast development and these approaches can result in off-target side effects. This technology's approach to regulating osteoclast fusion and osteoclastogenesis by targeting the La protein should bypass many side effects. The technology has been supported by conceptual in-vitro data and lead optimization is ongoing; further research and development are required to advance it towards disease-specific preclinical and clinical stages.

Potential Commercial Application: Treatment of common and rare bone diseases, including osteoporosis, Paget's disease of bone, fibrous dysplasia, rheumatoid arthritis, osteopetrosis, osteomyelitis, or metastatic bone disease.

Development Stage: In-vitro study completed and lead optimization ongoing.

In accordance with 42 U.S. Code 285c-3, the DMICC, chaired by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) comprising members of the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that support diabetes-related activities, facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on diabetes among government entities. DMICC meetings, held several times a year, provide an opportunity for Committee members to learn about and discuss current and future diabetes programs in DMICC member organizations and to identify opportunities for collaboration. The November 16, 2023 DMICC meeting will focus on “The Application of Digital Health Technology to Type 2 Diabetes Management: Current Status, Research Gaps, and Opportunities.”

Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the contact person listed on this notice at least 5 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives or organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present; oral comments and presentations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Because of time constraints for the meeting, oral comments will be allowed on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Members of the public who would like to receive email notification about future DMICC meetings should register for the listserv available on the DMICC website, www.diabetescommittee.gov.

Funding Opportunity Title: FY 2022 Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics Planning, Development, and Implementation Grants (CCBHC-PDI), SM-22-022; FY 2023 Community Mental Health Services Block Grant (MHBG); FY 2020 Grants for Expansion and Sustainability of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbances (CMHI).

Assistance Listing Number: 93.696—CCBHC-PDI; 93.104—CMHI; 93.958—MHBG.

Authority: CCBHC-PDI grants are authorized under Section 520A of the Public Health Services Act, as amended. CMHI grants are authorized under Sections 516-565 of the Public Health Services Act, as amended. MHBG grants are authorized under Section 1920 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended.

Justification: Eligibility for this supplemental funding is limited to the Hawaii State Department of Health as the grant recipient for the CCBHC-PDI, CMHI and MHBG programs. They are the only Hawaii funded recipient within these programs and are providing or able to provide services to Maui residents. This supplemental funding will be used to address the behavioral health needs of Maui residents in the aftermath of the Maui wildfires. This is not a formal request for application. Assistance will only be provided to the Hawaii State Department of Health based on the receipt of a satisfactory application and associated budget.

Notice of this meeting is given pursuant the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 117-286, 5 U.S.C., ch. 10). The Committee was established on December 4, 2018, by section 601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018, (Pub. L. 115-282, 132 Stat. 4192), and is codified in 46 U.S.C. 15105. The Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 46 U.S.C. 15109. The National Boating Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security via the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard on matters relating to national boating safety. This notice is issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 15109(a).

The agenda for the National Boating Safety Advisory Committee meeting is as follows:

(1) Call to Order.

(2) Roll call of Committee members and determination of quorum.

(3) Opening Remarks.

(4) Conflict of Interest Statement.

(5) Receipt and discussion of the following reports from the Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety:

a. National Recreational Boating Safety Survey

b. USCG Publication for Boaters

c. Grant Program Administration

d. Uniform Certificate of Titling Act for Vessels

e. Mechanically Propelled Personal Hydrofoils (EFOILS)

f. Hull Identification Numbers

g. Task Statements and Strategic Plan

(6) National Water Safety Action Plan.

(7) Whale Protection Rules.

(8) Life Jacket Harmonization.

(8) Decarbonization/Electrification.

(9) Human Factors Task Statement.

(10) Public Comment.

(11) Next meeting planning.

(12) Vote on Chair and Vice Chair.

(13) Adjournment of meeting.

A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=75937&Source=/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=75937, no later than October 16, 2023. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Jeff Decker as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section above.

There will be a public comment period from approximately 3:00 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. (EST). Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments. Please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above to register as a speaker.

This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2023-0587], and must be received by November 20, 2023.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Title: Official Logbook.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0018.

Summary: The Official Logbook contains information about the voyage, the vessel's crew, drills, watches, and operations conducted during the voyage. Official Logbook entries identify particulars of the voyage, including the name of the ship, official number, port of registry, tonnage, names and merchant mariner credential numbers of the master and crew, the nature of the voyage, and class of ship. In addition, it also contains entries for the vessel's drafts, maintenance of watertight integrity of the ship, drills and inspections, crew list and report of character, a summary of laws applicable to Official Logbooks, and miscellaneous entries.

Need: 46 U.S.C. 11301, 11302, 11303, and 11304 require applicable merchant vessels to maintain an Official Logbook. The Official Logbook contains information about the vessel, voyage, crew, and watch. Lack of these particulars would make it difficult for a seaman to verify vessel employment and wages, and for the Coast Guard to verify compliance with laws and regulations concerning vessel operations and safety procedures. The Official Logbook serves as an official record of recordable events transpiring at sea such as births, deaths, marriages, disciplinary actions, etc. Absent the Official Logbook, there would be no official civil record of these events. The courts accept log entries as proof that the logged event occurred. If this information was not collected, the Coast Guard's commercial vessel safety program would be negatively impacted, as there would be no official record of U.S. merchant vessel voyages. Similarly, those seeking to prove that an event required to be logged occurred would not have an official record available.

Forms: CG-706B Official Logbook.

Respondents: Shipping companies.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains at 1,750 hours a year.

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.

We encourage you to submit comments on your data needs to participate more effectively in Coast Guard rulemakings. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our public facing resources to improve public participation in the rulemaking process based on your comments.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0589 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

The Coast Guard Office of Standards Evaluation and Development (CG-REG) is endeavoring to provide to the public as much U.S. Coast Guard data as possible and practicable—resource permitting—in implementation of Title II within the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, named the Open Government Data Act. The Open Government Data Act guides federal agencies to make data open by default, subject to certain provisions such as (i) risks and restrictions related to the disclosure of personally identifiable information and (ii) security considerations. This notice shares several U.S. Coast Guard websites where our data resources are available to the public.

The “Annual Vessel Statistics” page provides the public with access to the universe of commercial vessels the U.S. Coast Guard regulates. The statistics available at the time of this notice are for 2021 and 2022; future year statistics will be provided as available. This page also allows you to download a list of publicly available information of these vessels by the vessel's commercial service. On this page, we present the aggregated information. We have also analyzed this information and created a dashboard which help any user quickly understand the scale and change in vessel populations by routes, responsible districts, and classification. The web address for the “Annual Vessel Statistics” page is https://dco.uscg.afpims.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Commercial-Regulations-Standards-CG-5PS/Office-of-Standards-Evaluation-and-Development-CG-REG/Annual-Vessel-Statistics/2022-Annual-Vessel-Statistics/.

In addition, we have created an interactive geospatial dashboard on ArcGIS Pro that displays significant maritime incidents that involved the U.S. Coast Guard from 2012 to 2022. This dashboard defines a significant maritime incident as an incident that resulted in at least $100,000 of property damage or an incident that resulted in three or more injuries or one fatality. This data comes from the Coast Guard's Marine Investigation Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database. This information is displaying publicly available information from the Coast Guard's Port State Information eXchange system: https://cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/Default.aspx. The web address for the Significant Maritime Incident GIS Dashboard is https://dco.uscg.afpims.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Commercial-Regulations-Standards-CG-5PS/Office-of-Standards-Evaluation-and-Development-CG-REG/Annual-Vessel-Statistics/GIS/.

This Significant Maritime Incident Dashboard is a visual aid which can help end users better understand specific aspects of the affected populations for the ongoing Coast Guard rulemakings that are on the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions ( https://www.reginfo.gov ). The data may be useful for public participation in our current Unified Agenda regulatory actions, such as Claims Procedures Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Regulatory Identification Number: 1625-AA03), Marine Casualty Reporting on the Outer Continental Shelf (1625-AB99), Shipping Safety Fairways Along the Atlantic Coast (1625-AC57), Safety Management Systems for Domestic Passenger Vessels (1625-AC65), and Towing Vessel Firefighting Training (1625-AC64).

We encourage you to submit comments describing your data needs to participate more effectively in Coast Guard rulemaking. In particular, the U.S. Coast Guard requests responses to the following questions:

1. What data could the U.S. Coast Guard provide that would encourage your participation in rulemakings?

2. What data could the U.S. Coast Guard provide that would help your academic research to inform future rulemakings?

3. In addition to the Unified Agenda, how do you recommend the U.S. Coast Guard publicize information about rulemaking activities?

Based on public comment, other factors, and available USCG resources, we may continue to expand the availability of U.S. Coast Guard data resources that may be useful for participating in the rulemaking process.

This notice is issued under authority of 44 U.S. Code 3506(b)(6).

Under IRC section 42(d)(5)(B)(iii)(I), for purposes of the LIHTC, the Secretary of HUD must designate DDAs, which are areas with high construction, land, and utility costs relative to area median gross income (AMGI). This notice designates DDAs for each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. HUD makes the designations of DDAs in this notice based on modified Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Small Area Fair Market Rents (Small Area FMRs, SAFMRs), FY 2023 nonmetropolitan county FMRs, FY 2023 income limits, and 2020 Census population counts, as explained below.

Similarly, under IRC section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii)(I), the Secretary of HUD must designate QCTs, which are areas where either 50 percent or more of the households have an income less than 60 percent of the AMGI or have a poverty rate of at least 25 percent. This notice designates QCTs based on new income and poverty data released in the American Community Survey (ACS). Specifically, HUD relies on the most recent three sets of ACS data to ensure that anomalous estimates, due to sampling, do not affect the QCT status of tracts.

HUD uses data from the 2020 Census on total population of metropolitan areas, metropolitan ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs), 1 and nonmetropolitan areas in the designation of DDAs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published updated metropolitan areas in OMB Bulletin No. 18-04 on September 14, 2018. 2 3 FY 2023 FMRs and FY 2023 income limits HUD uses to designate DDAs are based on these metropolitan statistical area (MSA) definitions, with modifications to account for substantial differences in rental housing markets (and, in some cases, median family income levels) within MSAs. HUD calculates Small Area FMRs for the ZCTAs, or portions of ZCTAs within the metropolitan areas defined by OMB Bulletin No. 18-04.

HUD uses data from the 2020 Census on total population of census tracts, metropolitan areas, and the nonmetropolitan parts of States in the designation of QCTs. The FY 2023 income limits HUD uses to designate QCTs are based on these MSA definitions with modifications to account for substantial differences in rental housing markets (and in some cases median family income levels) within MSAs. In this QCT designation, HUD uses the OMB metropolitan area definitions published in OMB Bulletin No. 18-04, without modification for purposes of evaluating how many census tracts can be designated under the population cap but uses the HUD-modified definitions and their associated area median family incomes for determining QCT eligibility.

Because the 2020 Decennial Census did not include questions on respondent household income, HUD uses ACS data to designate QCTs. The ACS tabulates data collected over 5 years to provide estimates of socioeconomic variables for small areas containing fewer than 65,000 persons, such as census tracts. Due to sample-related anomalies in estimates from year to year, HUD utilizes three sets of ACS tabulations to ensure that anomalous estimates do not affect QCT status.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are authorized to interpret and enforce the provisions of IRC section 42. In order to assist in understanding HUD's mandated designation of DDAs and QCTs for use in administering IRC section 42, a summary of the section is provided below. The following summary does not purport to bind Treasury or the IRS in any way, nor does it purport to bind HUD, since HUD has authority to interpret or administer the IRC only in instances where it receives explicit statutory delegation.

The LIHTC is a tax incentive intended to increase the availability of low-income rental housing. IRC section 42 provides an income tax credit to certain owners of newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated low-income rental housing projects. The dollar amount of the LIHTC available for allocation by each State (credit ceiling) is limited by population. Section 42 allows each State a credit ceiling based on a statutory formula indicated at IRC section 42(h)(3). States may carry forward unallocated credits derived from the credit ceiling for one year; however, to the extent such unallocated credits are not used by then, the credits go into a national pool to be allocated to qualified States as additional credit. State and local housing agencies allocate the State's credit ceiling among low-income housing buildings whose owners have applied for the credit. Besides IRC section 42 credits derived from the credit ceiling, States may also provide IRC section 42 credits to owners of buildings based on the percentage of certain building costs financed by tax-exempt bond proceeds. Credits provided based on the use of tax-exempt bond proceeds do not reduce the credits available from the credit ceiling. See IRC section 42(h)(4).

The credits allocated to a building are based on the cost of units placed in service as low-income units under particular minimum occupancy and maximum rent criteria. Prior to the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (the 2018 Act), under IRC section 42(g), a building was required to meet one of two tests to be eligible for the LIHTC; either: (1) 20 percent of the units must be rent-restricted and occupied by tenants with incomes no higher than 50 percent of AMGI, or (2) 40 percent of the units must be rent-restricted and occupied by tenants with incomes no higher than 60 percent of AMGI. A unit is “rent-restricted” if the gross rent, including an allowance for tenant-paid utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the imputed income limitation ( i.e., 50 percent or 60 percent of AMGI) applicable to that unit. The rent and occupancy thresholds remain in effect for at least 15 years, and building owners are required to enter into agreements to maintain the low-income character of the building for at least an additional 15 years.

The 2018 Act added a third test, the average income test. See IRC section 42(g)(1), as amended by Public Law 115-141, Division T, section 103(a)(1) (March 23, 2018). A building meets the minimum requirements of the average income test if 40 percent or more (25 percent or more in the case of a project located in a high-cost housing area as described in IRC section 142(d)(6)) of the residential units in such project are both rent-restricted and occupied by individuals whose income does not exceed the imputed income limitation designated by the taxpayer with respect to the respective unit. The taxpayer designates the imputed income limitation for each unit. The designated imputed income limitation of any unit is determined in 10-percentage-point increments, and may be designated as 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80 percent of AMGI. The average of the imputed income limitations designated must not exceed 60 percent of AMGI. See IRC section 42(g)(1)(C).

The LIHTC reduces income tax liability dollar-for-dollar. It is taken annually for a term of 10 years and is intended to yield a present value of either: (1) 70 percent of the “qualified basis” for new construction or substantial rehabilitation expenditures that are not federally subsidized (as defined in IRC section 42(i)(2)), or (2) 30 percent of the qualified basis for the cost of acquiring certain existing buildings or projects that are federally subsidized. The tax credit rates are determined monthly under procedures specified in IRC section 42 and cannot be less than 9 percent for new buildings that are not federally subsidized, and cannot be less than 4 percent for buildings that are federally subsidized. Individuals can use the credits up to a deduction equivalent of $25,000 (the actual maximum amount of credit that an individual can claim depends on the individual's marginal tax rate). For buildings placed in service after December 31, 2007, individuals can use the credits against the alternative minimum tax. Corporations, other than S or personal service corporations, can use the credits against ordinary income tax, and, for buildings placed in service after December 31, 2007, against the alternative minimum tax. These corporations also can deduct losses from the project.

The qualified basis represents the product of the building's “applicable fraction” and its “eligible basis.” The applicable fraction is based on the number of low-income units in the building as a percentage of the total number of units, or based on the floor space of low-income units as a percentage of the total floor space of residential units in the building. The eligible basis is the adjusted basis attributable to acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction costs (depending on the type of LIHTC involved). These costs include amounts chargeable to a capital account that are incurred prior to the end of the first taxable year in which the qualified low-income building is placed in service or, at the election of the taxpayer, the end of the succeeding taxable year. In the case of buildings located in designated DDAs or designated QCTs, or for credits awarded from the State's per capita allocation, to buildings designated by the State agency, eligible basis may be increased up to 130 percent from what it would otherwise be. This means that the available credits also may be increased by up to 30 percent. For example, if a 70 percent credit is available, it effectively could be increased to as much as 91 percent (70 percent × 130 percent).

As stated above, IRC section 42 defines a DDA as an area designated by the Secretary of HUD that has high construction, land, and utility costs relative to the AMGI. All designated DDAs in metropolitan areas (taken together) may not contain more than 20 percent of the aggregate population of all metropolitan areas, and all designated areas not in metropolitan areas may not contain more than 20 percent of the aggregate population of all nonmetropolitan areas. See IRC section 42(d)(5)(B)(iii).

Similarly, IRC section 42 defines a QCT as an area designated by the Secretary of HUD where, for the most recent year for which census data are available on household income in such tract, either 50 percent or more of the households in the tract have an income which is less than 60 percent of the AMGI or the tract's poverty rate is at least 25 percent. All designated QCTs in a single metropolitan area or nonmetropolitan area (taken together) may not contain more than 20 percent of the population of that metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area. Thus, unlike the restriction on DDA designations, QCTs are restricted by the total population of each individual area as opposed to the aggregate population across all metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan areas. See IRC section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii).

IRC section 42(d)(5)(B)(v) allows States to award an increase in basis up to 30 percent to buildings located outside of federally designated DDAs and QCTs if the increase is necessary to make the building financially feasible. This State discretion applies only to buildings allocated credits under the State housing credit ceiling and is not permitted for buildings receiving credits in connection with tax-exempt bonds. Rules for such designations shall be set forth in the LIHTC-allocating agencies' qualified allocation plans (QAPs). See IRC section 42(m).

In developing the 2024 list of DDAs, as required by IRC section 42(d)(5)(B)(iii), HUD compared housing costs with incomes. HUD used 2020 Census population for ZCTAs, and nonmetropolitan areas, and the MSA definitions, as published in OMB Bulletin 18-04 on September 14, 2018, with modifications, as described below. In keeping with past practice of basing the coming year's DDA designations on data from the preceding year, the basis for these comparisons is the FY 2023 HUD income limits for very low-income households (very low-income limits, or VLILs), which are based on 50 percent of AMGI, and modified FMRs based on the FY 2023 FMRs used for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. For metropolitan DDAs, HUD used Small Area FMRs based on three annual releases of ACS data, to compensate for statistical anomalies which affect estimates for some ZCTAs. For non-metropolitan DDAs, HUD used the FY 2023 FMRs published on September 1, 2022 and effective on October 1, 2022 (87 FR 53761), as updated by the March 20, 2023 publication effective April 19, 2023 (88 FR 16647).

In formulating the FY 2023 FMRs and VLILs, HUD modified the current OMB definitions of MSAs to account for differences in rents among areas within each current MSA that were in different FMR areas under definitions used in prior years. HUD formed these “HUD Metro FMR Areas” (HMFAs) in cases where one or more of the parts of newly defined MSAs were previously in separate FMR areas. All counties added to metropolitan areas are treated as HMFAs with rents and incomes based on their own county data, where available. HUD no longer requires recent-mover rents to differ by five percent or more in order to form a new HMFA. All HMFAs are contained entirely within MSAs. All nonmetropolitan counties are outside of MSAs and are not broken up by HUD for purposes of setting FMRs and VLILs. (Complete details on HUD's process for determining FY 2023 FMR areas and FMRs are available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html#2023. Complete details on HUD's process for determining FY 2023 income limits are available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#2023 ). HUD's FY 2023 FMRs and VLILs do not account for the change in Census county-equivalent areas in Connecticut from the eight historical counties to the States's nine planning regions.

HUD's unit of analysis for designating metropolitan DDAs consists of ZCTAs, whose Small Area FMRs are compared to metropolitan VLILs. For purposes of computing VLILs in metropolitan areas, HUD considers entire MSAs in cases where these were not broken up into HMFAs; and HMFAs within the MSAs that were broken up for such purposes. HUD used the 2010 ZCTA boundaries to designate the 2024 SDDAs in order to remain consistent with the FY 2023 Small Area FMRs. To allocate 2020 Census population to the 2010 ZCTA boundaries, HUD first translated the 2020 decennial Census population into 2010 census tract boundaries using the Census Bureau's 2010 to 2020 block relationship file and aggregating to 2010 census tracts. The tract populations were then allocated to ZCTAs using the proportion of each tract's 2010 population within each ZCTA, using the Census Bureau's 2010 ZCTA to 2010 Census Tract Relationship File.

Hereafter in this notice, the unit of analysis for designating metropolitan DDAs will be called the ZCTA, and the unit of analysis for nonmetropolitan DDAs will be the nonmetropolitan county or county equivalent area. The procedure used in making the DDA designations follows:

1. Calculate FMR-to-Income Ratios. For each metropolitan ZCTA and each nonmetropolitan county, HUD calculated a ratio of housing costs to income. HUD used a modified FY 2023 two-bedroom Small Area FMR for ZCTAs, a modified FY 2023 two-bedroom FMR for non-metropolitan counties, and the FY 2023 four-person VLIL for this calculation.

The modified FY 2023 two-bedroom Small Area FMRs for ZCTAs differ from the FY 2023 Small Area FMRs in four ways. First, HUD did not limit the Small Area FMR to 150 percent of its metropolitan area FMR. Second, HUD did not limit annual decreases in Small Area FMRs to ten percent, which was first applied in the FY 2018 FMR calculations. Third, HUD adjusted the Small Area FMRs in New York City using the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey, which is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, to adjust for the effect of local rent control and stabilization regulations. No other jurisdictions have provided HUD with data that could be used to adjust Small Area FMRs for rent control or stabilization regulations. 4 Finally, the Small Area FMRs are not limited to the State non-metropolitan minimum FMR.

The FY 2023 two-bedroom FMR for non-metropolitan counties was modified only by removing the State non-metropolitan minimum FMR.

The numerator of the ratio, representing the development cost of housing, was the area's FY 2023 FMR, or Small Area FMR in metropolitan areas. In general, the FMR is based on the 40th-percentile gross rent paid by recent movers to live in a two-bedroom rental unit.

The denominator of the ratio, representing the maximum income of eligible tenants, was the monthly LIHTC income-based rent limit, which was calculated as 1/12 of 30 percent of 120 percent of the area's 4-person VLIL (where the VLIL was rounded to the nearest $50).

2. Sort Areas by Ratio and Exclude Unsuitable Areas. The ratios of the FMR, or Small Area FMR, to the LIHTC income-based rent limit were arrayed in descending order, separately, for ZCTAs and for nonmetropolitan counties. ZCTAs with populations less than 100 were excluded in order to avoid designating areas unsuitable for residential development, such as ZCTAs containing airports.

3. Select Areas with Highest Ratios and Exclude QCTs. The DDAs are those areas with the highest ratios that cumulatively comprise 20 percent of the 2020 population of all metropolitan areas and all nonmetropolitan areas. For purposes of applying this population cap, HUD excluded the population in areas designated as 2024 QCTs. Thus, an area can be designated as a QCT or DDA, but not both.

In identifying DDAs, HUD applied caps, or limitations, as noted above. The cumulative population of metropolitan DDAs cannot exceed 20 percent of the cumulative population of all metropolitan areas, and the cumulative population of nonmetropolitan DDAs cannot exceed 20 percent of the cumulative population of all nonmetropolitan areas.

In applying these caps, HUD established procedures to deal with how to treat small overruns of the caps. The remainder of this section explains those procedures. In general, HUD stops selecting areas when it is impossible to choose another area without exceeding the applicable cap. The only exceptions to this policy are when the next eligible excluded area contains either a large absolute population or a large percentage of the total population, or the next excluded area's ranking ratio, as described above, was identical (to four decimal places) to the last area selected, and its inclusion resulted in only a minor overrun of the cap. Thus, for both the designated metropolitan and nonmetropolitan DDAs, there may be minimal overruns of the cap. HUD believes the designation of additional areas in the above examples of minimal overruns is consistent with the intent of the IRC. As long as the apparent excess is small due to measurement errors, some latitude is justifiable, because it is impossible to determine whether the 20 percent cap has been exceeded. Despite the care and effort involved in a Decennial Census, the Census Bureau and all users of the data recognize that the population counts for a given area and for the entire country are not precise. Therefore, the extent of the measurement error is unknown. There can be errors in both the numerator and denominator of the ratio of populations used in applying a 20 percent cap. In circumstances where a strict application of a 20 percent cap results in an anomalous situation, recognition of the unavoidable imprecision in the census data justifies accepting small variances above the 20 percent limit.

In developing the list of QCTs, HUD used 2020 Census 100-percent count data on total population, total households, and population in households; the median household income and poverty rate as estimated in the 2015-2019, 2016-2020 and 2017-2021 ACS tabulations;  5 the FY 2023 Very Low-Income Limits (VLILs) computed at the HMFA level to determine tract eligibility; and the MSA definitions published in OMB Bulletin No. 18-04 on September 14, 2018, for determining how many eligible tracts can be designated under the statutory 20 percent population cap.

HUD uses the HMFA-level AMGIs to determine QCT eligibility because the statute, specifically IRC section 42(d)(5)(B)(iv)(II), refers to the same section of the IRC that defines income for purposes of tenant eligibility and unit maximum rent, specifically IRC section 42(g)(4). By rule, the IRS sets these income limits according to HUD's VLILs, which, starting in FY 2006 and thereafter, are established at the HMFA level. HUD uses the entire MSA to determine how many eligible tracts can be designated under the 20 percent population cap as required by the statute (IRC section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii)(III)), which states that MSAs should be treated as singular areas.

HUD determined the QCTs as follows:

1. Calculate 60 percent AMGI. To be eligible to be designated a QCT, a census tract must have 50 percent of its households with incomes below 60 percent of AMGI or have a poverty rate of 25 percent or more. Due to potential statistical anomalies in the ACS 5-year estimates, one of these conditions must be met in at least 2 of the 3 ACS 5-year tabulations for a tract to be considered eligible for QCT designation. HUD calculates 60 percent of AMGI by multiplying by a factor of 1.2 the HMFA or nonmetropolitan county FY 2023 VLIL adjusted for inflation to match the ACS estimates, which are adjusted to the value of the dollar in the last year of the 5-year group.

2. Determine Whether Census Tracts Have Less than 50 percent of Households Below 60 percent AMGI. For each census tract, whether or not 50 percent of households have incomes below the 60 percent income standard (income criterion) was determined by: (a) calculating the average household size of the census tract, (b) adjusting the income standard to match the average household size, and (c) comparing the average-household-size-adjusted income standard to the median household income for the tract reported in each of the three years of ACS tabulations (2015-2019, 2016-2020 and 2017-2021). HUD did not consider estimates of median household income to be statistically reliable unless the margin of error was less than half of the estimate (or a Margin of Error Ratio, MoER, of 50 percent or less). If at least two of the three estimates were not statistically reliable by this measure, HUD determined the tract to be ineligible under the income criterion due to lack of consistently reliable median income statistics across the three ACS tabulations. Since 50 percent of households in a tract have incomes above and below the tract median household income, if the tract median household income is less than the average-household-size-adjusted income standard for the tract, then more than 50 percent of households have incomes below the standard.

3. Estimate Poverty Rate. For each census tract, HUD determined the poverty rate in each of the three releases of ACS tabulations (2015-2019, 2016-2020 and 2017-2021) by dividing the population with incomes below the poverty line by the population for whom poverty status has been determined. As with the evaluation of tracts under the income criterion, HUD applies a data quality standard for evaluating ACS poverty rate data in designating the 2024 QCTs. HUD did not consider estimates of the poverty rate to be statistically reliable unless both the population for whom poverty status has been determined and the number of persons below poverty had MoERs of less than 50 percent of the respective estimates. If at least two of the three poverty rate estimates were not statistically reliable, HUD determined the tract to be ineligible under the poverty rate criterion due to lack of reliable poverty statistics across the ACS tabulations.

4. Designate QCTs Where 20 percent or Less of Population Resides in Eligible Census Tracts. QCTs are those census tracts in which 50 percent or more of the households meet the income criterion in at least two of the three years evaluated, or 25 percent or more of the population is in poverty in at least two of the three years evaluated, such that the population of all census tracts that satisfy either one or both of these criteria does not exceed 20 percent of the total population of the respective area.

5. Designate QCTs Where More than 20 percent of Population Resides in Eligible Census Tracts. In areas where more than 20 percent of the population resides in eligible census tracts, census tracts are designated as QCTs in accordance with the following procedure:

a. The statistically reliable income and poverty criteria are each averaged over the three ACS tabulations (2015-2019, 2016-2020 and 2017-2021). Statistically reliable values that did not exceed the income and poverty rate thresholds were included in the average.

b. Eligible tracts are placed in one of two groups based on the averaged values of the income and poverty criteria. The first group includes tracts that satisfy both the income and poverty criteria for QCTs for at least two of the three evaluation years; a different pair of years may be used to meet each criterion. The second group includes tracts that satisfy either the income criterion in at least two of the three years, or the poverty criterion in at least two of three years, but not both. A tract must qualify by at least one of the criteria in at least two of the three evaluation years to be eligible.

c. HUD ranked tracts in the first group from highest to lowest by the average of the ratios of the tract average-household-size-adjusted income limit to the median household income. Then, HUD ranked tracts in the first group from highest to lowest by the average of the poverty rates. HUD averaged the two ranks to yield a combined rank. HUD then sorted the tracts on the combined rank, with the census tract with the highest combined rank being placed at the top of the sorted list. In the event of a tie, HUD ranked more populous tracts above less populous ones.

d. HUD ranked tracts in the second group from highest to lowest by the average of the ratios of the tract average-household-size-adjusted income limit to the median household income. Then, HUD ranked tracts in the second group from highest to lowest by the average of the poverty rates. HUD then averaged the two ranks to yield a combined rank. HUD then sorted the tracts on the combined rank, with the census tract with the highest combined rank being placed at the top of the sorted list. In the event of a tie, HUD ranked more populous tracts above less populous ones.

e. HUD stacked the ranked first group on top of the ranked second group to yield a single, concatenated, ranked list of eligible census tracts.

f. Working down the single, concatenated, ranked list of eligible tracts, HUD identified census tracts as designated until the designation of an additional tract would cause the 20 percent limit to be exceeded. If HUD does not designate a census tract because doing so would raise the percentage above 20 percent, HUD then considers subsequent eligible census tracts to determine whether one or more eligible census tract(s) with smaller population(s) could be designated without exceeding the 20 percent limit.

As stated in OMB Bulletin 18-04, defining metropolitan areas:

“OMB establishes and maintains the delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, . . . solely for statistical purposes. . . . OMB does not take into account or attempt to anticipate any non-statistical uses that may be made of the delineations[.] In cases where . . . an agency elects to use the Metropolitan . . . Area definitions in nonstatistical programs, it is the sponsoring agency's responsibility to ensure that the delineations are appropriate for such use. An agency using the statistical delineations in a nonstatistical program may modify the delineations, but only for the purposes of that program. In such cases, any modifications should be clearly identified as deviations from the OMB statistical area delineations in order to avoid confusion.”

Following OMB guidance, HUD's estimation procedure for the FMRs and income limits incorporates the September 2018 OMB definitions of metropolitan Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) based on the CBSA standards, but makes adjustments to the definitions, in order to separate subparts of these areas in cases where counties were added to an existing or newly defined metropolitan area. In CBSAs where HUD establishes subareas, it is HUD's view that the geographic extent of the housing markets is not the same as the geographic extent of the CBSAs.

In the New England States (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), HUD defines HMFAs according to county subdivisions or minor civil divisions (MCDs), rather than county or county-equivalent boundaries. However, since no part of an HMFA is outside an OMB-defined, county-based MSA, all New England nonmetropolitan counties are kept intact for purposes of designating Nonmetropolitan DDAs.

HUD designates DDAs annually as updated HUD income limit and FMR data are made public. HUD designates QCTs annually as new income and poverty rate data are released.

The 2024 lists of QCTs and DDAs are effective:

(1) for allocations of credit after December 31, 2023; or

(2) for purposes of IRC section 42(h)(4), if the bonds are issued and the building is placed in service after December 31, 2023.

If an area is not on a subsequent list of QCTs or DDAs, the 2024 lists are effective for the area if:

(1) the allocation of credit to an applicant is made no later than the end of the 730-day period after the applicant submits a complete application to the LIHTC-allocating agency, and the submission is made before the effective date of the subsequent lists; or

(2) for purposes of IRC section 42(h)(4), if:

(a) the bonds are issued or the building is placed in service no later than the end of the 730-day period after the applicant submits a complete application to the bond-issuing agency, and

(b) the submission is made before the effective date of the subsequent lists, provided that both the issuance of the bonds and the placement in service of the building occur after the application is submitted.

An application is deemed to be submitted on the date it is filed if the application is determined to be complete by the credit-allocating or bond-issuing agency. A “complete application” means that no more than de minimis clarification of the application is required for the agency to make a decision about the allocation of tax credits or issuance of bonds requested in the application.

In the case of a “multiphase project,” the DDA or QCT status of the site of the project that applies for all phases of the project is that which applied when the project received its first allocation of LIHTC. For purposes of IRC section 42(h)(4), the DDA or QCT status of the site of the project that applies for all phases of the project is that which applied when the first of the following occurred: (a) the building(s) in the first phase was (were) placed in service, or (b) the bonds were issued.

For purposes of this notice, a “multiphase project” is defined as a set of buildings to be constructed or rehabilitated under the rules of the LIHTC and meeting the following criteria:

(1) the multiphase composition of the project ( i.e., total number of buildings and phases in the project, with a description of how many buildings are to be built in each phase and when each phase is to be completed, and any other information required by the agency) is made known by the applicant in the first application of credit for any building in the project, and that the applicant identifies the buildings in the project for which credit is (or will be) sought;

(2) the aggregate amount of LIHTC applied for on behalf of, or that would eventually be allocated to, the buildings on the site exceeds the one-year limitation on credits per applicant, as defined in the QAP of the LIHTC-allocating agency, or the annual per-capita credit authority of the LIHTC allocating agency, and is the reason the applicant must request multiple allocations over 2 or more years; and

(3) all applications for LIHTC for buildings on the site are made in immediately consecutive years.

Members of the public are hereby reminded that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, or the Secretary's designee, has legal authority to designate DDAs and QCTs, by publishing lists of geographic entities as defined by, in the case of DDAs, the Census Bureau, the several States and the governments of the insular areas of the United States and, in the case of QCTs, by the Census Bureau; and to establish the effective dates of such lists. The Secretary of the Treasury, through the IRS thereof, has sole legal authority to interpret, and to determine and enforce compliance with the IRC and associated regulations, including Federal Register notices published by HUD for purposes of designating DDAs and QCTs. Representations made by any other entity as to the content of HUD notices designating DDAs and QCTs that do not precisely match the language published by HUD should not be relied upon by taxpayers in determining what actions are necessary to comply with HUD notices.

For the convenience of readers of this notice, interpretive examples are provided below to illustrate the consequences of the effective date in areas that gain or lose QCT or DDA status. The examples covering DDAs are equally applicable to QCT designations.

(Case A) Project A is located in a 2024 DDA that is NOT a designated DDA in 2025 or 2026. A complete application for tax credits for Project A is filed with the allocating agency on November 15, 2024. Credits are allocated to Project A on October 30, 2026. Project A is eligible for the increase in basis accorded a project in a 2024 DDA because the application was filed BEFORE January 1, 2025 (the assumed effective date for the 2025 DDA lists), and because tax credits were allocated no later than the end of the 730-day period after the filing of the complete application for an allocation of tax credits.

(Case B) Project B is located in a 2024 DDA that is NOT a designated DDA in 2025 or 2026. A complete application for tax credits for Project B is filed with the allocating agency on December 1, 2024. Credits are allocated to Project B on March 30, 2027. Project B is NOT eligible for the increase in basis accorded a project in a 2024 DDA because, although the application for an allocation of tax credits was filed BEFORE January 1, 2025 (the assumed effective date of the 2025 DDA lists), the tax credits were allocated later than the end of the 730-day period after the filing of the complete application.

(Case C) Project C is located in a 2024 DDA that was not a DDA in 2023. Project C was placed in service on November 15, 2023. A complete application for tax-exempt bond financing for Project C is filed with the bond-issuing agency on January 15, 2024. The tax-exempt bonds that will support the permanent financing of Project C are issued on September 30, 2024. Project C is NOT eligible for the increase in basis otherwise accorded a project in a 2024 DDA, because the project was placed in service BEFORE January 1, 2024.

(Case D) Project D is located in an area that is a DDA in 2024 but is NOT a DDA in 2025 or 2026. A complete application for tax-exempt bond financing for Project D is filed with the bond-issuing agency on October 30, 2024. Tax-exempt bonds are issued for Project D on April 30, 2026, but Project D is not placed in service until January 30, 2027. Project D is eligible for the increase in basis available to projects located in 2024 DDAs because: (1) one of the two events necessary for triggering the effective date for buildings described in section 42(h)(4)(B) of the IRC (the two events being tax-exempt bonds issued and buildings placed in service) took place on April 30, 2026, within the 730-day period after a complete application for tax-exempt bond financing was filed, (2) the application was filed during a time when the location of Project D was in a DDA, and (3) both the issuance of the tax-exempt bonds and placement in service of Project D occurred after the application was submitted.

(Case E) Project E is a multiphase project located in a 2024 DDA that is NOT a designated DDA or QCT in 2025. The first phase of Project E received an allocation of credits in 2024, pursuant to an application filed March 15, 2024, which describes the multiphase composition of the project. An application for tax credits for the second phase of Project E is filed with the allocating agency by the same entity on March 15, 2025. The second phase of Project E is located on a contiguous site. Credits are allocated to the second phase of Project E on October 30, 2025. The aggregate amount of credits allocated to the two phases of Project E exceeds the amount of credits that may be allocated to an applicant in one year under the allocating agency's QAP and is the reason that applications were made in multiple phases. The second phase of Project E is, therefore, eligible for the increase in basis accorded a project in a 2024 DDA, because it meets all of the conditions to be a part of a multiphase project.

(Case F) Project F is a multiphase project located in a 2024 DDA that is NOT a designated DDA in 2025 or 2026. The first phase of Project F received an allocation of credits in 2024, pursuant to an application filed March 15, 2024, which does not describe the multiphase composition of the project. An application for tax credits for the second phase of Project F is filed with the allocating agency by the same entity on March 15, 2026. Credits are allocated to the second phase of Project F on October 30, 2026. The aggregate amount of credits allocated to the two phases of Project F exceeds the amount of credits that may be allocated to an applicant in one year under the allocating agency's QAP. The second phase of Project F is, therefore, NOT eligible for the increase in basis accorded a project in a 2024 DDA, since it does not meet all of the conditions for a multiphase project, as defined in this notice. The original application for credits for the first phase did not describe the multiphase composition of the project. Also, the application for credits for the second phase of Project F was not made in the year immediately following the first phase application year.

(Case G) Project G is located in an area that is NOT a DDA in 2024 or 2026, but is in a DDA in 2025. A complete application for tax-exempt bond financing for Project G is filed with the bond-issuing agency on October 30, 2024. Project G is placed in service on November 15, 2025 and the bonds are issued on February 20, 2026. Property G is eligible for the increase in basis available to projects located in 2025 DDAs because one of the two necessary actions (the two events being tax-exempt bonds issued and buildings placed in service) occur when the property is in a DDA and both events occur after January 1, 2025, the assumed effective date of the 2025 DDAs.

This notice involves the statutorily required establishment of fiscal requirements or procedures that are related to rate and cost determinations and do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6) of HUD's regulations, this notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ).

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any policy document that has federalism implications if the document either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the document preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the executive order. This notice merely designates DDAs and QCTs as required under IRC section 42, as amended, for the use by political subdivisions of the States in allocating the LIHTC. This notice also details the technical methods used in making such designations. As a result, this notice is not subject to review under the order.

On September 1, 2023, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (88 FR 60484, September 1, 2023). Subsequently, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extended the date for its final determination in the China investigation from October 30, 2023 to January 4, 2024 (88 FR 62542, September 12, 2023). The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to conform with Commerce's new schedule. The final determinations for Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom were previously extended (88 FR 57078, 88 FR 57081, 88 FR 57084, 88 FR 57087, 88 FR 57090, 88 FR 57093, 88 FR 57096, 88 FR 57099, August 22, 2023).

The Commission's revised dates in the schedule are as follows: requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission not later than 5:15 p.m. on December 20, 2023; the prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building on December 29, 2023, if deemed necessary; the prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on December 11, 2023; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on December 19, 2023; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on January 4, 2024; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on January 11, 2024; the Commission will make its final release of information on January 31, 2024; and final party comments are due on 5:15 p.m. on February 2, 2024.

For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

The Conflict of Interest and Disclosure form will be used to determine whether or not a conflict of interest exists for a potential peer review panel member. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2023 (88 FR 37581).

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-OSHA.

Title of Collection: Occupational Safety and Health Administration Conflict of Interest and Disclosure.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0255.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 36.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 36.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 27 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

The Standards on Construction Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices (29 CFR 1926.502) and Training Requirements (29 CFR 1926.503) ensure that employers provide the required fall protection for their workers. Accordingly, these standards have the following paperwork requirements: Paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (k) of 29 CFR 1926.502, which specify certification of safety nets and development of fall protection plans, respectively, and paragraph (b) of 29 CFR 1926.503, which requires employers to certify training records. The training certification requirement specified in paragraph (b) of 29 CFR 1926.503 documents the training provided to workers potentially exposed to fall hazards in construction. A competent person must train these workers to recognize fall hazards and in the use of procedures and equipment that minimize these hazards. An employer must verify compliance with this training requirement by preparing and maintaining a written certification record that contains the name or other identifier of the worker receiving the training, the date(s) of the training, and the signature of the competent person who conducted the training, or of the employer. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2023 (88 FR 34186).

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-OSHA.

Title of Collection: Construction Fall Protection Systems Criteria, Practices, and Training Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0197.

Affected Public: Private Sector—Businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 406,714.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 6,072,808.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 506,903 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), Public Law 95-164 as amended, 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes the Mine Safety and Health Administration (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 (Secretary) 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.

The reporting and recordkeeping provisions in 30 CFR 50, Notification, Investigation, Reports and Records of Accidents, Injuries and Illnesses, Employment and Coal Production in Mines, are essential elements in MSHA's statutory mandate to reduce work-related injuries and illnesses among the nation's miners (30 U.S.C. 801). Part 50 of 30 CFR applies to operators of coal, metal, and nonmetal mines. It requires operators to immediately notify MSHA of accidents, investigate accidents and restrict disturbance of accident-related areas. This part also requires operators to file reports with MSHA pertaining to accidents, occupational injuries, and occupational illnesses, as well as employment and coal production data. This part also requires operators to maintain copies of reports at mine offices.

30 CFR 50.2 defines operators as (1) any owner, lessee, or other person who operates, controls, or supervises a coal mine; or (2) the person, partnership, association, or corporation, or subsidiary of a corporation operating a metal or nonmetal mine, and owning the right to do so, and includes any agent thereof charged with responsibility for the operation of such mine.

Section 103(j) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 813(j), requires operators to notify MSHA of the occurrence of an accident and to take appropriate measures to preserve any evidence that would assist in the investigation into the causes of the accident. 30 CFR 50.10 requires mine operators and independent contractors to immediately notify MSHA in the event of an accident. This immediate notification is critical to MSHA's timely investigation and assessment of the cause of the accident.

Section 103(d) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 813(d), mandates that each accident must be investigated by the operator to determine the cause and means of preventing a recurrence. 30 CFR 50.11 requires the mine operator or independent contractor to investigate each accident and occupational injury and prepare a report. The mine operator or independent contractor may not use MSHA Form 7000-1 as the investigation report, except if the operator or independent contractor employs fewer than 20 miners and the injury is not related to an accident.

30 CFR 50.20 requires mine operators and independent contractors to report each accident, injury, and illness to MSHA on MSHA Form 7000-1 within 10 working days after an accident or injury has occurred or an occupational illness has been diagnosed. The use of MSHA Form 7000-1 provides for uniform information gathering across the mining industry, with specific criteria and instructions defined in 30 CFR 50.20-2 through 50.20-7.

30 CFR 50.30 requires that all mine operators and independent contractors working on mine property report employment to MSHA quarterly on MSHA Form 7000-2 within 15 days after the end of each calendar quarter. Each coal mine operators or independent contractor is also required to report coal production on MSHA Form 7000-2. 30 CFR 50.30-1 provides instructions for completing MSHA Form 7000-2.

Section 103(h) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 813(h), requires operators to keep any records and make any reports that are reasonably necessary for MSHA to perform its duties under the Mine Act. Operators must keep records of such accidents and investigations and make them available to the Secretary or the Secretary's authorized representative and the appropriate State agency. 30 CFR 50.40 requires each mine operator or independent contractor to maintain a copy of each investigation report prepared under section 50.11 or 50.20 or 50.30 at the mine office for five years.

MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Mine Accident, Injury, and Illness Report and Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• 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.

The information collection request will be available on http://www.regulations.gov. MSHA cautions the commenter against providing any information in the submission that should not be publicly disclosed. Full comments, including personal information provided, will be made available on www.regulations.gov and www.reginfo.gov.

The public may also examine publicly available documents at DOL-MSHA, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator. Before visiting MSHA in person, call 202-693-9455 to make an appointment, in keeping with the Department of Labor's COVID-19 policy. Special health precautions may be required.

Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

This information collection request concerns provisions for Mine Accident, Injury, and Illness Report and Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.

Type of Review: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection.

Agency: Mine Safety and Health Administration.

OMB Number: 1219-0007.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Annual Respondents: 20,953.

Frequency: On occasion.

Number of Annual Responses: 98,389.

Annual Burden Hours: 117,903 hours.

Annual Respondent or Recordkeeper Cost: $3,009.

MSHA Forms: MSHA Form 7000-1, Mine Accident, Injury, and Illness Report; MSHA Form 7000-2, Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at https://www.reginfo.gov.

OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition for TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM) as a NRTL. TUVAM's expansion covers the addition of nine test sites to the NRTL scope of recognition.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.

The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL, including TUVAM, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

TUVAM submitted an application, dated January 24, 2021 (OSHA-2007-0043-0045), requesting the conversion of ten existing Satellite Notification Acceptance Program (SNAP) sites to recognized sites under the NRTL Policy for Transitioning to Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program Termination (SNAP Transition Policy) published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 75042), as amended by a June 22, 2022 Memorandum from James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, to Regional Administrators and Executive Staff, titled “Second Revision to the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Policy for Transitioning to Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program (SNAP) Termination.” TUVAM amended their application on December 10, 2021 (OSHA-2007-0043-0046), to remove one site from the original request, leaving nine sites to be considered in the expansion request.

OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVAM's expansion application in the Federal Register on August 15, 2023 (88 FR 55478). The agency requested comments by August 30, 2023, but it received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final grant of expansion of TUVAM's NRTL recognition.

To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the TUVAM application, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043 contains all materials in the record concerning TUVAM's recognition. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for assistance in locating docket submissions.

OSHA staff examined TUVAM's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVAM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the specified limitations and condition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVAM's recognition to include the nine sites listed in Table 1, below. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.

In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, TUVAM must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:

1. TUVAM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);

2. TUVAM must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and

3. TUVAM must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVAM's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.

Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of TUVAM as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), as a NRTL. TUVRNA's expansion covers the addition of four test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.

The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL, including TUVRNA, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

TUVRNA submitted an application, dated June 3, 2021 (OSHA-2007-0042-0068), to expand recognition as a NRTL to include four additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.

OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's expansion application in the Federal Register on August 15, 2023 (88 FR 55482). The agency requested comments by August 30, 2023, but it received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion to TUVRNA's scope of recognition.

To review copies of all public documents pertaining to TUVRNA's application, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor at (202) 693-2350. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042 contains all materials in the record concerning TUVRNA's recognition. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY number (877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions.

OSHA staff examined TUVRNA's expansion application, their capability to meet the requirements of the test standard, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVRNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards shown below in Table 1.

OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.

Recognition is contingent on continued compliance with 29 CFR 1910.7, including but not limited to, abiding by the following conditions of recognition:

1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);

2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and

3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVRNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.

Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of TUVRNA as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA) as a NRTL. ITSNA's expansion covers the addition of 23 test sites to its NRTL scope of recognition.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.

The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL, including ITSNA, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

ITSNA submitted an application, dated January 25, 2021 (OSHA-2007-0039-0047), requesting the conversion of 23 existing Satellite Notification Acceptance Program (SNAP) sites to recognized sites under the NRTL Policy for Transitioning to Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program Termination (SNAP Transition Policy) published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 75042), as amended by a June 22, 2022 Memorandum from James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, to Regional Administrators and Executive Staff, titled “Second Revision to the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Policy for Transitioning to Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program (SNAP) Termination.” OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing ITSNA's expansion application in the Federal Register on August 15, 2023 (88 FR 55476). The agency requested comments by August 30, 2023, but it received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final grant of expansion of ITSNA's NRTL recognition. 1

To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the ITSNA application, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039 contains all materials in the record concerning ITSNA's recognition. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions.

OSHA staff examined ITSNA's expansion applications, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that ITSNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the specified limitations and condition. OSHA limits the expansion of ITSNA's recognition to include the 23 sites listed in Table 1, below. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.

I. Notice of Final Decision

OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), as a NRTL. TUVRNA's expansion covers the addition of three test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.

The agency processes applications by NRTLs or applicant organizations for initial recognition, as well as for expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL, including TUVRNA, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

TUVRNA submitted an application, dated October 17, 2022 (OSHA-2007-0042-0066), to expand recognition to include the addition of three test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.

OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's expansion applications in the Federal Register on July 19, 2023 (88 FR 46188). The agency requested comments by August 3, 2023, but it received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of TUVRNA's scope of recognition.

To review copies of all public documents pertaining to TUVRNA's application, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor at (202) 693-2350. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042 contains all materials in the record concerning TUVRNA's recognition. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for assistance in locating docket submissions.

OSHA staff examined TUVRNA's expansion application, their capability to meet the requirements of the test standard, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVRNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards shown below in Table 1.

In this notice, OSHA also announces the final decision to add one new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2, below, lists the standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA has determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and will add it to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.

Recognition is contingent on continued compliance with 29 CFR 1910.7, including but not limited to, abiding by the following conditions of recognition:

1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);

2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and

3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVRNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.

Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of TUVRNA as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above. OSHA additionally adds one test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, September 18, 2020) and 29 CFR 1910.7.

OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of CSA Group Testing & Certification, Inc. (CSA) as a NRTL. CSA's expansion covers the addition of sixteen test sites to its NRTL scope of recognition.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.

The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL, including CSA, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

CSA submitted an application, dated December 15, 2020 (OSHA-2006-0042-0034), requesting the conversion of sixteen existing Satellite Notification Acceptance Program (SNAP) sites to recognized sites under the NRTL Policy for Transitioning to Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program Termination (SNAP Transition Policy) published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 75042), as amended by a June 22, 2022 Memorandum from James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, to Regional Administrators and Executive Staff, titled “Second Revision to the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Policy for Transitioning to Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program (SNAP) Termination.”

OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CSA's expansion application in the Federal Register on August 15, 2023 (88 FR 55480). The agency requested comments by August 30, 2023, but it received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final grant of expansion of CSA's NRTL recognition.

To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the CSA application, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042 contains all materials in the record concerning CSA's recognition. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY number (877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions.

OSHA staff examined CSA's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the specified limitations and condition. OSHA limits the expansion of CSA's recognition to include the sixteen sites listed in Table 1, below. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.

In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, CSA must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:

1. CSA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);

2. CSA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and

3. CSA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on CSA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.

Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of CSA as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

Under 45 CFR part 1627, LSC must publish, on an annual basis, “notice of the requirements concerning the format and contents of the application annually in the Federal Register and on LSC's website.” 45 CFR 1627.4(b). This Notice and the publication of the Subgrant Application on LSC's website satisfy § 1627.4(b)'s notice requirement for LSC Special Grant programs. Only current or prospective recipients of LSC Special Grants may apply for approval to subgrant these funds.

An applicant must submit an application to make a subgrant of LSC Special Grant funds at least 45 days in advance of the subgrant's proposed effective date. 45 CFR 1627.4(b)(2).

All applicants must provide answers to the application questions in GrantEase and upload the following documents:

• A draft subgrant agreement (with the required terms provided in LSC's Special Grant Subgrant Agreement Template); and

• A subgrant budget (using LSC's Subgrant Budget Template)

Applicants seeking to subgrant to a new subrecipient that is not a current LSC grantee or applying to renew a subgrant with an organization that is not a current LSC grantee in a year in which the applicant was not already required to submit the documents listed below as a part of an application to subgrant LSC Basic Field funds, must also upload:

• The subrecipient's accounting manual;

• The subrecipient's most recent audited financial statements;

• The subrecipient's current cost allocation policy (if not in the accounting manual);

• The recipient's 45 CFR part 1627 policy (required under 45 CFR 1627.7).

A list of subgrant application questions, the Special Grant Subgrant Agreement Template, and the Subgrant Budget Template are available on LSC's website at http://www.lsc.gov/grants-grantee-resources/grantee-guidance/how-apply-subgrant .

LSC encourages applicants to use LSC's Special Grant Subgrant Agreement Template as a model subgrant agreement. If the applicant does not use LSC's Template, the proposed agreement must include, at a minimum, the substance of the provisions of the Template.

Once submitted, LSC will evaluate the application and provide applicants with instructions on any needed modifications to the submitted documents or Draft Agreement provided with the application. The applicant must then upload a final and signed subgrant agreement through GrantEase by the date requested.

As required by 45 CFR 1627.4(b)(3), LSC will inform applicants of its decision to disapprove, approve, or request modifications to the subgrant no later than the subgrant's proposed effective date.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2996g(e).

On August 30, 2023, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a notice of inquiry seeking comments from the public on a number of questions about the copyright law and policy issues raised by AI systems. The notice set a deadline for initial comments on October 18, 2023, and for reply comments on November 15, 2023.

To ensure that members of the public have sufficient time to prepare responses to the Office's questions, and to ensure that the Office can proceed on a timely basis with its inquiry of the issues identified in its notice with the benefit of a complete record, the Office is extending the deadlines as set forth here. Initial written comments will now be due by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 30, 2023. Reply comments will be due by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on November 29, 2023.

OMB Number: 3133-NEW.

Title: Supervisory Stress Test Annual Data Collection, 12 CFR part 702, subpart C.

Type of Review: New collection.

Abstract: The NCUA Board (Board) has determined, to protect the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) and the credit union system, that the largest Federally Insured Credit Unions (FICUs) should have systems and processes in place to monitor and maintain their capital adequacy. Subpart C of part 702 of NCUA's regulations codifies capital planning and stress testing requirements for federally insured credit unions with $10 billion or more in assets (covered credit unions). Covered credit unions are further delineated by asset tiers. Tier I are credit union with $10 billion or more in total assets, but less than $15 billion in total assets; tier II are credit union with $15 billion or more in total assets, but less than $20 billion in total assets; and tier III are credit union with $20 billion or more in total assets. Tier II and III credit unions are required to conduct supervisory stress tests and section 702.306 (b) codifies that NCUA reserves the right to conduct stress tests of covered credit unions at any time and where both NCUA and a covered credit union have conducted the tests, the results of NCUA's tests will determine whether the covered credit union has met the requirements of this subpart. To facilitate NCUA's ability to conduct supervisory stress test on covered credit unions, section 702.306(d) requires that covered credit unions must provide NCUA with any relevant qualitative or quantitative information requested by NCUA pertinent to capital plans or stress test under this part.

Affected Public: Private sector: Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 12.

Estimated Hours per Response: 20.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 240.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. The public is invited to submit comments concerning: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 the information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website ( http://www.prc.gov ). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3011.301. 1

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

1. Docket No(s).: MC2023-266 and CP2023-269; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 53 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: September 14, 2023; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: September 22, 2023.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 15, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 54 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-269, CP2023-272.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Ground Advantage® Contract 3 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-268, CP2023-271.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 8 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-267, CP2023-270.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 14, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 53 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-266, CP2023-269.