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

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

In accordance with that process, we published a notice  1 in the Federal Register on October 27, 2021 (86 FR 59360-59361, Docket No. APHIS-2021-0034), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a PRA that evaluated the risks associated with the importation of fresh turmeric ( Curcuma longa ) rhizome from Samoa into the United States (including territories). The PRA consisted of a risk assessment identifying pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation of fresh turmeric ( Curcuma longa ) rhizome from Samoa into the United States (including territories) and a risk management document (RMD) identifying phytosanitary measures to be applied to that commodity to mitigate the pest risk.

We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on December 27, 2021. We received no comments by that date.

Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation into the United States (including territories) of fresh turmeric ( Curcuma longa ) rhizome from Samoa subject to the phytosanitary measures identified in the RMD that accompanied the initial notice.

These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database (FAVIR) ( https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual ). 2 In addition to these specific measures, each shipment must be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Section 319.56-4 of the regulations provides requirements for authorizing the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States and revising existing requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables. Paragraph (c) of that section provides that the name and origin of all fruits and vegetables authorized for importation into the United States, as well as the requirements for their importation, be listed on the internet in APHIS' Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database, or FAVIR  1 ( https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual ). It also provides that, if the Administrator of APHIS determines that any of the phytosanitary measures required for the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable are no longer necessary to reasonably mitigate the plant pest risk posed by the fruit or vegetable, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register making its pest risk documentation and determination available for public comment.

In accordance with that process, we published a notice  2 in the Federal Register on March 15, 2021 (86 FR 14301-14302, Docket No. APHIS-2020-0063), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest list and a commodity import evaluation document that evaluated the risks associated with allowing importation into all ports of the United States of non-precleared fresh sand pear fruit from the Republic of Korea.

We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending May 14, 2021. We received one comment by that date, from a trade organization opposed to our proposal. The commenter stated that APHIS should not revise requirements for imports into all ports of the United States of fresh sand pear from the Republic of Korea because that country has not followed through on a pledge to open its markets to imports of U.S. pome fruit.

We are making no changes in response to the commenter. Import prohibitions based on trade reciprocity are beyond the scope of APHIS' statutory authority under the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ). Under the PPA, APHIS will prohibit the importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States only if we determine that the prohibition is necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States. APHIS and trade offices within USDA continue to pursue new or expanded export markets for U.S. agriculture, including the export of pome fruit to the Republic of Korea.

Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation of fresh, non-precleared sand pear from the Republic of Korea into all ports of the United States subject to the following phytosanitary measures:  3

• Sand pears must be imported as commercial consignments only.

• Sand pears must be grown in places of production and packed in packinghouses registered with the Republic of Korea national plant protection organization (NPPO).

• Places of production must be inspected for symptoms of quarantine pests and diseases. If such pests and diseases are found, adequate mitigations measures should be implemented.

• Sand pears must be bagged when the fruit is between 2.5 and 3.5 centimeters in diameter. All fruit must be bagged by June 30. Bagging is required to prevent all arthropod pests from infesting the fruits.

• Each sand pear consignment must be labeled to allow trace back.

• Each sand pear consignment must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Republic of Korea NPPO stating that the consignment has been inspected and found free of quarantine pests.

These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database (available at https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual ). In addition to these specific measures, fresh sand pear from the Republic of Korea will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

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

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

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

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

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments are also invited on the revised form FNS-525 included as part of this notice.

Title: 7 CFR part 235—State Administrative Expense Funds.

Form Number: FNS-525.

OMB Number: 0584-0067.

Expiration Date: December 31, 2022.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-642), 42 U.S.C. 1776, authorizes the Department to provide Federal funds to State agencies (SAs) for administering the Child Nutrition Programs (7 CFR parts 210, 215, 220, 226 and 250). State Administrative Expense (SAE) Funds, 7 CFR part 235, sets forth procedures and recordkeeping requirements for use by SAs in reporting and maintaining records of their need and use of SAE funds. A summary of the reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with this revision is presented in the table below.

In addition to FNS-525 Financial Status Report, which is used by the State agencies to report information related to the SAE funds, this collection has another form, FNS-777 Financial Status Report, associated with it. FNS-777 and its associated burden is approved under OMB# 0584-0594 Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS) (expiration date July 31, 2023) and therefore is not included in this collection. The recordkeeping requirements associated with FNS-777 and the burden for maintaining those records is included in this information collection.

For this revision, 245 hours of reporting burden is being reduced due to FNS-525 form revisions. The FNS-525 has been completely revised to eliminate duplication of effort. The information collected in the previous version is already available to FNS because it is collected in the FNS-777. The revised form was created to reflect the updated process for State Administrative Expense reallocation funding. It is included with this notice to allow for public comment. With these revisions, FNS estimates that the time to complete this form will decrease from 12 hours and 30 minutes to 2 hours and 15 minutes. The revised FNS-525 form is included with this Notice.

Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Government. State Agencies are the respondents.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 83.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 39.651 across the entire collection. State agencies provide information on an annual basis.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 3,291.

Estimated Hours per Response: 1.916 across the entire collection. The estimated time of response varies from 15 minutes to 8 hours.

Estimated Total Hours Annual Reporting Burden: 357.

Estimated Total Hours Annual Recordkeeping Burden: 5,949.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,306.

Current OMB Inventory: 6,551.

Difference (requested with this renewal): −245.

Refer to the following table for estimated annual burden for each type of respondent:

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Review and recommendations of Title II proposal submitted to the Malheur, Umattilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forestest on or before August 15, 2022.

2. Schedule the next meeting; and

3. Other new or old business.

Meetings are open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing by October 3, 2022, to be scheduled on the agenda for the meeting. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Doug McKay, P.O. Box 7, 117 S Main St., Heppner, OR; or by email to Douglas.Mckay@usda.gov.

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

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

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

Committee meetings are available to the public through the conference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1 (800) 877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email mwojnaroski@usccr.gov at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting.

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

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

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

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the respective meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria Moreno at vmoreno@usccr.gov. All written comments received will be available to the public.

Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at the www.facadatabase.gov. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above phone number or email address.

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

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

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

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

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the respective meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria Moreno at vmoreno@usccr.gov. All written comments received will be available to the public.

Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at the www.facadatabase.gov. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above phone number or email address.

On March 18, 2021, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2018 CVD administrative review of FSF from China. 1 In the Final Results, Commerce determined that the use of adverse facts available (AFA) under sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), was warranted in determining the countervailability of the Export Buyer's Credit (EBC) program, because the Government of China (GOC) had failed to provide the necessary information Commerce required to analyze the program. 2 Commerce also determined that it could not rely on statements of non-use provided by Both-Well and its customers because of the GOC's failure to provide the necessary information with respect to the operation of the program. 3 Consistent with Commerce's CVD AFA hierarchy, Commerce selected the highest calculated rate for the same or similar program as the AFA rate for this program, 10.54 percent, in accordance with section 776(d) of the Act and Commerce's established practice. 4 Commerce calculated a total net subsidy rate of 25.90 percent for Both-Well. 5

Both-Well appealed Commerce's Final Results. On February 8, 2022, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce and ordered either: (1) that Commerce must attempt to verify the EBC program non-use certifications provided by Both-Well's U.S. customers or; (2) that if, after attempting verification, Commerce determines verification is not possible without the missing information from the GOC, then Commerce must explain, in detail, the specific ways in which Commerce attempted verification of the non-use certifications. 6

In its final remand redetermination, issued in July 2022, Commerce found, after issuing supplemental questionnaires to Both-Well, that there was no use of the EBC program with respect to Both-Well in this review and removed the subsidy rate for the EBC program from Both-Well's final CVD subsidy rate, resulting in a 15.36 percent rate for Both-Well. 7 On September 13, 2022, the CIT sustained Commerce's final redetermination. 8

In its decision in Timken, 9 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 10 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's September 13, 2022, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Results with respect to Both-Well as follows:

Because Both-Well has a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results published in a subsequent administrative review, we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate.

At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that were produced and/or exported by Both-Well, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period March 14, 2018, through December 31, 2018. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.

In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Both-Well in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the ad valorem rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an ad valorem subsidy rate is zero or de minimis, 11 we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to countervailing duties.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet on October 5, 2022, first in open session to receive an update on the development of MSE for Atlantic bluefin tuna. It will then meet in closed session to discuss sensitive matters in preparation for an ICCAT intersessional meeting on bluefin tuna MSE to be held on October 14, 2022. MSE is a scientific tool that allows fishery managers, scientists, and stakeholders ( e.g., industry, non-governmental organizations) to simulate the workings of a fishery system to test how well different harvest strategies (a.k.a. management procedures) achieve agreed management objectives for that fishery. After several years of work, ICCAT anticipates finalizing the bluefin tuna MSE and adopting a management procedure applicable to both the western and eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stocks of bluefin tuna at its November 2022 Annual Meeting. If adopted by ICCAT, the management procedure will be applied in order to set Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for 2023 and future years for both stocks. The United States has been participating actively in this MSE development process and have been engaging stakeholders and considering their input throughout the process through various means, including consultation with the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT. The United States also participates in the development of the bluefin tuna MSE through active engagement by U.S. scientists in ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS).

The most up-to-date information on bluefin tuna MSE will be provided during the open session of the October 5 meeting. This session, which will take place from 1 p.m. to no later than 3 p.m. EDT, will include an opportunity for interested stakeholders to ask questions and time will also be set aside for members of the public to provide formal input on this important issue. Specifically, a public comment period will begin at approximately 2 p.m. and conclude no later than 3 p.m. Comments may also be submitted in writing for the Advisory Committee's consideration. Interested members of the public can submit comments by mail or email. Use of email is encouraged. All written comments must be received by October 4, 2022 (see ADDRESSES ).

A key area where stakeholders may wish to provide input relates to the remaining candidate management procedures (CMPs) and the management tradeoffs associated with them as identified through MSE. Tradeoffs among the four management objectives, which are applicable to both stocks, will be clearly indicated in the scientific output provided by SCRS. Management objectives relate to stock status, stock safety, yield in the short, medium, and longer terms, and stability of the TAC across management periods, which could be established for 2 or 3 years.

After the open session, the Advisory Committee will go into closed session no later than 3 p.m. and will conclude its meeting at 5 p.m. EDT. During its closed session, the Advisory Committee will provide its advice on possible positions and strategies to be taken by the United States concerning bluefin tuna MSE at an October 14 intersessional meeting of ICCAT's Panel 2, the last meeting of this body before the November 2022 ICCAT Annual Meeting, at which ICCAT is expected to adopt and apply a bluefin tuna management procedure.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The names and positions of the members for the 2022 NOAA PRB are set forth below:

The 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act established the CCC. The CCC consists of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of each of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, or their respective proxies. All sessions are open to the public and time will be set aside for public comments at the end of each day and after specific sessions at the discretion of the meeting Chair. The meeting Chair will announce public comment times and instructions to provide comment at the start of each meeting day. There will be opportunities for public comments to be provided in-person and remotely via webinar. Updates to this meeting, briefing materials, public comment instructions and additional information will be posted on https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/event/2022-october-council-coordination-committee-meeting and http://www.fisherycouncils.org/ when available.

The order in which the agenda items are addressed may be adjusted by the meeting Chair to stay on time. The CCC will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

If you have particular access needs please contact Sean Lawler at sean.lawler@noaa.gov prior to the meeting for accommodation.

America's housing finance system provides important opportunities for consumers to access credit for housing and strengthen their financial standing. When broader macroeconomic forces result in declining interest rates, transparent and competitive markets should allow borrowers to benefit from lower rates, including through refinancing opportunities. 1 These lower interest rates may allow borrowers to improve their financial condition by reducing their monthly payments, allowing borrowers to save more or pay down their mortgages more rapidly, making it easier for them to build wealth and equity. In addition, when that equity is threatened by temporary disruptions in the economy or in consumers' lives, products and policies that offer repayment flexibility may help mitigate those risks. In this Request for Information (RFI), the Bureau is seeking information about ways to help ensure that consumers have access to these opportunities. In particular, the Bureau is requesting information about (1) ways to facilitate residential mortgage loan refinances for borrowers who would benefit from refinances, especially borrowers with smaller loan balances;  2 and (2) ways to reduce risks for borrowers who experience disruptions that could interfere with their ability to remain current on their mortgage payments.

Most borrowers seeking to lower their interest rate must refinance their mortgage. But recent research has shown that many consumers do not take advantage of falling market interest rates by refinancing. Some borrowers may find it challenging to determine whether they are likely to benefit from refinancing. In general, for refinancing to be beneficial for consumers, the costs of refinancing must be offset by the benefits of lower interest rates. While these benefits are greater for borrowers with large loan balances and those who stay in their homes longer, other borrowers may also benefit from refinancing to a lower interest rate. If these consumers do not refinance, they can experience adverse long-term financial consequences. In particular, they are likely to continue paying higher interest rates, leading them to accumulate less wealth over time and potentially face a higher risk of default than they would have if they had refinanced. 3

One particular area of concern is the availability of refinance opportunities for consumers with smaller loan balances. Larger mortgages make up a growing share of the mortgage market, with smaller mortgages comprising a steady or declining share. 4 If the market provides limited opportunities for consumers to refinance smaller mortgages, Black and Hispanic consumers and consumers with low to moderate incomes would be disproportionately affected, as they are more likely to own homes with lower market values. 5 These patterns may have contributed to the much lower rate of refinancing by Black and Hispanic consumers during recent periods of low interest rates. 6 The Bureau is also concerned about the relative availability of refinance opportunities for consumers in rural areas, whose property might similarly have lower market values than in higher-priced geographic regions.

Several factors may help explain the differences in rates of refinancing. The large fixed costs of mortgage origination may limit the availability of mortgages for consumers with smaller loan balances, including beneficial refinances. The benefits of refinancing a smaller loan may be insufficient to offset the costs of refinancing. In addition, creditor capacity constraints and lower profitability on refinances of smaller loan balances may limit access to beneficial refinances for some borrowers. Research has shown that some—but not all—of the differences in refinancing rates across the population can be explained by common risk-based underwriting factors like credit scores and loan-to-value ratios. 7 In addition, for consumers who primarily shop for credit in their local neighborhoods, a geographic concentration of higher cost lenders may lead to higher costs or reduced availability of refinancing options. 8 Finally, researchers have noted more difficult-to-quantify potential barriers, including consumers' shopping behavior, 9 trust of financial institutions, 10 or the complexity and documentation involved in the refinancing process. 11

The Bureau is requesting information to better understand what barriers may prevent consumers from accessing falling interest rates and what interventions could lower those barriers, particularly for borrowers with smaller loan balances. Several potential policies and mortgage products are discussed below, and the Bureau requests information on the benefits and limitations of these ideas, as well as on alternative options to help consumers access lower interest rates.

As described above, mortgage refinancing has the potential to provide important benefits to consumers through reductions in interest rates and monthly payments. During periods of falling interest rates, widely available refinancing allows homeowners to benefit from lower borrowing costs. In some circumstances, refinances can help borrowers at risk of delinquency and default. Targeted and “streamlined” refinance programs have been used to facilitate refinancing through reduced underwriting and documentation requirements, typically with lower transaction costs than traditional refinances. These programs, which may have specific eligibility requirements, are largely aimed at lowering interest rates and monthly payments for consumers who may otherwise be unlikely or unable to refinance.

Despite its potential benefits, refinancing also can pose risks to consumers. Serial refinancing  12 can be costly and reduce borrowers' equity in their property. Many targeted and streamlined refinance programs include protections against potential harms associated with refinances, such as requirements that the new loan reduce the consumer's monthly payment and interest rate by certain threshold amounts and seasoning requirements. Some programs either prohibit or limit cash-out payments from the refinance.

Targeted and streamlined refinance programs played a significant role in facilitating beneficial refinances during the period that followed the financial crisis, particularly for borrowers who were otherwise unable to refinance due to declines in their home value. During this period, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which have historically offered streamlined refinance programs with reduced underwriting requirements, expanded their programs to facilitate refinancing for consumers at risk of delinquency and default. 13 Similarly, after the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the GSEs) were placed into Federal conservatorship in late 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) created new refinance programs with the aim of mitigating foreclosures for consumers with existing GSE loans. FHFA announced the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) in March 2009, which allowed consumers with high loan-to-value (LTV) ratios to refinance into lower interest rates with reduced documentation and underwriting requirements and relatively few eligibility criteria. 14 HARP was expanded and renewed multiple times before expiring on December 31, 2018. 15 FHFA and the GSEs implemented other high LTV refinance programs and provided some refinance options to borrowers with existing GSE loans who were not eligible for HARP. 16 More recently, FHFA and the GSEs implemented targeted programs aimed at encouraging refinances for low- and moderate-income consumers, who have been less likely than higher-income consumers to take advantage of a low interest rate environment.

As part of the Bureau's monitoring of the mortgage market, some stakeholders suggested that changes to the Bureau's ability-to-repay/qualified mortgage rule (ATR-QM rule) could play a role in facilitating beneficial refinances through targeted and streamlined programs, citing the current rule as contributing to some existing frictions to refinancing. While refinances originated pursuant to Federal agency programs are not subject to the Bureau's ATR-QM rule, 17 most other refinance transactions are subject to the rule. 18 Under the ATR-QM rule, a creditor is prohibited from originating a covered mortgage without making a reasonable and good faith determination, based on verified and documented information, that the consumer will have a reasonable ability to repay the loan. 19 To satisfy the ability-to-repay provisions of the rule, the creditor must, at a minimum, consider and verify eight underwriting factors, including the consumer's current or reasonably expected income or assets and current employment status. Loans that satisfy the requirements to be a QM are presumed to comply with the ability-to-repay requirement. 20 The ATR-QM rule defines several categories of QMs, all of which require the creditor to consider and verify the consumer's income or assets relied on in making the loan. 21

Research has suggested that frictions in the refinance process, including potentially documentation requirements under the ATR-QM rule, may limit some refinancing opportunities that could benefit consumers. In the course of the Bureau's market monitoring, some stakeholders have asserted that it may be appropriate to address those frictions in some circumstances in which borrowers would receive a demonstrated benefit from refinancing, such as lower interest rates or lower monthly payments, and where other protections are in place, such as protections against serial refinances.

Consistent with the Bureau's overall goal of ensuring that consumers have access to the financial opportunities presented by the housing finance system, the Bureau is requesting information about whether and how the Bureau can facilitate beneficial refinances through targeted and streamlined refinance programs. The Bureau is also requesting information about whether and how the Bureau's existing rules, including the ATR-QM rule, could be amended to facilitate beneficial refinances while preserving important protections for consumers.

Some creditors have introduced mortgage products designed generally to promote beneficial refinances by, for example, offering reduced closing costs for future refinances with that same creditor. 22 Another potential option that could allow more consumers to take advantage of lower interest rates is through the introduction of other new mortgage products that would further facilitate refinances or allow more borrowers to obtain the benefits of lower interest rates without refinancing. Examples of these products include loans that would automatically trigger an offer to refinance or would reduce the loan's interest rate in certain circumstances, which might benefit homeowners by allowing them to make lower monthly payments or pay less total interest over the duration of the loan. The Bureau is seeking information about the risks and benefits if creditors were to develop and offer new mortgage products with these or similar features.

In particular, some researchers and stakeholders have proposed that creditors should offer an “auto-refi” mortgage. 23 An “auto-refi” mortgage is a mortgage loan that provides for automatic or streamlined refinancing in the future when certain market conditions are met, with little or no affirmative action by the consumer. This product might decrease borrowing costs for consumers who would otherwise not refinance their loans for a variety of reasons, including the complexity of the refinancing process, documentation requirements, lack of knowledge or time, or creditor marketing practices. It might also simplify the refinancing process for consumers who anticipate mortgage interest rates are likely to decrease over the life of the loan. On the other hand, the Bureau notes that there may be impediments or risks associated with the auto-refi mortgage if consumers lack comfort with the concept or creditors find it difficult to price, competitively market, and sell these products on the secondary market. In addition, depending on how the product is structured, an auto-refi mortgage that repeatedly refinances might result in extended indebtedness for some borrowers.

An alternative product that might provide benefits similar to an auto-refi is a “one-way adjustable rate” mortgage (or one-way ARM). A one-way ARM loan, which involves only a rate change, not a refinancing, could have an adjustable interest rate that automatically decreases with market rates but never increases. A variation of this product could have an interest rate that automatically fluctuates with the market but never rises above its original rate. Like the auto-refi mortgage, a one-way ARM might allow more consumers to obtain the benefits of lower interest rates without undergoing the full, traditional refinancing process. Similarly, however, this product might be difficult for consumers to understand or challenging for creditors to competitively market, price, and sell on the secondary market.

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic activity contracted, and millions of workers lost their jobs. In response, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). 24 One key provision of the CARES Act required servicers of federally backed mortgages to grant a borrower's request for up to 180 days of forbearance if the consumer attested to a COVID-19-related financial hardship, with the option to extend the forbearance period for an additional 180 days at the request of the borrower. Guidance from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHA, the VA, and the USDA extended the length of their COVID-19 forbearance programs an additional six months for a maximum forbearance period of 18 months. 25 Privately owned mortgages were not covered by the CARES Act, but many servicers and investors offered similar forbearance programs for those borrowers.

These forbearance programs are an example of streamlined short-term loss mitigation solutions that have helped maintain the stability of the mortgage market during the pandemic, providing benefits to consumers, as well as investors. Over the course of the pandemic, 8.2 million borrowers have entered a forbearance program, and as of July 2022, 93 percent have exited. 26 Most forbearance exits have been successful—52 percent of consumers who took forbearance have resumed making regular mortgage payments and 32 percent have paid off their mortgage in full. As of July 2022, just 4 percent are delinquent on their mortgage and 1 percent are in active foreclosure. 27 Of the post-forbearance consumers who are in active foreclosure, about 65 percent were behind on their mortgage payments going into the pandemic. 28 As of July 2022, mortgage delinquency and foreclosure levels were below pre-pandemic levels. 29

Given the apparent overall success of forbearance programs and other streamlined loss mitigation solutions in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bureau is requesting comment on the actions it or others can take or should consider taking to spur automatic and streamlined short and long-term loss mitigation offers for borrowers with mortgages impacted by temporary financial hardship more generally ( i.e., not just as a result of the financial impacts of the pandemic). The Bureau is particularly interested in receiving information about what features of these COVID-era short and long-term loss mitigation programs should be made more generally available to borrowers, and in particular, if there are ways to automate and streamline the offering of short and long-term loss mitigation solutions. The Bureau is interested in ensuring that homeowners who are economically affected by events such as natural disasters are able to receive timely payment relief that could help them avoid foreclosure.

This request seeks information from the public on: (1) ways to facilitate refinances for consumers that would benefit from refinances, especially consumers with smaller loan balances; and (2) ways to reduce risks for consumers that experience disruptions that could interfere with their ability to remain current on their mortgage payments. The CFPB welcomes comments from consumers, creditors, and other stakeholders, including the submission of descriptive information about experiences of people participating in the mortgage market, as well as research and other evidence. Commenters need not answer all or any of the specific questions posed. These questions are not meant to be exhaustive; the Bureau welcomes additional relevant comments on these important topics. For answers to specific questions, please note the number associated with any question to which you are responding at the top of each response.

1. What barriers may prevent consumers from accessing falling interest rates through refinancing and what solutions could lower those barriers, particularly for consumers with smaller loan balances? Are there particular issues in obtaining refinances or would any particular approaches be more effective for certain types of homeowners, such as servicemembers, older adults, and first-time homeowners?

2. To what extent do large fixed costs of refinancing and limited profitability for smaller loan balances limit beneficial refinances? What potential policies could lower costs for beneficial refinances?

3. How much do common risk-based underwriting factors like credit scores and loan-to-value ratios account for the differences in refinancing rates across the population?

4. To what extent do the types of creditors offering refinance products in particular geographic areas affect refinancing rates in some areas and for some consumers?

5. To what extent are refinancing rates affected by potential barriers that may be more difficult to quantify, including borrowers' shopping behavior, trust of financial institutions, or the complexity and documentation involved in the refinancing process?

6. To what extent do consumers in rural areas face limited opportunities for refinances and what are the factors, including smaller loan balances, that may limit refinance opportunities for those consumers?

1. How can the Bureau support industry efforts to facilitate beneficial refinances through targeted and streamlined refinance programs?

2. What are the current barriers to widespread use or promotion of existing refinance programs and, relatedly, what features of refinance programs are important to promoting widespread use?

3. What protections should be included in refinance programs to ensure consumer benefit, such as requirements for a lower interest rate and monthly payments, loan term limits, limits on serial refinancing, and requirements to refinance the consumer into a more stable mortgage product?

4. Should the Bureau's rules, including the ATR-QM rule, be amended to encourage beneficial refinances while preserving important protections for consumers? If so, how? What are the risks and benefits of doing so?

5. What are the risks and benefits of removing or modifying the current ATR-QM requirement that a creditor must consider and verify a consumer's income or assets relied on in making the loan in the context of a refinance program?

1. What products or programs have lenders introduced to attempt to facilitate refinances for borrowers who would benefit from refinancing? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these products and programs?

2. What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of auto-refi mortgages and one-way ARMs?

3. Could creditors feasibly market and price auto-refi mortgages and one-way ARMs?

4. How could creditors most effectively structure auto-refi mortgages?

5. How could creditors most effectively structure one-way ARMs?

6. How could these products be designed to minimize risks to consumers?

7. Under what market conditions should an auto-refi mortgage automatically refinance?  30

8. Under what market conditions should the rate of a one-way ARM change?

9. Should these conditions be regulated or left to market forces?

10. Do any market factors or practical difficulties, including secondary market liquidity and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) investor interest, preclude the development of auto-refi mortgages or one-way ARMs? How would these or similar products impact the MBS market?

11. Should the Bureau amend the ATR-QM rule or other regulations to permit or encourage creditors to offer auto-refi mortgages or one-way ARMs? If so, how?

12. Are there any other new products that creditors could feasibly develop that would allow more borrowers to receive the benefits of reduced mortgage interest rates?

13. Would these products be prohibited or discouraged by existing regulations promulgated by the Bureau?

14. Should the Bureau (or other Federal regulators) amend regulations to permit or encourage the development of these products?

15. Are there other legal impediments or policies that may deter the introduction of auto-refi mortgages, one-way ARMs, or other new products that could facilitate beneficial refinances?

1. What are the benefits and drawbacks of automating and streamlining short and long-term loss mitigation offers?

2. If such automation and streamlining of loss mitigation offers is incorporated within new mortgage products:

a. How should such products be structured?

b. How and where should such features be established ( e.g., the note, contracts between investors and servicers, or regulations created or amended by the Bureau or other Federal regulators)?

3. Under what circumstances should short or long term loss mitigation solutions be offered automatically? For example, should forbearance be offered automatically upon the declaration of a national emergency or presidentially declared disaster, when unemployment rates in the consumer's locality reach a certain level, when a borrower loses their job, when a co-borrower on the loan dies, or under other circumstances? What factors should be considered regarding these circumstances? Should any documentation from the consumer be required in any of these circumstances?

4. For short-term loss mitigation solutions, such as forbearance, to what extent is there tension between the goal of offering meaningful immediate payment relief and the goal of ensuring that the balance owed does not grow so large as to make long-term loss mitigation solutions difficult to achieve? Should there be a maximum length of a short-term loss mitigation solution and, if so, what is the appropriate maximum length?

5. What impact would the Bureau's mortgage servicing regulations, such as those relating to communications with delinquent borrowers, the Bureau's regulatory definition of delinquency, and the loss mitigation process in general, have on automating and streamlining short and long-term loss mitigation offers?

6. What changes, if any, should be considered relating to the impact that forbearances and other short-term loss mitigation solutions would have on a consumer's credit reporting?

7. Should standards be set to ensure affordability of long-term loss mitigation solutions? If so, what features of a long-term loss mitigation solution would best help ensure long-term affordability? For example, would term extension, limits on monthly payment increases, or principal forgiveness assist with the goal of long-term affordability?

8. When considering the potential automation and streamlining of short and long-term loss mitigation offers, would there be advantages or drawbacks if more creditors retained servicing of the mortgage loans they originate? Do payment relief advantages exist when an original creditor retains servicing of a mortgage loan? If so, should the Bureau consider ways to encourage originators to retain the servicing of mortgage loans?

9. When considering the potential automation and streamlining of short and long-term loss mitigation offers, are there particular issues or would any particular approaches be more effective for certain types of homeowners, such as servicemembers, older adults, and first-time homeowners?

10. Other than the mortgage products already mentioned in this RFI, are there other mortgage products or features of mortgage products that could help borrowers weather various financial shocks? What are the advantages or drawbacks of these mortgage products or features of mortgage products?

11. Are there other options not mentioned in this RFI that could help achieve the goal of reducing risk for homeowners who are facing financial hardship? If so, what are those options?

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

Title of Collection: 2023-24 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:24) Field Test—Student Data Collection and Student Records.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0666.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 6,240.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 8,550.

Abstract: This request is to conduct the 2023-24 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Field Test (NPSAS:24 FT) student data collection, consisting of a student record data abstraction and a student survey, carrying over the approved NPSAS:24 FT Institution Collection (OMB #1859-0666 v. 33). This study is being conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), part of the U.S. Department of Education.

This submission covers materials and procedures related to the NPSAS:24 student data collection, which includes abstraction of student data from institutions and a student survey, administered primarily as a web survey, and carries over respondent burden, procedures, and materials related to the NPSAS:24 FT institution sampling, enrollment list collection, and matching to administrative data files as approved by OMB in September 2022 (OMB #1859-0666 v. 33). The materials and procedures are based on those developed for previous institution-based data collections, including the 2019-20 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20) [OMB #1850-0666 v. 25].

The first NPSAS was implemented by NCES during the 1986-87 academic year to meet the need for national data about significant financial aid issues. Since 1987, NPSAS has been fielded every 2 to 4 years, most recently during the 2019-20 academic year (NPSAS:20). NPSAS:24 will be nationally- representative. The NPSAS:24 field test sample size will be 6,000 students, and the full-scale sample will include 137,000 nationally representative undergraduate and 25,000 nationally representative graduate students who will be asked to complete a survey and for whom we will collect student records and administrative data. If the full-scale budget allows, we will include state-representative sampling for the full-scale collection and provide the budget for a state-representative sampling plan in the 30-day full-scale package, planned for 2023. Also, if exercised, NPSAS:24 will serve as the base year for the 2024 cohort of the Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B) Longitudinal Study and will include a nationally representative sample of students who will complete requirements for the bachelor's degree during the NPSAS year ( i.e., completed at some point between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023 for the field test and July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 for the full-scale). Subsets of questions in the student survey will focus on describing aspects of the experience of students in their last year of postsecondary education, including student debt and education experiences. This submission is designed to adequately justify the need for and overall practical utility of the full study, presenting the overarching plan for all phases of the student data collection and providing as much detail about the measures to be used as is available at the time of this submission.

As part of this submission, NCES is publishing a notice in the Federal Register allowing first a 60- and then a 30-day public comment period. Field test materials, procedures, and results will inform the full-scale study. After completion of this field test, NCES will publish a notice in the Federal Register allowing additional 30-day public comment period on the final details of the NPSAS:24 full-scale student records and student survey data collections.

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

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

OMB Control Number: 1850-0930.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 306.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,938.

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

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

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

Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: The Emission Guidelines for Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) fulfill the requirements of sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and affect the administrator of an air quality program in a state or United States protectorate with one or more existing commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units. These regulations apply to sources commencing construction on or before June 4, 2010, or to sources commencing modification or reconstruction between June 1, 2001, and August 7, 2013. The guidelines do not apply directly to CISWI unit owners and operators, since they are implemented through state implementation plans (SIP). If a state does not develop, adopt, and submit an approved state plan, or if a state's plan is not approved, the EPA must promulgate a Federal implementation plan to implement the emission guidelines in a state without its own SIP. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. In general, all emission guideline standards require initial notification reports, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to the emission guidelines.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units commencing construction either on or before June 4, 2010, or to sources commencing either modification or reconstruction between June 1, 2001 and August 7, 2013.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD).

Estimated number of respondents: 74 (total).

Frequency of response: Semiannually and annually.

Total estimated burden: 16,100 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $3,110,000 (per year), which includes $1,170,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in burden from the most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This is due to two considerations: (1) the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth rate for this industry is very low or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.

There is a slight increase in the capital and O&M costs due to an adjustment to the estimated cost per respondent to reflect 2020 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI), Equipment Cost Index, and the use of updated labor rates for continuous parameter monitoring from the most-recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report (September 2021).

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

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-0568.

Title: Sections 76.970, 76.971, and 76.975, Commercial Leased Access Rates, Terms and Conditions, and Dispute Resolution.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,677 respondents; 6,879 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours to 40 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory; Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 4(i), 303, and 612 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 532.

Total Annual Burden: 17,131 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $118,000.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements for this collection are contained in the following rule sections:

47 CFR 76.970(h) requires cable operators to provide prospective leased access programmers with the following information within 30 calendar days of the date on which a bona fide request for leased access information is made, provided that the programmer has remitted any application fee that the cable system operator requires up to a maximum of $100 per system-specific bona fide request (for systems subject to small system relief, cable operators are required to provide the following information within 45 calendar days of a bona fide request):

(a) How much of the cable operator's leased access set-aside capacity is available;

(b) a complete schedule of the operator's full-time leased access rates;

(c) rates associated with technical and studio costs; and

(d) if specifically requested, a sample leased access contract.

Bona fide requests, as used in this section, are defined as requests from potential leased access programmers that have provided the following information:

(a) The desired length of a contract term;

(b) the anticipated commencement date for carriage; and

(c) the nature of the programming.

All requests for leased access must be made in writing and must specify the date on which the request was sent to the operator. Operators must maintain supporting documentation to justify scheduled rates, including supporting contracts, calculations of the implicit fees, and justifications for all adjustments.

Cable system operators must disclose on their own websites, or through alternate means if they do not have their own websites, a contact name or title, telephone number, and email address for the person responsible for responding to requests for information about leased access channels.

47 CFR 76.971 requires cable operators to provide billing and collection services to leased access programmers unless they can demonstrate the existence of third-party billing and collection services which, in terms of cost and accessibility, offer leased access programmers an alternative substantially equivalent to that offered to comparable non-leased access programmers.

47 CFR 76.975(b) allows any person aggrieved by the failure or refusal of a cable operator to make commercial channel capacity available or to charge rates for such capacity in accordance with the relevant provisions of the statute or the implementing regulations to file a petition for relief with the Commission. Persons alleging that a cable operator's leased access rate is unreasonable must receive a determination of the cable operator's maximum permitted rate from an independent accountant prior to filing a petition. If parties cannot agree on a mutually acceptable accountant within five business days of the programmer's request for a review, they must each select an independent accountant on the sixth business day. These two accountants will then have five business days to select a third independent accountant to perform the review. To account for their more limited resources, operators of systems entitled to small system relief have 14 business days to select an independent accountant when no agreement can be reached.

47 CFR 76.975(c) requires that petitioners attach a copy of the final accountant's report to their petition where the petition is based on allegations that a cable operator's leased access rates are unreasonable.

47 CFR 76.975(e) provides that the cable operator or other respondent will have 30 days from service of the petition to file an answer. If a leased access rate is disputed, the answer must show that the rate charged is not higher than the maximum permitted rate for such leased access, and must be supported by the affidavit of a responsible company official. If, after an answer is submitted, the staff finds a prima facie violation of our rules, the staff may require a respondent to produce additional information, or specify other procedures necessary for resolution of the proceeding. Replies to answers must be filed within fifteen (15) days after submission of the answer.

The Board is modifying this system of records to reflect that the Board has eliminated its in-house health unit and to further clarify the scope of the records included in the system. Specifically, the Board is updating the “Categories of Records in the System” section as follows: (a) to remove the outdated references to the collection of information by the Board's Health Unit, which is now defunct; (b) to clarify that the system includes any medical records that an employee, contractor, applicant, or other individual may provide directly to the Board, including medical records relating to certain sick leave and other leave requests and reasonable accommodation requests; (c) to remove the reference to records relating to employees' workers' compensation claims, as those records are maintained by the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs; (d) to remove the reference to records regarding employees' use of the Board's exercise facilities as the Board does not collect such medical information; and (e) to remove the unclear and redundant reference to records regarding employees' participation in an occupational health services program. In light of these changes, the Board has made corresponding revisions to system's purpose, categories of individuals covered by the system, and the policies and practices for retention and disposal of records section.

The Board is also making general updates to the system. Specifically, the Board is updating the system location, the system manager, the authority for maintenance of the system, the record source categories, and the policies and practices for storage of records. The Board is also taking the opportunity to update the “Routine Uses” section to incorporate a link to the Board's general routine uses. The Board is not amending or establishing any new routine uses.

The Board is also making technical changes to BGFRS-3 consistent with the template laid out in OMB Circular No. A-108. Accordingly, the Board is making technical corrections and non-substantive language revisions to the following categories: “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,” and “Notification Procedures.” The Board is also adding the following new fields: “Security Classification” and “History.”

A. OMB Control Number, Title, and Any Associated Form(s)

9000-0136, Commercial Acquisitions.

This clearance covers the information that offerors must submit to comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements:

FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. Paragraph (b)(2) requires offerors to identify the applicable paragraphs at (c) through (v) of this provision that the offeror has completed for the purposes of the relevant solicitation only, if any. The provision stipulates that any changes provided by the offeror under paragraph (b)(2) are applicable to that specific solicitation only, and do not result in an update to the representations and certifications posted electronically in the System for Award Management. The contracting officer will use the information to determine a contractor's eligibility for award, and to incorporate appropriate terms and conditions into the contract award.

Respondents: 140,055.

Total Annual Responses: 414,909.

Total Burden Hours: 207,455.

A 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register at 87 FR 43039, on July 19, 2022. No comments were received.

Obtaining Copies: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the GSA Regulatory Secretariat Division by calling 202-501-4755 or emailing GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0136, Commercial Acquisitions.

In the Federal Register of May 20, 2022 (87 FR 31090), FDA published a notice with a 60-day comment period to request data and information on the current food contact uses, use levels, dietary exposure, and safety data on any ortho -phthalates currently used in food contact applications. We originally gave interested persons until July 19, 2022, to provide data and information.

Following publication of the notice, FDA received a request to allow interested parties additional time to comment. The request asserted that 60 days was insufficient to respond fully to FDA's specific requests for comments and to allow potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address pertinent issues and requested that FDA extend the comment period by an additional 6 months. We have considered this request and, because the request came too late for us to extend the comment period before it expired, we are reopening the comment period for 90 days. FDA believes that this additional 90 days will allow time for interested parties to submit data and other information to support our review of the current use levels and safe use of certain ortho- phthalates in food contact applications.

Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are required to adopt a floodplain management ordinance that meets or exceeds the minimum floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. In accordance with FEMA's minimum floodplain management criteria, communities must require that all new construction and substantial improvement of residential structures and non-residential structures have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to above the base flood elevation subject to 44 CFR 60.3(c)(2) and (3), unless, for residential structures, the community is granted an exception by FEMA for the allowance of basements under 44 CFR 60.6(b) or (c). New construction and substantial improvement of non-residential structures can also be floodproofed. This means that, together with attendant utility and sanitation facilities, they are designed such that below the base flood level the structure is watertight, with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability to resist hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. 44 CFR 60.3(c)(3)(ii). Use of the Elevation Certificate and Floodproofing Certificate is one convenient way for a community to document building compliance. Title 44 CFR 61.7 and 61.8 require proper investigation to estimate the risk premium rates necessary to provide flood insurance.

This proposed information collection previously published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2022, at 87 FR 13743, with a 60-day public comment period. FEMA received 17 public comments related to the Elevation Certificate and Floodproofing Certificate. Two of the comments were not relevant to this information collection. Two other comments only expressed approval of the changes made and provided no suggestions. Several comments provided suggestions that had already been addressed in the proposed revisions. Some comments will be considered for future iterations as improved technology capabilities allow. FEMA accepted many of the other suggestions that better clarified the information being requested and improved the instructions for use of the collection instruments. None of the comments received addressed cost and hour burden.

The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Title: Elevation Certificate/Floodproofing Certificate.

Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0008.

Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-152 (formerly 086-0-33), Elevation Certificate and FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-153 (formerly 086-0-34), Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential Structures.

Abstract: The Elevation Certificate and Floodproofing Certificate are used in conjunction with the Flood Insurance Application to determine a building's compliance with local floodplain management provisions and to document elevations in support of flood insurance premiums or discounts that align with the building's risk of damage from flooding. Respondents are primarily surveyors, architects, or engineers; individual property owners may opt to complete specified portions of the Elevation Certificate.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,517.

Estimated Number of Responses: 3,517.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,734.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $610,424.

Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.

Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $32,248.

Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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 Secretary is exercising authority under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9) to temporarily suspend the applicability of certain requirements governing on-campus and off-campus employment for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Burma regardless of country of birth (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Burma), who are present in the United States in lawful F-1 nonimmigrant student status on the date of publication of this notice, and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of current crisis in Burma. Effective with this publication, suspension of the employment limitations is available through May 25, 2024, for those who are in lawful F-1 nonimmigrant status on the date of publication of this notice. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student granted employment authorization through this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study” for the duration of the employment authorization, if the student satisfies the minimum course load set forth in this notice. 1 See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(F).

This notice applies exclusively to F-1 nonimmigrant students who meet all of the following conditions:

(1) Are a citizen of Burma regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Burma);

(2) Were lawfully present in the United States in F-1 nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), on the date of publication of this notice;

(3) Are enrolled in an academic institution that is Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified for enrollment for F-1 nonimmigrant students;

(4) Are currently maintaining F-1 nonimmigrant status; and

(5) Are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Burma.

This notice applies to F-1 nonimmigrant students in an approved private school in kindergarten through grade 12, public school grades 9 through 12, and undergraduate and graduate education. An F-1 nonimmigrant student covered by this notice who transfers to another SEVP-certified academic institution remains eligible for the relief provided by means of this notice.

DHS is taking action to provide relief to Burmese F-1 nonimmigrant students experiencing severe economic hardship due to exigent circumstances in Burma caused by the February 2021 military coup, which has led to continuing violence, arbitrary detentions, use of lethal violence against peaceful protesters, and the worsening of humanitarian conditions. Based on its review of country conditions in Burma and input received from the U.S. Department of State (DOS), DHS is taking action to allow eligible F-1 nonimmigrant students from Burma to request employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while school is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain F-1 nonimmigrant student status.

Since the military coup d'etat on February 1, 2021, the Burma military regime has widely committed human rights violations and abuses, including arbitrary detentions and the unwarranted use of deadly force against unarmed individuals. As a result of the crisis, nearly one million people are currently internally displaced throughout the country, bringing the total number of IDPs to nearly 1.3 million with pre-coup displacements, while more than 45,500 additional persons have sought refuge outside Burma since the coup. 2 Internally displaced persons and other vulnerable populations throughout the country now lack adequate and secure access to shelter, food, water and sanitation, health care, and education. Inflation and a shrinking economy are compounding this crisis and straining already under-resourced relief efforts. 3

In the period following the coup, fighting between the Burmese military and groups (many of them newly formed) resisting the military's seizure of power have expanded to most parts of the country, even regions that had previously seen little fighting.”  4 The report noted that the military has escalated  5 6 The crisis in Burma has caused over a million people to flee the country as refugees or to be displaced internally. Furthermore, though estimates are difficult to verify, about 12,700 “houses, churches, monasteries, and schools” appear to have been destroyed since the start of the violence, a level of destruction that “will make internally displaced persons returns more difficult even if the situation improves.”  7

The coup has also exacerbated the precarious human rights situation of members of the ethnic minority Rohingya, a group against whom the Secretary of State determined that members of the Burmese military had committed genocide and crimes against humanity. 8 Rohingya are forbidden by law from relocating within Burma and have been arrested since the 2021 coup when they have attempted to do so. 9 Rohingya attempting to flee Burma by boat have also perished at sea, as happened in May 2022, when 14 people died when their boat capsized as they were attempting to make the journey from Rakhine state to Malaysia. 10

As of May 31, 2022, 13.2 million persons [in Burma?] were estimated to face moderate to severe food insecurity with the greatest needs in areas affected by fighting. 11 Access to adequate food and nutrition is a major unmet need. Severe acute malnutrition is a threat to life, with only 2 percent of the 39,477 children aged 6-59 months old targeted for assistance having received treatment. 12 In some places, relief agencies are only recently beginning to be able to provide assistance to those rendered vulnerable by the destruction of property. Lack of resources, strong storms and heavy rain, and access and movement restrictions limit the United Nations (U.N.) and its partners from providing assistance to all of those in need. As of September 2022, only 50 percent (3.1 million people) of those targeted for relief in the U.N.'s 2022 Humanitarian Response Plan (6.2 million people) had been reached with humanitarian assistance. 13

The ongoing violence and the resulting displacement in Burma have caused major vulnerabilities related to (1) shelter, (2) food security and nutrition, (3) water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), (4) health and (5) education for persons in Burma. 14 Lack of personnel, facilities and supplies is contributing to a “worsening of maternal and child health outcomes,” as well as “poor emergency care” for pregnant women, victims of fighting, and persons with other related and unrelated injuries, all of which is anticipated to result in increased numbers of avoidable deaths. 15

The coup and the instability it has created (within and outside of Burma) have deteriorated Burma's economic conditions, worsening the crisis. The Burmese currency, the kyat, has experienced extreme volatility since the coup, as Burma's economy shrank by 18% in the year leading up to September 2021, critical services such as banking, telecommunications, health, and education were disrupted, and economic sanctions that had been lifted as Burma had transitioned toward democracy were reimposed. 16 Increasing commodity prices, particularly for food and fuel, are causing distress for thousands of people across the country. In addition to affecting Burmese people's purchasing power for essential items such as food, rising prices are beginning to affect the work of relief agencies, particularly those supplying food and shelter. 17

In summary, more than a year after the Burmese military perpetrated a coup, human rights violations and abuses, including sexual violence, disappearances, excessive use of force, and killings, are occurring in most parts of the country. As a result, more than one million people are currently internally displaced throughout the country, while more than 45,500 additional persons have sought refuge in neighboring countries giving rise to major vulnerabilities related to shelter, food security, and the country's economy.

As of July 27, 2022, approximately 2,140 F-1 nonimmigrant students from Burma are enrolled at SEVP-certified academic institutions in the United States. Given the extent of the current crisis in Burma, affected students whose primary means of financial support comes from Burma may need to be exempt from the normal student employment requirements to continue their studies in the United States. The current crisis has made it unfeasible for many students to safely return to Burma for the foreseeable future. Without employment authorization, these students may lack the means to meet basic living expenses.

Undergraduate F-1 nonimmigrant students who receive on-campus or off-campus employment authorization under this notice must remain registered for a minimum of six semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term. Undergraduate F-1 nonimmigrant students enrolled in a term of different duration must register for at least one half of the credit hours normally required under a “full course of study.” See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(B) and (F). A graduate-level F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives on-campus or off-campus employment authorization under this notice must remain registered for a minimum of three semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v). Nothing in this notice affects the applicability of other minimum course load requirements set by the academic institution.

In addition, an F-1 nonimmigrant student (either undergraduate or graduate) granted on-campus or off-campus employment authorization under this notice may count up to the equivalent of one class or three credits per session, term, semester, trimester, or quarter of online or distance education toward satisfying this minimum course load requirement, unless their course of study is in an English language study program. 18 See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(G). An F-1 nonimmigrant student attending an approved private school in kindergarten through grade 12 or public school in grades 9 through 12 must maintain “class attendance for not less than the minimum number of hours a week prescribed by the school for normal progress toward graduation,” as required under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(E). Nothing in this notice affects the applicability of federal and state labor laws limiting the employment of minors.

Yes. An F-1 nonimmigrant student who is a Burmese citizen, regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Burma), who already has on-campus or off-campus employment authorization and is otherwise eligible may benefit under this notice, which suspends certain regulatory requirements relating to the minimum course load requirement under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i) and certain employment eligibility requirements under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9). Such an eligible F-1 nonimmigrant student may benefit without having to apply for a new Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document (EAD). To benefit from this notice, the F-1 nonimmigrant student must request that their designated school official (DSO) enter the following statement in the remarks field of the student's Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) record, which the student's Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student Status, will reflect:

Approved for more than 20 hours per week of [DSO must insert “on-campus” or “off-campus,” depending upon the type of employment authorization the student already has] employment authorization and reduced course load under the Special Student Relief authorization from [DSO must insert the beginning date of the notice or the beginning date of the student's employment, whichever date is later] until [DSO must insert either the student's program end date, the current EAD expiration date (if the student is currently authorized for off-campus employment), or the end date of this notice, whichever date comes first]. 19

No. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives and comports with the employment authorization permitted under this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study”  20 for the duration of the student's employment authorization, provided that a qualifying undergraduate level F-1 nonimmigrant student remains registered for a minimum of six semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term, and a qualifying graduate level F-1 nonimmigrant student remains registered for a minimum of three semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v) and (f)(6)(i)(F). Undergraduate F-1 nonimmigrant students enrolled in a term of different duration must register for at least one half of the credit hours normally required under a “full course of study.” See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(B) and (F). DHS will not require such students to apply for reinstatement under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(16) if they are otherwise maintaining F-1 nonimmigrant status.

No. An F-2 spouse or minor child of an F-1 nonimmigrant student is not authorized to work in the United States and, therefore, may not accept employment under the F-2 nonimmigrant status, consistent with 8 CFR 214.2(f)(15)(i).

No. The suspension of the applicability of the standard regulatory requirements only applies to certain F-1 nonimmigrant students who meet the following conditions:

(1) Are a citizen of Burma regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Burma);

(2) Were lawfully present in the United States in F-1 nonimmigrant status, under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i) on the date of publication of this notice;

(3) Are enrolled in an academic institution that is SEVP-certified for enrollment of F-1 nonimmigrant students;

(4) Are maintaining F-1 nonimmigrant status; and

(5) Are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Burma.

An F-1 nonimmigrant student who does not meet all these requirements is ineligible for the suspension of the applicability of the standard regulatory requirements (even if experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Burma).

Yes. This notice applies to such an F-1 nonimmigrant student, but only if the DSO has properly notated the student's SEVIS record, which will then appear on the student's Form I-20. The normal rules for visa issuance remain applicable to a nonimmigrant who needs to apply for a new F-1 visa to continue an educational program in the United States.

Yes. However, this notice does not by itself reduce the required course load for F-1 nonimmigrant students from Burma enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12 at a private school, or grades 9 through 12 at a public high school. Such students must maintain the minimum number of hours of class attendance per week prescribed by the academic institution for normal progress toward graduation, as required under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(E). The suspension of certain regulatory requirements related to employment through this notice is applicable to all eligible F-1 nonimmigrant students regardless of educational level. Eligible F-1 nonimmigrant students from Burma enrolled in an elementary school, middle school, or high school may benefit from the suspension of the requirement in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) that limits on-campus employment to 20 hours per week while school is in session.

Yes. For an F-1 nonimmigrant student covered in this notice, the Secretary is suspending the applicability of the requirement in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) that limits an F-1 nonimmigrant student's on-campus employment to 20 hours per week while school is in session. An eligible F-1 nonimmigrant student has authorization to work more than 20 hours per week while school is in session if the DSO has entered the following statement in the remarks field of the student's SEVIS record, which will be reflected on the student's Form I-20:

Approved for more than 20 hours per week of on-campus employment and reduced course load, under the Special Student Relief authorization from [DSO must insert the beginning date of this notice or the beginning date of the student's employment, whichever date is later] until [DSO must insert the student's program end date or the end date of this notice, whichever date comes first]. 21

To obtain on-campus employment authorization, the F-1 nonimmigrant student must demonstrate to the DSO that the employment is necessary to avoid severe economic hardship directly resulting from the current crisis in Burma. An F-1 nonimmigrant student authorized by the DSO to engage in on-campus employment by means of this notice does not need to file any applications with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The standard rules permitting full-time employment on-campus when school is not in session or during school vacations apply, as described in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i).

Yes. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives on-campus employment authorization under this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study”  22 for the purpose of maintaining their F-1 nonimmigrant student status for the duration of the on-campus employment, if the student satisfies the minimum course load requirement described in this notice, consistent with 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(F). However, the authorization to reduce the normal course load is solely for DHS purposes of determining valid F-1 nonimmigrant student status. Nothing in this notice mandates that school officials allow an F-1 nonimmigrant student to take a reduced course load if the reduction would not meet the academic institution's minimum course load requirement for continued enrollment. 23

For an F-1 nonimmigrant student covered by this notice, as provided under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(A), the Secretary is suspending the following regulatory requirements relating to off-campus employment:

(a) The requirement that a student must have been in F-1 nonimmigrant student status for one full academic year to be eligible for off-campus employment;

(b) The requirement that an F-1 nonimmigrant student must demonstrate that acceptance of employment will not interfere with the student's carrying a full course of study;

(c) The requirement that limits an F-1 nonimmigrant student's employment authorization to no more than 20 hours per week of off-campus employment while the school is in session; and

(d) The requirement that the student demonstrate that employment under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) is unavailable or otherwise insufficient to meet the needs that have arisen as a result of the unforeseen circumstances.

Yes. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives off-campus employment authorization by means of this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study”  24 for the purpose of maintaining F-1 nonimmigrant student status for the duration of the student's employment authorization if the student satisfies the minimum course load requirement described in this notice, consistent with 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(F). However, the authorization for a reduced course load is solely for DHS purposes of determining valid F-1 nonimmigrant student status. Nothing in this notice mandates that school officials allow an F-1 nonimmigrant student to take a reduced course load if such reduced course load would not meet the school's minimum course load requirement. 25

An F-1 nonimmigrant student must file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, with USCIS to apply for off-campus employment authorization based on severe economic hardship directly resulting from the current crisis in Burma. 26 Filing instructions are located at https://www.uscis.gov/i-765.

Fee considerations. Submission of a Form I-765 currently requires payment of a $410 fee. An applicant who is unable to pay the fee may submit a completed Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver, along with the Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. See www.uscis.gov/feewaiver. The submission must include an explanation about why USCIS should grant the fee waiver and the reason(s) for the inability to pay, and any evidence to support the reason(s). See 8 CFR 103.7(c).

Supporting documentation. An F-1 nonimmigrant student seeking off-campus employment authorization due to severe economic hardship must demonstrate the following to their DSO:

(1) This employment is necessary to avoid severe economic hardship; and

(2) The hardship is a direct result of the current crisis in Burma.

If the DSO agrees that the F-1 nonimmigrant student is entitled to receive such employment authorization, the DSO must recommend application approval to USCIS by entering the following statement in the remarks field of the student's SEVIS record, which will then appear on that student's Form I-20:

Recommended for off-campus employment authorization in excess of 20 hours per week and reduced course load under the Special Student Relief authorization from the date of the USCIS authorization noted on Form I-766 until [DSO must insert the program end date or the end date of this notice, whichever date comes first]. 27

The F-1 nonimmigrant student must then file the properly endorsed Form I-20 and Form I-765 according to the instructions for the Form I-765. The F-1 nonimmigrant student may begin working off campus only upon receipt of the EAD from USCIS.

DSO recommendation. In making a recommendation that an F-1 nonimmigrant student be approved for Special Student Relief, the DSO certifies that:

(a) The F-1 nonimmigrant student is in good academic standing and is carrying a “full course of study”  28 at the time of the request for employment authorization;

(b) The F-1 nonimmigrant student is a citizen of Burma, regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Burma), and is experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Burma, as documented on the Form I-20;

(c) The F-1 nonimmigrant student has confirmed that the student will comply with the reduced course load requirements of this notice and register for the duration of the authorized employment for a minimum of six semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term if at the undergraduate level, or for a minimum of three semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term if the student is at the graduate level;  29 and

(d) The off-campus employment is necessary to alleviate severe economic hardship to the individual as a direct result of the current crisis in Burma.

Processing. To facilitate prompt adjudication of the student's application for off-campus employment authorization under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C), the F-1 nonimmigrant student should do both of the following:

(a) Ensure that the application package includes the following documents:

(1) A completed Form I-765 with all applicable supporting evidence;

(2) The required fee or properly documented fee waiver request as defined in 8 CFR 103.7(c); and

(3) A signed and dated copy of the student's Form I-20 with the appropriate DSO recommendation, as previously described in this notice; and

(b) Send the application in an envelope which is clearly marked on the front of the envelope, bottom right-hand side, with the phrase “SPECIAL STUDENT RELIEF.” Failure to include this notation may result in significant processing delays.

If USCIS approves the student's Form I-765, USCIS will send the student a Form I-766 EAD as evidence of employment authorization. The EAD will contain an expiration date that does not exceed the end of the granted temporary relief.

Yes. An F-1 nonimmigrant student who has not yet applied for TPS or for other relief that reduces the student's course load per term and permits an increased number of work hours per week, such as Special Student Relief, 30 under this notice has two options.

Under the first option, the nonimmigrant student may apply for TPS according to the instructions in the USCIS notice designating Burma for TPS elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . All TPS applicants must file a Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status with the appropriate fee (or request a fee waiver). Although not required to do so, if F-1 nonimmigrant students want to obtain a new TPS-related EAD that is valid through May 25, 2024, they must file Form I-765 and pay the Form I-765 fee (or request a Fee Waiver). An F-1 student who already has a TPS-related EAD will benefit from an automatic extension of the EAD through November 25, 2023, through the Federal Register notice extending the designation of Burma for TPS. A Burma TPS-related EAD can also be automatically extended for up to 540 days  31 if an F-1 nonimmigrant student who is a TPS beneficiary properly files a renewal Form I-765 application and pays the Form I-765 fee (or requests a Fee Waiver) during the filing period described in the Federal Register notice extending the designation of Burma for TPS, but no later than October 26, 2023. After receiving the TPS-related EAD, an F-1 nonimmigrant student may request that their DSO make the required entry in SEVIS, issue an updated Form I-20, as described in this notice, and notate that the nonimmigrant student has been authorized to carry a reduced course load and is working pursuant to a TPS-related EAD. So long as the nonimmigrant student maintains the minimum course load described in this notice, does not otherwise violate their nonimmigrant status, including as provided under 8 CFR 214.1(g), and maintains TPS, then the student maintains F-1 status and TPS concurrently.

Under the second option, the nonimmigrant student may apply for an EAD under Special Student Relief by filing Form I-765 with the location specified in the filing instructions. At the same time, the F-1 nonimmigrant student may file a separate TPS application but must submit the Form I-821 according to the instructions provided in the Federal Register notice designating Burma for TPS. If the F-1 nonimmigrant student has already applied for employment authorization under Special Student Relief, they are not required to submit the Form I-765 as part of the TPS application. However, some nonimmigrant students may wish to obtain a TPS EAD in light of certain extensions that may be available to EADs with an A-12 or C-19 category code that are not available to the C-3 category under which Special Student Relief falls. The nonimmigrant student should check the appropriate box when filling out Form I-821 to indicate whether a TPS-related EAD is being requested. Again, so long as the nonimmigrant student maintains the minimum course load described in this notice and does not otherwise violate the student's nonimmigrant status, included as provided under 8 CFR 214.1(g), the nonimmigrant will be able to maintain compliance requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant student status while having TPS.

The F-1 nonimmigrant student must maintain normal course load requirements for a “full course of study”  32 unless or until the nonimmigrant student receives employment authorization under this notice. TPS-related employment authorization, by itself, does not authorize a nonimmigrant student to drop below twelve credit hours, or otherwise applicable minimum requirements ( e.g., clock hours for non-traditional academic programs). Once approved for Special Student Relief employment authorization, the F-1 nonimmigrant student may drop below twelve credit hours, or otherwise applicable minimum requirements (with a minimum of six semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term if at the undergraduate level, or for a minimum of three semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term if at the graduate level). See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v), (f)(6), and (f)(9)(i) and (ii).

There is no further application process with USCIS if a student has been approved for a TPS-related EAD. The F-1 nonimmigrant student must demonstrate and provide documentation to the DSO of the direct economic hardship resulting from the current crisis in Burma. The DSO will then verify and update the student's record in SEVIS to enable the F-1 nonimmigrant student with TPS to reduce the course load without any further action or application. No other EAD needs to be issued for the F-1 nonimmigrant student to have employment authorization.

Yes. Regulations permit certain students who fall out of F-1 nonimmigrant student status to apply for reinstatement. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(16). This provision might apply to students who worked on a TPS-related EAD or dropped their course load before publication of this notice, and therefore fell out of student status. These students must satisfy the criteria set forth in the F-1 nonimmigrant student status reinstatement regulations.

This notice grants temporary relief until May 25, 2024, 33 to eligible F-1 nonimmigrant students. DHS will continue to monitor the situation in Burma. Should the special provisions authorized by this notice need modification or extension, DHS will announce such changes in the Federal Register .

An F-1 nonimmigrant student seeking off-campus employment authorization due to severe economic hardship resulting from the current crisis in Burma must demonstrate to the DSO that this employment is necessary to avoid severe economic hardship. A DSO who agrees that a nonimmigrant student should receive such employment authorization must recommend an application approval to USCIS by entering information in the remarks field of the student's SEVIS record. The authority to collect this information is in the SEVIS collection of information currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 1653-0038.

This notice also allows an eligible F-1 nonimmigrant student to request employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while the academic institution is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain F-1 nonimmigrant student status.

To apply for employment authorization, certain F-1 nonimmigrant students must complete and submit a currently approved Form I-765 according to the instructions on the form. OMB has previously approved the collection of information contained on the current Form I-765, consistent with the PRA (OMB Control No. 1615-0040). Although there will be a slight increase in the number of Form I-765 filings because of this notice, the number of filings currently contained in the OMB annual inventory for Form I-765 is sufficient to cover the additional filings. Accordingly, there is no further action required under the PRA.

Comments

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) 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.

(1) Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement with Change of a Previously Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigration Bond.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: I-352; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individual or Households; Business or other for-profit. The data collected on this collection instrument is used by ICE to ensure that the person or company posting the bond is aware of the duties and responsibilities associated with the bond. The collection instrument serves the purpose of instruction in the completion of the form, together with an explanation of the terms and conditions of the bond. Sureties have the capability of accessing, completing, and submitting delivery, voluntary departure, and order of supervision bonds electronically through ICE's eBonds system which encompasses the I-352, while individuals are still required to complete the bond form manually and sureties will be required to submit maintenance of status and departure bonds manually.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 59,897 responses at 30 minutes (.50 hours) per response.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual burden is 30,500 hours.

Through this notice, DHS sets forth procedures necessary for nationals of Burma (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Burma) to (1) re-register for TPS and to apply for renewal of their EADs with USCIS or (2) submit an initial registration application under the redesignation and apply for an EAD.

Re-registration is limited to individuals who have previously registered for TPS under the prior designation of Burma and whose applications have been granted. Failure to re-register properly during the 60-day re-registration period may result in the withdrawal of your TPS following appropriate procedures. See 8 CFR 244.14.

For individuals who have already been granted TPS under Burma's designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from September 27, 2022 through November 26, 2022. USCIS will issue new EADs with a May 25, 2024 expiration date to eligible Burmese TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs. Given the time frames involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants may receive new EADs before their current EADs expire. Accordingly, through this Federal Register notice, DHS automatically extends the validity of EADs previously issued under the TPS designation of Burma through November 25, 2023. Therefore, as proof of continued employment authorization through November 25, 2023, TPS beneficiaries can show their EADs that have the notation A-12 or C-19 under Category and a “Card Expires” date of November 25, 2022. This notice explains how TPS beneficiaries and their employers may determine which EADs are automatically extended and how this affects the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, E-Verify, and USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) processes.

Individuals who have a Burma TPS application (Form I-821) and/or Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) that was still pending as of September 27, 2022 do not need to file either application again. If USCIS approves an individual's Form I-821, USCIS will grant the individual TPS through May 25, 2024. Similarly, if USCIS approves a pending TPS-related Form I-765, USCIS will issue the individual a new EAD that will be valid through the same date.

Under the redesignation, individuals who currently do not have TPS may submit an initial application during the initial registration period that runs from September 27, 2022 and runs through the full length of the redesignation period ending May 25, 2024. 1 In addition to demonstrating continuous residence in the United States since September 25, 2022 and meeting other eligibility criteria, initial applicants for TPS under this redesignation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since November 26, 2022, 2 the effective date of this redesignation of Burma, before USCIS may grant them TPS. DHS estimates that approximately 2,290 individuals may become newly eligible for TPS under the redesignation of Burma.

• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a foreign state designated for TPS under the INA, or to eligible individuals without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated foreign state, regardless of their country of birth.

• During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS. They may apply for and receive EADs as evidence of employment authorization.

• TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.

• To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(1)-(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)-(2).

• When the Secretary terminates a foreign state's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to one of the following:

○ The same immigration status or category that they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status or category has since expired or terminated); or

○ Any other lawfully obtained immigration status or category they received while registered for TPS, as long as it is still valid beyond the date TPS terminates.

Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, initially designated Burma for TPS on May 25, 2021, on the basis of extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevented nationals of Burma from returning in safety. See Designation of Burma Temporary Protected Status, 86 FR 28132 (May 25, 2021).

Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist. 3 The decision to designate any foreign state (or part thereof) is a discretionary decision, and there is no judicial review of any determination with respect to the designation, termination, or extension of a designation. See INA section 244(b)(5)(A); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(5)(A). 4 The Secretary, in his or her discretion, may then grant TPS to eligible nationals of that foreign state (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in the designated foreign state). See INA section 244(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(A).

At least 60 days before the expiration of a foreign state's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether they continue to meet the conditions for the TPS designation. See INA section 244(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). If the Secretary determines that the foreign state continues to meet the conditions for TPS designation, the designation will be extended for an additional period of 6 months or, in the Secretary's discretion, 12 or 18 months. See INA section 244(b)(3)(A), (C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A), (C). If the Secretary determines that the foreign state no longer meets the conditions for TPS designation, the Secretary must terminate the designation. See INA section 244(b)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(B).

In addition to extending an existing TPS designation, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, may redesignate a country (or part thereof) for TPS if conditions support such a designation. See section 244(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1); see also section 244(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(A)(i) (requiring that “the alien has been continuously physically present since the effective date of the most recent designation of the state ”) (emphasis added). 5

When the Secretary designates or redesignates a country for TPS, the Secretary also has the discretion to establish the date from which TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have been “continuously resid[ing]” in the United States. See section 244(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(A)(ii). The Secretary has determined that the “continuous residence” date for applicants for TPS under the redesignation of Burma will be September 25, 2022. Initial applicants for TPS under this redesignation must also show they have been “continuously physically present” in the United States since November 26, 2022, which is the effective date of the Secretary's redesignation, of Burma. See section 244(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(A)(i). For each initial TPS application filed under the redesignation, the final determination of whether the applicant has met the “continuous physical presence” requirement cannot be made until November 26, 2022, the effective date of this redesignation for Burma. USCIS, however, will issue employment authorization documentation, as appropriate, during the registration period in accordance with 8 CFR 244.5(b).

DHS has reviewed country conditions in Burma. Based on the review, including consultation with DOS and other U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that an 18-month TPS extension is warranted because the extraordinary and temporary conditions supporting Burma's TPS designation remain. The Secretary has further determined that redesignating Burma for TPS under section 244(b)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C) of the Act is warranted and is changing the “continuous residence” and “continuous physical presence” dates that applicants must meet to be eligible for TPS.

DHS has conducted a thorough review of country conditions in Burma. Since the February 1, 2021 military coup d'état, the military regime has widely committed human rights violations and abuses, including arbitrary detentions and the unwarranted use of deadly force against unarmed individuals. 6 As a result, more than 974,000 people have been internally displaced since the coup, bringing the total number of IDPs to nearly 1.3 million people when including pre-coup displacements, and more than 45,500 additional persons have sought refuge outside Burma since the coup. 7 Internally displaced persons and other vulnerable populations throughout the country now lack adequate and secure access to shelter, food, water and sanitation, health care, and education and are therefore also increasingly vulnerable to trafficking.

In the period following the coup, fighting between the Burmese military and groups (many of them newly formed) resisting the military's seizure of power have expanded to most parts of the country, even regions where clashes had not been seen in decades. 8 For example, shortly after its inception, the group known as the “National Unity Government” (NUG), created an armed component to purportedly lead overall direction for resistance forces, which it refers to as the People's Defense Force (PDF). 9 However, the growing capacity of the PDF and other forces opposed to military rule has coincided with greater instability, with hundreds of civilians killed in clashes between the military and the PDF and hundreds of thousands displaced. 10 Additionally, “nearly 26,000 civilian properties, including houses, churches, monasteries, and schools are estimated to have been destroyed during hostilities, although figures are difficult to verify.”  11 Since the coup, an additional 1,835 persons were killed and 10,600 arrested due to activities unrelated to the ongoing fighting, mainly during the continuing anti-coup protests. 12 On October 21, 2021, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Database (ACLED) reported that over 60% of the world's demonstrators killed by state actors died in Burma, thus naming it “the deadliest country for demonstrators.”  13

On March 15, 2022, the United Nations (U.N.) High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, asked the international community to take “concerted, immediate measures to stem the spiral of violence [in Burma],”  14 referencing a report from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) finding that the Burmese military forces target civilians and continue to use explosive weapons with wide-ranging effects in populated areas. 15 On March 16, 2022, the U.N. Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar issued a report detailing human rights abuses committed by the Burmese military since the February 2021 coup. The report noted that the military has escalated what it labeled “indiscriminate attacks against civilians using jet fighters, attack helicopters and heavy artillery.”  16 It added that “soldiers have burned entire villages to the ground. Civilians and combatants have been tortured, raped, executed, and used as human shields. 17 The U.S. Institute of Peace observed that, one year after the coup, “the violence has descended into full-scale civil war,” with devastating effects on civilians as the Burmese military used “heavy weapons and air assaults, wiping out entire villages in attempts to dislodge EAOs [ethnic armed organizations] and PDFs.”  18

The coup pushed Burma into a volatile political and security situation “heavily impact[ing] [Burma's] emerging economy and the [country's] already fragile public service sector, further restricting people's access to essential services and children's access to education.”  19 “This multi-dimensional humanitarian crisis [has] affect[ed] the whole country,”  20 causing large numbers of persons to flee the country as refugees or to be displaced internally. Displacement has increased exponentially since February 2021. 21

Furthermore, though estimates are difficult to verify, about “26,000 civilian properties, including houses, churches, monasteries, and schools”  22 appear to have been destroyed since the start of the violence, a level of destruction that “will make IDP [internally displaced persons] returns more difficult even if the situation improves.”  23

The 2021 DOS Country Report on Human Rights Practices indicated there were reports that the military regime's security forces and some resistance organizations have engaged in “killings, disappearances, excessive use of force, disregard for civilian life, sexual violence, and other abuses.”  24 According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, as of June 2, 2022, there were 10,870 people currently under detention in connection with the February 2021 coup. 25 As of June 2, 2022, 13,926 had been arrested in connection with the coup, 3,035 persons had been released from detention, and 1,883 persons had been killed in connection with the coup. 26

The coup has also exacerbated the precarious human rights situation of members of the ethnic minority Rohingya. In March 2022, the U.S. Secretary of State determined that members of the Burmese military had committed genocide and crimes against humanity against Rohingya. 27 Rohingya are forbidden by law from relocating within Burma and have been arrested since the 2021 coup when they have attempted to do so. 28 Rohingya attempting to flee Burma by boat have also perished at sea, as happened in May 2022 when 14 people died when their boat capsized as they were attempting to make the journey from Rakhine state to Malaysia. 29

As of May 31, 2022, 4.1 million persons were estimated to face moderate to severe food insecurity with the greatest needs in violence-affected rural areas. 30 Access to adequate food and nutrition is a major unmet need. Severe acute malnutrition is a threat to life, with only 2 percent of the 39,477 children aged 6-59 months old targeted for assistance having received treatment. 31 In some places, relief agencies are only recently beginning to be able to provide assistance to those rendered vulnerable by the destruction of civilian property. It was only in April 2022, for example, that UNHCR became the first U.N. agency to gain access to Kayah state, at which time they began to distribute relief supplies, including supplies related to shelter, food and sanitation, to persons in need, including internally displaced persons and returnees. 32 Lack of resources, strong storms and heavy rain, and access and movement restrictions limit the U.N. and its partners from providing assistance to all of those in need. 33 As of September 2022, only 50 percent (3.1 million people) of those targeted for relief in the U.N.'s 2022 Humanitarian Response Plan (6.2 million people) had been reached with humanitarian assistance. 34

The ongoing violence and the resulting displacement in Burma have caused major vulnerabilities related to (1) shelter, (2) food security and nutrition, (3) water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), (4) health, and (5) education. 35 Lack of personnel, facilities, and supplies is contributing to a “worsening of maternal and child health outcomes,” as well as to “poor emergency care” for pregnant women, victims of fighting, and persons with other related and unrelated injuries, all of which is anticipated to result in increased numbers of avoidable deaths. 36

The coup and the ensuing protests repudiating it by the Burmese (within and outside of Burma) have deteriorated Burma's economic conditions, worsening the humanitarian crisis. The Burmese currency, the kyat, has experienced extreme volatility since the coup, as Burma's economy shrank by 18% in the year leading up to September 2021. 37 Critical services such as banking, telecommunications, health, and education were disrupted, and economic sanctions that had been lifted as Burma had transitioned toward democracy were reimposed. 38 Increasing commodity prices, particularly for food and fuel, are causing distress for thousands of people across the country. In addition to affecting Burmese people's purchasing power for essential items such as food, rising prices are beginning to affect the work of relief agencies, particularly those supplying food and shelter. 39

In summary, more than a year after the Burmese military perpetrated a coup, human rights violations and abuses including sexual violence, disappearances, excessive use of force, and killings are occurring in most parts of the country. As a result, more than 974,000 people are currently internally displaced throughout the country, while more than 45,500 remain in neighboring countries after fleeing since the coup. Burma was economically vulnerable when the coup took place, but has since “suffered further economic decline, with mass job losses, business closures and the weakening of the [country's] currency, which has affected households across the country.”  40 As a result, major vulnerabilities related to shelter, food security, human trafficking risks, and the country's economy have arisen as Burmese families have lost on average more than half of their income since the February 2021.

Based upon this review and after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that:

• The conditions supporting Burma's designation for TPS continue to be met. See INA section 244(b)(3)(A) and (C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A) and (C).

• There continue to be extraordinary and temporary conditions in Burma that prevent Burmese nationals (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Burma) from returning to Burma in safety, and it is not contrary to the national interest of the United States to permit Burmese TPS beneficiaries to remain in the United States temporarily. See INA section 244(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C).

• The designation of Burma for TPS should be extended for an 18-month period, from November 26, 2022, through May 25, 2024. See INA section 244(b)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C).

• Due to the conditions described above, Burma should be simultaneously redesignated for TPS effective November 26, 2022, through May 25, 2024. See section 244(b)(1)(A) and (C) and (b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(A) and (C) and (b)(2).

• The Secretary has determined that TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have continuously resided in the United States since September 25, 2022.

• Initial TPS applicants under the redesignation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since November 26, 2022, the effective date of the redesignation of Burma for TPS.

• It is estimated that approximately 2,290 additional individuals may be eligible for TPS under the redesignation of Burma. This population includes Burmese nationals who have entered the United States since March 11, 2021, who are in nonimmigrant status or without immigration status.

By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after consultation with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the statutory conditions supporting Burma's designation for TPS on the basis of extraordinary and temporary conditions are met. See INA section 244(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C). On the basis of this determination, I am simultaneously extending the existing designation of TPS for Burma for 18 months, from November 26, 2022, through May 25, 2024, and redesignating Burma for TPS for the same 18-month period. See INA section 244(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C), and (b)(2).

To register for TPS based on the designation of Burma, you must submit a Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, and pay the filing fee (or request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver). You may be required to pay the biometric services fee. If you can demonstrate an inability to pay the biometric services fee, you may request to have the fee waived. Please see additional information under the “Biometric Services Fee” section of this notice.

TPS beneficiaries are authorized to work in the United States. You are not required to submit Form I-765 or have an EAD but see below for more information if you want to work in the United States.

Individuals who have a Burma TPS application (Form I-821) that was still pending as of September 27, 2022 do not need to file the application again. If USCIS approves an individual's Form I-821, USCIS will grant the individual TPS through May 25, 2024.

For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at uscis.gov/tps. Fees for the Form I-821, the Form I-765, and biometric services are also described in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i).

Every employee must provide their employer with documentation showing that they have the legal right to work in the United States. TPS beneficiaries are eligible for an EAD, which proves their legal right to work. Those who want to obtain an EAD must file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and pay the Form I-765 fee (or request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver). TPS applicants may file this form along with their TPS application, or at a later date, provided their TPS application is still pending or has been approved. Beneficiaries with a Burmese TPS-related Form I-765 application that was still pending as of September 27, 2022 do not need to file the application again. If USCIS approves a pending TPS-related Form I-765, USCIS will issue the individual a new EAD that will be valid through May 25, 2024.

If you receive a denial of a fee waiver request, you must refile your Form I-821 for TPS along with the required fees during the registration period, which extends until May 25, 2024. You may also file for your Form I-765 with payment of the fee along with your TPS application or at any later date you decide you want to request an EAD during the registration period.

USCIS offers the option to applicants for TPS under Burma's designation to file Form I-821 and related requests for EADs online or by mail. When filing a TPS application, applicants can also request an EAD by submitting a completed Form I-765, Request for Employment Authorization, with their Form I-821.

Online filing: Form I-821 and I-765 are available for concurrent filing online. 41 To file these forms online, you must first create a USCIS online account. 42

Mail filing: Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.

Mail your completed Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status; Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver (if applicable); and supporting documentation to the proper address in Table 1.

If you were granted TPS by an immigration judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and you wish to request an EAD, please mail your Form I-765 application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1. When you are requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will help us verify your grant of TPS and process your application.

The filing instructions on the Form I-821 list all the documents needed to establish eligibility for TPS. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying (that is, registering) for TPS on the USCIS website at uscis.gov/tps under “Burma.”

TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion. You must file for travel authorization if you wish to travel outside of the United States. If granted, travel authorization gives you permission to leave the United States and return during a specific period. To request travel authorization, you must file Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, available at www.uscis.gov/i-131. You may file Form I-131 together with your Form I-821 or separately. When filing the Form I-131, you must:

• Select Item Number 1.d. in Part 2 on the Form I-131; and

• Submit the fee for the Form I-131, or request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver.

If you are filing Form I-131 together with Form I-821, send your forms to the address listed in Table 1. If you are filing Form I-131 separately based on a pending or approved Form I-821, send your form to the address listed in Table 2 and include a copy of Form I-797 for the approved or pending Form I-821.

Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years of age and older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay the biometric services fee, you may request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at uscis.gov/tps. If necessary, you may be required to visit an Application Support Center to have your biometrics captured. For additional information on the USCIS biometric screening process, please see the USCIS Customer Profile Management Service Privacy Impact Assessment, available at dhs.gov/privacy.

To get case status information about your TPS application, as well as the status of your TPS-based EAD request, you can check Case Status Online at uscis.gov, or visit the USCIS Contact Center at uscis.gov/contactcenter. If your Form I-765 has been pending for more than 90 days, and you still need assistance, you may ask a question about your case online at egov.uscis.gov/e-request/Intro.do or call the USCIS Contact Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

Yes. Regardless of your country of birth, provided that you currently have a Burma TPS-based EAD that has the notation A-12 or C-19 under Category and a “Card Expires” date of November 25, 2022, this Federal Register notice automatically extends your EAD through November 25, 2023. Although this Federal Register notice automatically extends your EAD through November 25, 2023, you must re-register timely for TPS in accordance with the procedures described in this Federal Register notice to maintain your TPS and employment authorization.

You can find the Lists of Acceptable Documents on Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, as well as the Acceptable Documents web page at uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents. Employers must complete Form I-9 to verify the identity and employment authorization of all new employees. Within three days of hire, employees must present acceptable documents to their employers as evidence of identity and employment authorization to satisfy Form I-9 requirements.

You may present any document from List A (which provides evidence of both identity and employment authorization) or one document from List B (which provides evidence of your identity) together with one document from List C (which provides evidence of employment authorization), or you may present an acceptable receipt as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date. You can find additional information about Form I-9 on the I-9 Central web page at uscis.gov/I-9Central. An EAD is an acceptable document under List A. See the section “How do my employer and I complete Form I-9 using my automatically extended EAD for a new job?” of this Federal Register notice for further information. If your EAD states A-12 or C-19 under Category and has a Card Expires date of November 25, 2022, it has been extended automatically by virtue of this Federal Register notice and you may choose to present your EAD to your employer as proof of identity and employment eligibility for Form I-9 through November 25, 2023, unless your TPS has been withdrawn or your request for TPS has been denied. Your country of birth notated on the EAD does not have to reflect the TPS designated country of Burma for you to be eligible for this extension.

Even though we have automatically extended your EAD, your employer is required by law to ask you about your continued employment authorization. Your employer may need to re-inspect your automatically extended EAD to check the “Card Expires” date and Category code if your employer did not keep a copy of your EAD when you initially presented it. Once your employer has reviewed the “Card Expires” date and Category code, your employer should update the EAD expiration date in Section 2 of Form I-9. See the section “What updates should my current employer make to Form I-9 if my EAD has been automatically extended?” of this Federal Register notice for further information. You may show this Federal Register notice to your employer to explain what to do for Form I-9 and to show that USCIS has automatically extended your EAD through November 25, 2023, but you are not required to do so. The last day of the automatic EAD extension is November 25, 2023. Before you start work on November 26, 2023, your employer is required by law to reverify your employment authorization on Form I-9. By that time, you must present any document from List A or any document from List C on Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents, or an acceptable List A or List C receipt described in the Form I-9 instructions to reverify employment authorization.

Your employer may not specify which List A or List C document you must present and cannot reject an acceptable receipt.

Yes, if you are eligible for TPS, you can obtain a new TPS-based EAD, regardless of whether you have an EAD or work authorization based on another immigration status. If you want to obtain a new TPS-based EAD valid through May 25, 2024, then you must file Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and pay the associated fee (unless USCIS grants your fee waiver request).

No. When completing Form I-9, employers must accept any documentation you choose to present from the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers need not reverify List B identity documents. Employers may not request proof of Burmese citizenship or proof of registration for TPS when completing Form I-9 for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If you present an EAD that USCIS has automatically extended, employers should accept it as a valid List A document so long as the EAD reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to you. Refer to the “Note to Employees” section of this Federal Register notice for important information about your rights if your employer rejects lawful documentation, requires additional documentation, or otherwise discriminates against you based on your citizenship or immigration status, or your national origin.

When using an automatically extended EAD to complete Form I-9 for a new job before November 26, 2023:

1. For Section 1, you should:

a. Check “An alien authorized to work until” and enter November 25, 2023, as the “expiration date”; and

b. Enter your USCIS number or A-Number where indicated. (Your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS number or A-Number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-Number without the A prefix.)

2. For Section 2, employers should:

a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended by ensuring it is in category A-12 or C-19 and has a “Card Expires” date of November 25, 2022;

b. Write in the document title;

c. Enter the issuing authority;

d. Provide the document number; and

e. Write November 25, 2023, as the expiration date.

Before the start of work on November 26, 2023, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization on Form I-9.

If you presented a PTS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job and USCIS has now automatically extended your EAD, your employer may need to re-inspect your current EAD if they do not have a copy of the EAD on file. Your employer should determine if your EAD is automatically extended by ensuring that it contains Category A-12 or C-19 on the front of the card and has a “Card Expires” date of November 25, 2022. The employer may not rely on the country of birth listed on the card to determine whether you are eligible for this extension.

If your employer determines that USCIS has automatically extended your EAD, your employer should update Section 2 of your previously completed Form I-9 as follows:

1. Write EAD EXT and November 25, 2023, as the last day of the automatic extension in the Additional Information field; and

2. Initial and date the correction.

Employers may create a case in E-Verify for a new employee by entering the number from the Document Number field on Form I-9 into the document number field in E-Verify. Employers should enter Novemer 25, 2023, as the expiration date for an EAD that has been extended under this Federal Register notice.

E-Verify automated the verification process for TPS-related EADs that are automatically extended. If you have employees who provided a TPS-related EAD when they first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when the auto-extension period for this EAD is about to expire. Before this employee starts work on November 26, 2023, you must reverify their employment authorization on Form I-9. Employers may not use E-Verify for reverification.

Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This Federal Register notice does not supersede or in any way limit applicable employment verification rules and policy guidance, including those rules setting forth reverification requirements. For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employers may call USCIS at 888-464-4218 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at I-9Central@uscis.dhs.gov. USCIS accepts calls and emails in English and many other languages. For questions about avoiding discrimination during the employment eligibility verification process (Form I-9 and E-Verify), employers may call the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) Employer Hotline at 800-255-8155 (TTY 800-237-2515). IER offers language interpretation in numerous languages. Employers may also email IER at IER@usdoj.gov.

For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at I-9Central@uscis.dhs.gov. USCIS accepts calls in English, Spanish and many other languages. Employees or job applicants may also call the IER Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515) for information regarding employment discrimination based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, including discrimination related to Form I-9 and E-Verify. The IER Worker Hotline provides language interpretation in numerous languages.

To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Form I-9 completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC) must promptly inform employees of the TNC and give such employees an opportunity to contest the TNC. A TNC case result means that the information entered into E-Verify from Form I-9 differs from records available to DHS.

Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold or lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee because of a TNC while the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot confirm an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). For more information about E-Verify-related discrimination or to report an employer for discrimination in the E-Verify process based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, contact IER's Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Form I-9 and E-Verify procedures is available on the IER website at justice.gov/ierandtheUSCISandE-Verifywebsitesatuscis.gov/i-9-central and e-verify.gov.

For Federal purposes, TPS beneficiaries presenting an automatically extended EAD referenced in this Federal Register notice do not need to show any other document, such as an I-797C Notice of Action or this Federal Register notice, to prove that they qualify for this extension. While Federal Government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal Government, State and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each state may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, State, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary, show you are authorized to work based on TPS or other status, or may be used by DHS to determine if you have TPS or another immigration status. Examples of such documents are:

• Your current EAD with a TPS category code of A-12 or C-19, even if your country of birth noted on the EAD does not reflect the TPS designated country of Burma;

• Your Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record;

• Your Form I-797, Notice of Action, reflecting approval of your Form I-765; or

• Form I-797, Notice of Action, reflecting approval or receipt of a past or current Form I-821.

Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. Some benefit-granting agencies use the SAVE program to confirm the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits.

While SAVE can verify when an individual has TPS, each agency's procedures govern whether they will accept an unexpired EAD, Form I-797, or Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record. If an agency accepts the type of TPS-related document you are presenting, such as an EAD, the agency should accept your automatically extended EAD, regardless of the country of birth listed on the EAD. Regardless of the TPS-related document you present, it may assist the agency if you:

a. Present the agency with a copy of the relevant Federal Register notice listing the TPS-related document, including any applicable auto-extension of the document, along with your recent TPS-related document with your A-Number, or USCIS number;

b. Explain that SAVE will be able to verify the continuation of your TPS using this information; and

c. Ask the agency to initiate a SAVE query with your information and follow through with additional verification steps, if necessary, to get a final SAVE response verifying your TPS.

You can also ask the agency to look for SAVE notices or contact SAVE if they have any questions about your immigration status or automatic extension of TPS-related documentation. In most cases, SAVE provides an automated electronic response to benefit-granting agencies within seconds, but occasionally verification can be delayed. You can check the status of your SAVE verification by using CaseCheck at save.uscis.gov/casecheck/. CaseCheck is a free service that lets you follow the progress of your SAVE verification case using your date of birth and one immigration identifier number (A-Number, USCIS number, or Form I-94 number) or Verification Case Number. If an agency has denied your application based solely or in part on a SAVE response, the agency must offer you the opportunity to appeal the decision in accordance with the agency's procedures. If the agency has received and acted on or will act on a SAVE verification and you do not believe the SAVE response is correct, the SAVE website, www.uscis.gov/save, has detailed information on how to make corrections or update your immigration record, make an appointment, or submit a written request to correct records.

This notice informs the public that the Department is soliciting comments prior to submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended). HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Proposal: Standardization form for “Race and Other Demographic Data Reporting Form.”

Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2535-0113.

Form Numbers: HUD 27061.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: All HUD program offices use this form when collecting information concerning the race, ethnicity, and other protected class data of the populations intended to benefit from HUD funding as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act; and HUD's regulations.

Members of affected public: Applicants for HUD's competitively funded financial assistance programs that are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The form is used by entities when they apply for grants. As HUD receives roughly 14,375 applications on an annual basis, we expect that there will be 14,375 respondents who may need to use this form. HUD estimates that it will take half an hour to complete the form, at $65.15 per hour. 1 The total estimated burden on respondents would thus reach $561,918 on an annual basis. This is shown in Table 1.

Estimation of the Cost to the Federal government: The following Table 2 shows the estimated burden of Federal financial assistance review. HUD estimates the cost of the maximum burden on HUD staff would total at most $561,918.75. This estimate is based on the assumption that each form would be reviewed for one hour by a GS13 step 5 performing a review, and then by a GS 14 and a GS15 who will look at summary results on an annual basis. 2

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

In addition to the race and ethnicity data collected to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, HUD also intends to update this form to collect protected class data as required by the Fair Housing Act and HUD regulations at 24 CFR 121. HUD further solicits comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information on: (1) data sources available to support this collection; (2) particular data fields in HUD Form 27061 to appropriately collect this information; and (2) methods to minimize burden on grantees in collecting this information.

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

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-169) (the Act) makes $837.5 million available to HUD for the provision of loans and grants to fund projects that improve energy or water efficiency, enhance indoor air quality or sustainability, implement the use of zero-emission electricity generation, low-emission building materials or processes, energy storage, or building electrification strategies, and/or address climate resilience. Eligible HUD-assisted multifamily properties include, but are not limited to, Section 8 Project Based Rental Assistance (PBRA), Section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities, and Section 202 Housing for the Elderly. The Act also includes $42.5 million for energy and water benchmarking of the HUD-assisted multifamily portfolio along with associated data analysis and evaluation at the property- and portfolio-level, and the development of information technology systems necessary for the collection, evaluation, and analysis of such data.

In response to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, HUD is currently designing a new program, the Green and Resilient Retrofit Program (GRRP), and expects to make multiple rounds of funding available to support energy and water efficiency retrofits and climate resilience of HUD-assisted multifamily properties. HUD is seeking input on funding rounds as well as on benchmarking. Public input will inform prioritization of work, treatment of cost-benefit analyses, and key design elements that will help ensure program goals are met. Overall goals of the GRRP for the HUD-assisted multifamily portfolio include reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions, improving indoor air quality for residents, reducing residents' and properties' exposure to climate hazards, and protecting life, livability, and property when disaster strikes. Additionally, the GRRP will serve to further preserve the long-term affordability of the assisted properties.

The purpose of this RFI is to solicit information regarding the design and implementation of the GRRP to support the improvement of energy and water efficiency retrofits, and climate resilience of HUD-assisted multifamily properties.

While HUD welcomes all comments relevant to the design and implementation of the GRRP, HUD is particularly interested in receiving input from interested parties on the questions outlined below.

1. HUD is seeking input on program design features, energy-saving measures, low-emission technology, and resilience design and measures that have proven effective in affordable multifamily buildings. How might this program help prioritize and scale best practices for reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions, improving indoor air quality for residents, and strengthening climate resilience among affordable multifamily buildings? How can these measures and practices be deployed in a way that preserves affordability of our properties? Eligible uses for project funding and/or financing include:

a. Improve energy and/or water efficiency.

b. Enhance indoor air quality and/or sustainability.

c. Implement the use of zero-emission electricity generation, low-emission building materials or processes, and/or energy storage, or building electrification strategies.

d. Address climate resilience.

2. This program offers owners of HUD-assisted multifamily properties an opportunity to plan comprehensively around energy efficiency and climate resilience. Often, these goals can be interrelated. Materials and technologies that enhance a building's energy efficiency can also make the building more durable and resilient to threats posed by extreme weather events. It is also possible that some energy efficiency and climate resilience improvements may be in tension. HUD would like recommendations for designing the program to meet energy and emissions reduction goals as well as climate resilience. HUD seeks information on how to balance multiple goals ( i.e., energy efficiency, decarbonization, and climate resilience). In addition, given the various eligible uses of funds, cost-effectiveness will vary greatly across projects. How might HUD factor in cost-effectiveness when evaluating applications for energy- and/or resilience-related projects?

3. States, localities, and utilities administer programs aimed at delivering energy efficiency and electrification to affordable multifamily properties. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act makes significant funding available for home energy rebates for low- and moderate-income households through the U.S. Department of Energy and expands the renewable energy Investment Tax Credit. How might HUD encourage or require applicants to leverage other funding for projects— such as owner equity, other federal, state, local, and/or utility grants, loans, rebates, tax credits, and incentives?

4. HUD seeks to design this program to enable deep retrofits of multifamily properties—retrofits that would likely not be possible without this funding. Certain markets are more primed to deploy deep and resilient retrofits in the multifamily sector, while others may lack the state and local infrastructure and workforce for delivering retrofits in this sector. While HUD seeks to maximize impact, how can HUD best ensure that funding is distributed equitably?

5. HUD's ability to achieve its goal of benchmarking energy and water use for the majority of HUD-assisted multifamily portfolio rests on the availability and accessibility of whole-building aggregate energy data. What role can HUD play to support greater access to this utility data? What opportunities exist for HUD to engage utilities and/or public utility commissions to make this data readily available to our multifamily building owners? What incentives, financial support, and/or technical support would encourage owners to participate and get their properties benchmarked?

6. What equity considerations should HUD consider when implementing property retrofits and benchmarking? HUD-assisted properties exist nationwide, and they disproportionately serve residents who are otherwise underserved by housing markets, including people with disabilities, older adults, and people from communities of color.

7. This will be the first HUD program to target multifamily properties nationwide with property-level resilience interventions at this scale. How can and should HUD evaluate resilience needs and the effectiveness of these interventions, considering the variety of natural hazards and that the effectiveness of many resilience strategies are truly tested only when a disaster event strikes? How should HUD balance geographic disparities in the needs for resilience interventions ( i.e., more frequent in coastal areas) and the availability of other funds, from HUD and other agencies, for recovering from disasters?

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on May 12, 2022 (87 FR 29176), by the Office of the Secretary, Office of Budget, soliciting comments from the public and other interested parties. No public comments were received.

We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Office of Budget; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Office of Budget enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Office of Budget minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: “Payments in Lieu of Taxes” (PILT) are Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to non-taxable Federal lands within their boundaries. The original law is Public Law 94-565, dated October 20, 1976. This law was rewritten and amended by Public Law 97-258 on September 13, 1982, and codified at chapter 69, Title 31 of the United States Code. The law recognizes the financial impact of the inability of local governments to collect property taxes on Federally owned land.

The PILT Act requires the Governor of each State to furnish the Department of the Interior with a listing of payments disbursed to local governments by the States on behalf of the Federal Government under 12 statutes described in 31 U.S.C. chapter 69, section 6903. The Department uses the amounts reported by States to determine if the payment received should be factored into the individual payment calculation for units of general local governments which they might otherwise receive. If such listings were not furnished by the Governor of each affected State, the Department would not be able to compute the PILT payments to units of general local government within the States in question.

In fiscal year 2004, administrative authority for the PILT program was transferred from the Bureau of Land Management to the Office of the Secretary within the Department of the Interior. Applicable DOI regulations pertaining to the PILT program to be administered by the Office of the Secretary were published as a final rule in the Federal Register on December 7, 2004 (69 FR 70557). The Office of the Secretary, Office of Budget, is now planning to extend the information collection approval authority to enable the Department of the Interior to continue to comply with the PILT Act.

In a revision of this ICR, States are directed to a secure, web-based portal (PILT Portal) to provide the required “Statement of Federal Land Payments” information versus using a spreadsheet. The data collected remains the same and provides details on payment amounts passed through to counties and/or units of local government during the prior Federal fiscal year.

Title of Collection: Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act, Statement of Federal Lands Payments.

OMB Control Number: 1093-0005.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 46.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 46.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 55 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,530 hours.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Total Estimated Annual Non-Hour Burden Cost: None.

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

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

On January 13, 2022, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Nike, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon. 87 FR 2176-77 (Jan. 13, 2022). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain knitted footwear by reason of infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,918,511; 9,743,705; 8,266,749; 7,814,598; 9,060,562; and 8,898,932. Id. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following adidas entities as respondents: adidas AG of Herzogenaurach, Germany; adidas North America, Inc. of Portland Oregon; and adidas America, Inc. also of Portland, Oregon. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party in this investigation. Id.

On March 7, 2022, the ALJ granted an unopposed motion to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to add an additional adidas respondent, adidas International Trading AG of Lucerne, Switzerland. Order No. 8 (Mar. 7, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Mar. 21, 2022); 87 FR 17100-101 (Mar. 25, 2022).

On August 18, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon a settlement agreement that “resolves all disputed issues in this investigation.” ID at 2.

On August 24, 2022, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion. The ID observed that Commission Rule 210.21(a)(2) provides that “[a]ny party may move at any time to terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents on the basis of a settlement, a licensing or other agreement . . . .” 19 CFR 210.21(a)(2). The ID found that in compliance with 19 CFR 210.21(b)(1), “the motion contains a statement that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the private parties concerning the subject matter of this investigation.” ID at 2. The parties also submitted confidential and public versions of the settlement agreement. The ID further found that granting the motion would cause “no adverse effect on the public interest.” Id. No one petitioned for review of the subject ID.

The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated in its entirety.

The Commission vote for this determination took place on September 21, 2022.

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

Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice by submitting written data, views, or arguments.

On July 1, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum imposing a moratorium on all federal executions pending a review of certain policies and procedures. See Memorandum from the Attorney General, Moratorium on Federal Executions Pending Review of Policies and Procedures (July 1, 2021), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1408636/download. In the memorandum, the Attorney General stated that “[s]erious concerns have been raised about the continued use of the death penalty across the country, including arbitrariness in its application, disparate impact on people of color, and the troubling number of exonerations in capital and other serious cases.” Id.

In the two years preceding the issuance of the moratorium, the Justice Department made a series of changes to its policies and procedures governing capital sentences and carried out the first federal executions in nearly two decades between July 2020 and January 2021. Id. “To ensure that the Department's policies and procedures are consistent with the principles articulated in [the] memorandum,” Attorney General Garland directed the Deputy Attorney General to undertake and supervise reviews concerning both the method and manner of federal executions and the policies and procedures governing all federal cases in which a defendant is charged, or could be charged, with an offense subject to the death penalty. The subject of this Request for Information concerns the method of execution. Id.

Almost all states that currently permit the death penalty allow for lethal injections as their primary method of execution (South Carolina is an exception, having established electrocution as the primary method of execution). 1 State protocols concerning the use of lethal injection vary; they consist of one-, two-, and three-drug methods. The three-drug protocol used by the states typically involves an anesthetic or sedative, followed by pancuronium bromide to stop breathing and paralyze the inmate, and finally potassium chloride to stop the inmate's heart. The one- or two-drug protocols typically use a lethal dose of an anesthetic or sedative. 2

There has been much litigation regarding death penalty protocols. In Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's use of a three-drug combination, including sodium pentothal (also called sodium thiopental), which induces unconsciousness; pancuronium bromide; and potassium chloride. However, practical obstacles soon emerged as pharmaceutical companies began refusing to supply the drugs used to implement the death sentences. See Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 869-70 (2015). In particular, the sole American manufacturer of sodium pentothal stopped producing the drug because of its use in the death penalty. 3

After the availability of sodium pentothal declined, several states developed an alternative drug combination that replaced sodium pentothal with pentobarbital. Glossip, 576 U.S. at 870. Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, South Dakota, and Texas administer a single-drug pentobarbital protocol as the primary method of execution. 4

Implementation of the federal death penalty is governed by 18 U.S.C. 3596-3597. These provisions require the federal government to carry out death sentences “in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed.” 18 U.S.C. 3596(a). Federal regulations further clarify that executions must be conducted by “intravenous injection of a lethal substance or substances in a quantity sufficient to cause death, such substance or substances to be determined by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or by any other manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence was imposed or which has been designated by a court in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3596(a).” 28 CFR 26.3(a)(4).

In 2004, the federal government issued a 50-page “BOP Execution Protocol,” which outlined the Bureau of Prisons' execution procedures. See BOP Execution Protocol Manual (2004). The protocol provided that execution would occur using lethal injection but did not specify the type of drugs to be used. Id. at pp. 7, 10. That being said, for the three federal executions conducted between 2001 and 2003, the Bureau of Prisons used a combination of sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. See In re Federal Bureau of Prisons' Execution Protocol Cases, 955 F.3d 106, 110 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

In 2007 and 2008, the government issued two three-page addenda to the 2004 BOP Execution Protocol. The 2008 Addendum memorialized the Bureau of Prisons' use of those three substances in federal executions. See Addendum to BOP Execution Protocol: Federal Death Sentence Implementation Procedures (Effective August 1, 2008). In 2011, the Department of Justice announced that the Bureau of Prisons did not have the drugs it needed to implement the 2008 Addendum. However, no executions had been conducted since 2003, in part because of the unavailability of sodium pentothal. 5

Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice by submitting written data, views, or arguments.

On July 1, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a moratorium on federal executions pending a review of certain policies and procedures. See Memorandum from the Attorney General, Moratorium on Federal Executions Pending Review of Policies and Procedures (July 1, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1408636/download. In issuing the moratorium, the Attorney General noted that “[t]he Department of Justice must ensure that everyone in the federal criminal justice system is not only afforded the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States, but is also treated fairly and humanely. That obligation has special force in capital cases. Serious concerns have been raised about the continued use of the death penalty across the country, including arbitrariness in its application, disparate impact on people of color, and the troubling number of exonerations in capital and other serious cases.” Id.

The Attorney General noted that, in the last two years preceding the issuance of the moratorium, the Department had made a series of changes to its policies and procedures governing capital sentences, which were accompanied by the first federal executions in nearly two decades. Id. “To ensure that the Department's policies and procedures are consistent with the principles articulated in [the] memorandum,” the Attorney General asked the Deputy Attorney General to supervise three reviews on this general subject.

The second of these reviews directs the Office of Legal Policy to consider whether and to what extent amendments made in November 2020 to federal regulations governing the manner of federal executions “should be modified or rescinded” and “to consider any other changes that should be made to the regulations.” Id. That review is the subject of this Request for Information.

In 1993 (pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 4001(b), 4002; and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510), the Department of Justice issued regulations providing for lethal injection as the method of execution for federal capital crimes “except to the extent a court orders otherwise,” 28 CFR 26.3, and governing various tasks related to scheduling and carrying out the federal death sentences, 58 FR 4898 (Jan. 19, 1993); 28 CFR part 26 (effective through Dec. 27, 2020). Among other things, the regulations provided that, except as otherwise ordered by a court, a federal sentence of death shall be executed “[o]n a date and at a time designated by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” “[a]t a federal penal or correctional institution designated by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” and “[b]y a United States Marshal designated by the Director of the United States Marshals Service.” 28 CFR 26.3(a)(1)-(3) (effective through Dec. 27, 2020).

A year later, Congress enacted the Federal Death Penalty Act (“FDPA”), Public Law 103-322, 60002, 108 Stat. 1796, 1959 (1994), which provides that a federal death sentence shall be carried out “in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed.” 18 U.S.C. 3596(a). If the law of the state in which the sentence is imposed “does not provide for implementation of a sentence of death,” then the FDPA instructs that “the court shall designate another state, the law of which does provide for the implementation of a sentence of death, and the sentence shall be implemented . . . in the manner prescribed by such law.” Id.

On November 27, 2020, the Department of Justice amended the regulations governing the manner of federal executions “to provide the Federal Government with greater flexibility to conduct executions in any manner authorized by” the FDPA. 85 FR 75846, 75847 (Nov. 27, 2020). The amendments, which became effective on December 28, 2020, made a number of changes, detailed below.

Before the amendments were promulgated, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) on August 5, 2020. See Manner of Federal Executions, 85 FR 47324 (Aug. 5, 2020). By the end of the 30-day comment period on September 4, 2020, the Department had received 23 comments that were responsive to the proposed rule. These comments were addressed in the final rule, published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2020. 85 FR 75846-75853.

The Department of Justice amended 28 CFR 26.3(a)(4) to provide that federal executions are to be carried out by lethal injection “or by any other manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence was imposed or which has been designated by a court in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3596(a).” In making this change, the Department noted that it “would ensure that the Department would be authorized to use the widest range of manners of execution permitted by law.” 85 FR at 75848.

The Department also amended section 26.4(a) so that the notice of the date of execution provided to a prisoner also stated the method of execution to be used. The amendments also added a new sentence at the end of the paragraph to read as follows: “If applicable law provides that the prisoner may choose among multiple manners of execution, the Director or his designee shall notify the prisoner of that option.” 28 CFR 26.4(a).

The November 2020 amendments authorized the use of state facilities and personnel in federal executions by striking “federal” before “penal or correctional institution” in section 26.3(a)(2) and by replacing “[b]y” with “[u]nder the supervision of” a United States Marshal in section 26.3(a)(3).

The amendments added a new provision, section 26.1(b), that authorized the Attorney General to vary from the regulations to the extent necessary to comply with applicable law. The provision reads: “Where applicable law conflicts with any provision of this part, the Attorney General may vary from that provision to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable law.” 28 CFR 26.1(b).

The November 2020 amendments also added a new provision, section 26.1(c), that stated that any task or duty assigned to any officer or employee of the Department of Justice under Part 26 may be delegated by the Attorney General to any other officer or employee of the Department of Justice.

The amendments removed section 26.2, which had required prosecutors to submit a proposed Judgment and Order to the court in cases in which the defendant was sentenced to death. The content of the Judgment and Order had included four basic points: (1) The sentence was to be executed by a United States Marshal, (2) by injection of a lethal substance, (3) on a date and at a place designated by BOP, and (4) the prisoner under sentence of death was to be committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designee for detention pending execution of the sentence.

In section 26.3(a)(3), the November 2020 amendments clarified that “qualified” personnel must carry out an execution, regardless of manner.

The amendments to section 26.3(a)(3) also provided that the sentence of death be executed under the supervision of a United States Marshal designated by the Director of the United States Marshals Service, assisted by additional qualified personnel who are selected by the Director of the United States Marshals Service and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or their designees, and acting at the direction of the Marshal.

Section 26.4(a) provides that a prisoner will receive notice of the date designated for execution “at least 20 days in advance, except when the date follows a postponement of fewer than 20 days of a previously scheduled and noticed date of execution, in which case” the prisoner shall be notified “as soon as possible.” The November 2020 amendments placed responsibility for such notification with the “Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee” instead of with the “Warden.”

Section 26.4(b) governs prisoner access to other persons in the week before the designated execution date, limiting such access to spiritual advisers, defense attorneys, family members, institution officials, and—upon the approval of the BOP Director or his designee—“such other proper persons as the prisoner may request.” The amendments clarified that the BOP Director or his designee may approve prisoner requests for types of visitors not listed in the regulation, eliminating a reference to the “Warden.”

Section 26.4(c) governs execution attendance, requiring certain official personnel to attend and imposing limits on the numbers and types of other persons whom the prisoner and officials may designate to attend. The amendments eliminated references to the “Warden,” thus eliminating the requirement that the Warden attend executions, while maintaining the requirement that the Marshal attend. The only other proposed change was to vest authority for selecting necessary personnel in the Marshal and the BOP Director or his designee, instead of in the Marshal and the Warden.

The amendments to section 26.5 extended to non-Department of Justice employees (including contractors) existing protections that applied to Department of Justice employees, allowing them not to be in attendance at or to participate in any execution if such attendance or participation is contrary to the moral or religious convictions of the Department of Justice employee.

As noted above, Attorney General Garland issued a moratorium on federal execution during the pendency of three reviews. The second, and the subject of this Request for Information, is a review “to consider whether and to what extent [the November 2020] amendments should be modified or rescinded” and “to consider any other changes that should be made to the regulations.” See Memorandum from the Attorney General, Moratorium on Federal Executions Pending Review of Policies and Procedures (July 1, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1408636/download.

The Department of Justice requests information from individuals or organizations regarding whether the November 2020 amendments should be modified or rescinded and whether any other changes should be made to the regulations in 28 CFR part 26. To contribute effectively to this review, all commenters are encouraged to provide comments that are responsive specifically to the topics of this review.

The Department is particularly interested in responses to the questions below, although the Department would welcome any comment within the scope of this inquiry.

1. If a State authorizes two or more manners of execution ( e.g., lethal injection and firing squad), what limitations or restrictions, if any, should be placed on the federal government's ability or authority to choose which of those manners of execution it would employ for federal executions, both in contexts where the State provides the inmate a choice among methods as well as in contexts where the State does not have a choice provision but authorizes two or more permissible manners?

2. If the manner of execution prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed was unconstitutional for violation of the 8th Amendment's “cruel and unusual punishment” clause, how should the federal government implement the death sentence?

3. What obligation, if any, would the federal government have to independently analyze and assess the constitutional validity of state-law manners of execution before employing one?

4. If an inmate's medical conditions made it likely that use of a State's manner of execution would subject the inmate to unconstitutional pain and suffering, should the federal government be permitted to use an alternative form of execution? Who would determine and how would they determine that the inmate's medical conditions made it likely that use of a State's manner of execution would subject the inmate to unconstitutional pain and suffering?

5. Currently, the federal government only has the equipment and personnel to conduct executions by lethal injection. What logistical, practical, or legal steps would the federal government need to take to implement a State method of execution other than lethal injection?

6. Are there logistical or practical concerns with allowing the federal government to make arrangements or agreements with the relevant State to use State equipment, facilities, and personnel for federal executions? Please explain.

7. When regulations, guidance, or policy regarding implementation of the death sentence is changed, what process should the federal government follow to ensure appropriate notice?

8. Should inmates and/or inmate's counsel be notified of any potential deviations from the regulations? If so, how and by whom?

9. What limitations or modifications should be made, if any, to the Attorney General's authority in 28 CFR 26.1(b) to vary from the regulations “to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable law”?

10. Should the notice requirement in 28 CFR 26.4 include notice to counsel? If so, how and by whom?

11. Are the time periods for notice provided in the regulations sufficient, for example, to permit the filing of a clemency petition or to request a stay of execution? If not, how much time should be allotted for notice and why?

12. When duties are reassigned between Department of Justice components, what types of processes or protocols should be implemented to ensure transparency, effective implementation of the law, and consistency?

13. What was the practical function that a Judgment and Order filing had in litigation?

14. Are there any undefined terms in the regulations or statute that would benefit from a definition? If yes, please explain why the term should be defined and what the definition should be. In particular, please consider whether the following terms should be defined and, if so, what the definitions should be:

15. What criteria should be applied regarding access to visitors in the week before the designated execution date?

16. What criteria should be applied to the selection of witnesses who are present during federal executions?

17. To what extent should the federal government limit the number of—or otherwise participate in the selection of—spiritual advisers, attorneys, friends, or relatives who may access a prisoner prior to a designated date of execution?

18. Are there particular provisions of the November 2020 amendments or the prior regulatory scheme that should be retained, modified, or rescinded and, if so, why?

19. Should any other changes be made to 28 CFR Ch. I, Pt. 26, Subpart A?

OFCCP makes the following corrections to its August 19, 2022, Federal Register notice (87 FR 51145):

On page 51145, column 3, lines 36-42 are corrected to remove the phrase, “ see also EEO-1 Joint Reporting Committee, EEO-1 Instruction Booklet 1, https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/upload/instructions_form.pdf (describing the EEO-1 Report as “jointly developed by the EEOC and OFCCP”).”

On page 51145, column 3, the last full sentence, “Although the EEOC and OFCCP jointly collect the EEO-1 data through the JRC, as a practical matter, because the JRC is housed at the EEOC, employers submit their data to the EEOC,” is corrected so the sentence reads as: “Employers submit their data to the EEOC.”

On page 51145, column 3, footnote 2 is removed in its entirety.

On page 51146, column 1, lines 11-12, the phrase “compliance surveys” is replaced with “data collections” so the sentence reads as: “Section 709(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposes criminal penalties and makes it unlawful for any officer or employee of EEOC from making public the employment data derived from any of its data collections prior to the institution of any proceeding under EEOC's authority involving such information.”

On page 51146, column 2, line 6 is corrected to remove “[INSERT LINK]” and embed a hyperlink to the OFCCP website at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/submitter-notice-response-portal and remove “15,000” and replace with “24,000,” to read, “Given OFCCP's best estimate that the CIR FOIA request covers approximately 24,000 unique Covered Contractors, OFCCP is fulfilling its notification obligation through this Federal Register notice, a contemporaneous posting on the OFCCP website, and notification to all federal contractors and federal contractor representatives that have registered and provided electronic mail contact information through the agency's Contractor Portal and/or have subscribed to OFCCP's GovDelivery electronic mail listserv.”

The August 19, 2022, Federal Register notice provided a deadline of September 19, 2022, for contractors to submit written objections to disclosure of the requested Type 2 EEO-1 Report data (87 FR 51145). OFCCP is extending this deadline to October 19, 2022, to ensure that Covered Contractors have time to ascertain whether they are covered and submit objections. There are multiple reasons for the extension, including the following. First, since publication of that notice, numerous contractors and contractor representatives have contacted the agency requesting an extension of time to submit objections. Additionally, since the publication of the original notice, some federal contractors have raised questions regarding their efforts to verify whether they are included in the universe of Covered Contractors during the requested timeframe. To address this second issue, OFCCP will also take the additional step of emailing contractors that OFCCP believes are covered by this FOIA request, using the email address provided by contractors that have registered in OFCCP's Contractor Portal and the email addresses provided as a contact for the EEO-1 report.

As noted above, this meeting is virtual and will take place telephonically and via Webex. Any interested person must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. The Webex connectivity information for each day is provided below. For audio, when you join the Webex event, you may use your computer or provide your phone number to receive a call back, otherwise, call the U.S. toll conference number listed for each day.

On Monday, October 17, the event address for attendees is: https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/nasaenterprise/j.php?MTID=mf79f5e8c2ce522a05c560caf505da802, the meeting number is 2762 536 1104, and meeting password is Apac1017#

To join by telephone, the toll numbers are: 1-415-527-5035 or 1-929-251-9612. Access code: 2762 536 1104.

On Tuesday, October 18, the event address for attendees is: https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/nasaenterprise/j.php?MTID=m4de95daff639b0f4a500e61234f9cacf, the meeting number is 2760 445 9382, and meeting password is Apac1018#

To join by telephone, the toll numbers are: 1-415-527-5035 or1-929-251-9612. Access code: 2760 445 9382

The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

The agenda will be posted on the Astrophysics Advisory Committee web page: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/nac/science-advisory-committees/apac.

The public may submit and upvote comments/questions ahead of the meeting through the website https://forms.office.com/g/UYWeGpuawe that will be opened for input on October 7, 2022.

It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

We are publishing notice of records schedules in which agencies propose to dispose of records they no longer need to conduct agency business. We invite public comments on these records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a), and list the schedules at the end of this notice by agency and subdivision requesting disposition authority.

In addition, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or states that the schedule has agency-wide applicability. It also provides the control number assigned to each schedule, which you will need if you submit comments on that schedule. We have uploaded the records schedules and accompanying appraisal memoranda to the regulations.gov docket for this notice as “other” documents. Each records schedule contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their proposed disposition. The appraisal memorandum for the schedule includes information about the records.

We will post comments, including any personal information and attachments, to the public docket unchanged. Because comments are public, you are responsible for ensuring that you do not include any confidential or other information that you or a third party may not wish to be publicly posted. If you want to submit a comment with confidential information or cannot otherwise use the regulations.gov portal, you may contact request.schedule@nara.gov for instructions on submitting your comment.

We will consider all comments submitted by the posted deadline and consult as needed with the Federal agency seeking the disposition authority. After considering comments, we may or may not make changes to the proposed records schedule. The schedule is then sent for final approval by the Archivist of the United States. After the schedule is approved, we will post on regulations.gov a “Consolidated Reply” summarizing the comments, responding to them, and noting any changes we made to the proposed schedule. You may elect at regulations.gov to receive updates on the docket, including an alert when we post the Consolidated Reply, whether or not you submit a comment. If you have a question, you can submit it as a comment, and can also submit any concerns or comments you would have to a possible response to the question. We will address these items in consolidated replies along with any other comments submitted on that schedule.

We will post schedules on our website in the Records Control Schedule (RCS) Repository, at https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs, after the Archivist approves them. The RCS contains all schedules approved since 1973.

Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives or to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking continuing administrative, legal, research, or other value. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value. Public review and comment on these records schedules is part of the Archivist's consideration process.

1. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, United States Health Information Knowledgebase (DAA-0510-2022-0001).

2. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, iTRAK System Case Files (DAA-0237-2021-0013).

OMB Number: 3133-0146.

Title: Production of Non-public Records and Testimony of Employees in Legal Proceedings (Touhy Request).

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Title 12 CFR part 792, subpart C requires anyone requesting NCUA non-public records for use in legal proceedings, or similarly the testimony of NCUA personnel, to provide NCUA with information regarding the requester's grounds for the request. This process is also known as a “Touhy Request”. The information collected will help NCUA decide whether to release non-public records or permit employees to testify in legal proceedings. NCUA regulations also require an entity or person in possession of NCUA records to notify the NCUA upon receipt of a subpoena for those records. The NCUA requires this notice to protect its records and, when necessary, intervene in litigation or file an objection to the disclosure of its confidential information in the appropriate court or tribunal.

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

Estimated No. of Respondents: 20.

Estimated No. of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 20.

Estimated Burden Hours per Response: 5.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100.

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 execution 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.

By Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on September 21, 2022.

The following individuals appointed as members of the NRC PRB are responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities on performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for Senior Executives and Senior Level System employees:

The following individuals will serve as members of the NRC PRB Panel that was established to review appraisals and make recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities for NRC PRB members:

All appointments are made pursuant to section 4314 of chapter 43 of Title 5 of the United States Code.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0201 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2021-0201.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The supporting statement and NRC Forms 830, 830A, 831, 831A, are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML22165A280, ML21340A017, ML21340A019, ML21340A020, and ML21340A103.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents, by appointment, at the NRC's PDR, Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

• NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Clearance Officer, David C. Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at https://www.regulations.gov and entered into ADAMS. Comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on March 15, 2022 (87 FR 14586).

1. The title of the information collection: “Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material.”

2. OMB approval number: 3150-0036.

3. Type of submission: Extension.

4. The form number, if applicable: NRC Forms 830, 830A, 831, 831A.

5. How often the collection is required or requested: On occasion.

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Any person in the U.S. who wishes to export or import (a) nuclear material and equipment subject to the requirements of a specific license; (b) amend a license; (c) renew a license; (d) obtain consent to export Category 1 quantities of materials listed in Appendix P to part 110 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR); or (e) request an exemption from a licensing requirement under 10 CFR part 110.

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 3,092.

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 90.

9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 1,514.

10. Abstract: Persons in the U.S. who export or import nuclear material or equipment under a general or specific authorization must comply with certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements under 10 CFR part 110.