The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, an incidental harassment authorization is issued.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed one year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial authorization, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activity section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activity and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the DATES section of the notice of issuance of the initial IHA, provided all of the following conditions are met:

1. A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).

2. The request for renewal must include the following:

• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor ( e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).

• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.

3. Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-harassment-authorization-renewals.

On December 8, 2021, NMFS issued an IHA to MEDOT to take marine mammals incidental to the Falls Bridge Replacement Project in Blue Hill, Maine (86 FR 71034, December 14, 2021), effective from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. On March 3, 2023, NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the application for renewal, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report (available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-maine-department-transportation-falls-bridge-project-blue-hill ) which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted. The notice of the proposed renewal incidental harassment authorization was published on June 9, 2023 (88 FR 37864).

The MEDOT construction project consists of creating a temporary bridge for vehicle traffic during work on the Falls Bridge, which was expected to require the installation (and then removal when the project is complete) of 15 24-inch steel pipe piles. Work on the main bridge deck was not expected to incidentally harass marine mammals, however in order to facilitate that work, MEDOT planned to place one or two large trestles (up to 100 foot by 125 foot (30.5 by 38 meters) long) in the water next to the bridge. These trestles were expected to require the installation of up to 60 24-inch diameter steel pipe piles. In addition to the temporary work trestles and temporary bridge, MEDOT anticipated the need for four temporary support towers during the demolition and removal of the existing bridge superstructure. The temporary support towers were to be placed at the corners of the tied arch, approximately 20 feet (6.1 meters) in from the existing bridge abutments. The temporary support towers were expected to require up to 5 24-inch steel pipe piles to support each of the towers, for a total of 20 24-inch steel pipe piles.

In total the initial project plans included the installation and removal of 95 24-inch diameter steel pipe piles. It was expected that all 95 piles would be installed in rock sockets (holes) in the bedrock created by down-the-hole (DTH) equipment. Impact pile driving would be used to seat the piles and potentially drive them through softer substrates. For piles driven in the center of the channel under the bridge (mostly for the trestles), additional lateral stability may require the use of rebar tension anchors drilled deeper into the substrate in the center of the piles and connected to the piles once installed. This would be accomplished by using an 8-inch diameter DTH bit. It was expected that no more than 65 of the 95 piles would require these tension anchors. Once the work on the bridge was complete, all 95 piles would be removed using a vibratory hammer. The DTH and impact hammer installation and vibratory extraction of the piles was expected to take up to 80 days of in-water work.

MEDOT subsequently updated its construction plans by reducing the number of driven piles from the previously estimated 95 piles down to a total of 12 piles. Pile size was also reduced from 24-inch steel pipe piles to 14-inch steel pipe piles. MEDOT completed all pile driving with the use of an impact hammer, and the DTH method was not used by MEDOT. All project related pile installation activities conducted under the initial IHA, which were limited to installation of 12 14-inch steel piles, were completed over a 2-day period in October and November 2022.

This renewal request is to cover the subset of the activities covered in the initial IHA that will not be completed during the effective IHA period. MEDOT plans to remove all 12 14-inch steel pipe piles through vibratory means between October and December of 2023. MEDOT estimates it will take 30 minutes to remove a single pile, with up to six piles removed per day.

The likely or possible impacts of MEDOT's planned activity on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors and are unchanged from the impacts described in the initial IHA. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment, vessels, and personnel; however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Acoustic stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile installation and removal. The effects of underwater and in-air noise and visual disturbance from the MEDOT's planned activities have the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area.

A detailed description of the construction activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (86 FR 61164, November 5, 2021; 86 FR 71034, December 14, 2021). As previously mentioned, this request is for a subset of the activities authorized in the initial IHA that would not be completed prior to its expiration. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notice for the initial IHA. Changes to the initial scope include the reduction of pile size and number of piles required. The initial scope planned for the installation and removal of 95 24-inch steel pipe piles. In total, 12 14-inch piles were installed. MEDOT is requesting a renewal IHA for vibratory removal of 12 14-inch steel pipe piles. The renewal IHA would be effective from July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024.

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which take is authorized here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (86 FR 61164, November 5, 2021). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA (86 FR 61164, November 5, 2021).

A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (86 FR 61164, November 5, 2021). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (86 FR 61164, November 5, 2021; 86 FR 71034, December 14, 2021). Specifically, days of operation, area or space within which harassment is likely to occur, and marine mammal occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the initial IHA. Similarly, the stocks taken, methods of take, daily take estimates and types of take remain unchanged from the initial IHA. The number of takes authorized in this renewal are a subset of the initial authorized takes that better represent the amount of activity left to complete. These takes, which reflect the lower number of remaining days of work, are indicated below in Table 1.

The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are almost identical to those included in the Federal Register (FR) notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA, and the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in that document remains accurate (86 FR 71034, December 14, 2021). In the renewal IHA, the pile size and the amount of piles removed per day has been updated to reflect what occurred under the initial IHA. MEDOT's original shutdown zones were based on removal of three 24-inch steel piles per day. However, due to the reduced pile size used in the initial IHA, MEDOT plans to remove six 14-in steel piles per day, resulting in larger estimated Level A harassment isopleths. The estimated Level A harassment isopleth for high frequency cetaceans increases from 25 meters to 62 meters. However, the shutdown zone for phocids remains the same. As a result, MEDOT proposed to increase the shutdown zone for cetaceans from 50 meters to 100 meters. This update is reflected in Table 2 below and in the IHA renewal.

The following mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are planned for this renewal:

• The MEDOT must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 meters of such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction.

• Conduct training between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team and relevant MEDOT staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity and when new personnel join the work, so that responsibilities, communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational procedures are clearly understood.

• Pile driving activity must be halted upon observation of either a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met, entering or within the harassment zone.

• MEDOT will establish and implement the shutdown zones. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones typically vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group. To simplify implementation of shutdown zones, MEDOT has planned to implement shutdown zones for two groups of marine mammals, cetaceans and pinnipeds, with the shutdown zone in each group being the largest of the shutdown zones for any of the hearing groups contained within that group. MEDOT has also voluntarily proposed to increase shutdown sizes above those we would typically require in order to be precautionary and protective to marine mammals. Due to the modification of pile size and duration as discussed above, the updated shutdown zones for the IHA renewal are in Table 2.

• Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of construction activity ( i.e., pre-start clearance monitoring) through 30 minutes post-completion of construction activity.

• Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead Protected Species Observer (PSO) to determine the shutdown zones clear of marine mammals. Construction may commence when the determination is made.

• If construction is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.

• MEDOT must use soft start techniques. Soft start requires contractors and equipment to slowly approach the work site creating a visual disturbance allowing animals in close proximity to construction activities a chance to leave the area prior to stone resetting or new stone placement. Contractors shall avoid walking or driving equipment through the seal haulout. A soft start must be implemented at the start of each day's construction activity and at any time following cessation of activity for a period of 30 minutes or longer.

• The MEDOT must employ at least one PSO to monitor the shutdown and Level B harassment zones.

• Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after construction activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from construction activity.

• The MEDOT must submit a draft report detailing all monitoring within 90 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first.

• The MEDOT must prepare and submit final report within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS.

• The MEDOT must submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data (in a separate file from the Final Report referenced immediately above).

• The MEDOT must report injured or dead marine mammals.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a renewal IHA to MEDOT was published in the Federal Register June 9, 2023 (88 FR 37864). That notice either described, or referenced descriptions of, the MEDOT's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and their habitat, estimated amount and manner of take, and mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures. NMFS received no public comments.

The renewal request consists of a subset of activities analyzed through the initial authorization described above. In analyzing the effects of the activities for the initial IHA, NMFS determined that the MEDOT's activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks and that authorized take numbers of each species or stock were small relative to the relevant stocks ( e.g., less than one-third the abundance of all stocks). The mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting requirements as described above are identical to the initial IHA.

NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) MEDOT's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA renewal) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.

No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

NMFS has issued a renewal IHA to MEDOT for the take of marine mammals incidental to conducting Falls Bridge Replacement Project in Blue Hill, Maine, from July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024.

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provides for authorizing incidental take of listed species. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.

The following species are included in the conservation plan and permit application: loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), green ( Chelonia mydas ), leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), and Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ) sea turtles, and Atlantic sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus ).

NMFS received a draft permit application from University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) on September 29, 2022. Based on our review of the draft application, we requested further information and clarification. On November 29, 2022, SMAST submitted a revised application. Based on review of the application, NMFS and SMAST held further discussions regarding what needed to be incorporated in the application and Habitat Conservation Plan. On June 13, 2023, SMAST submitted a revised and complete application for the take of ESA-listed sturgeon and sea turtles during the operation of fisheries survey operations in and around the Massachusetts/Rhode Island Wind Energy Area (WEA). The proposed fisheries survey is intended to sample non-ESA listed wild fish populations to provide baseline fisheries data prior to the construction of five offshore wind farms within the WEA in order to better understand the effects on wild fish populations from offshore wind development. SMAST is requesting a 2-year rolling take interval ( i.e., take that occurs over any 2 consecutive years) for sturgeon and sea turtles. The total 2-year rolling incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus ) requested is 10, based on an estimated 5 takes per year. The total 2-year rolling incidental take of ESA-listed sea turtles requested is 8, based on an estimated 1 take per year of each of the following species: loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), green ( Chelonia mydas ), and leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ).

Section 10 of the ESA specifies that no permit may be issued unless an applicant submits an adequate conservation plan. The conservation plan prepared by SMAST describes measures designed to minimize and mitigate the impacts of any incidental take of ESA-listed sturgeon and sea turtles. To avoid and minimize take of sturgeon, SMAST will only operate the trawl survey with at least one survey staff onboard trained within the last 5 years in accordance with the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program in protected species identification and safe handling (inclusive of taking genetic samples from Atlantic sturgeon). Additionally, reference materials for identification, disentanglement, safe handling, and genetic sampling procedures will be available on board each survey vessel. To avoid and minimize take of sea turtles, between June 1 and November 30, SMAST will have a trained lookout posted on all vessel transits during all phases of the project to observe for protected species and communicate with the captain to take avoidance measures as soon as possible if one is sighted. Further, SMAST will implement the following avoidance measures between June 1 and November 30: (1) The trained lookout will monitor https://seaturtlesightings.org prior to each trip and report any observations of sea turtles in the vicinity of the planned transit to all vessel operators/captains and lookouts on duty that day; (2) If a sea turtle is sighted within 100 m of the operating vessel's forward path, the vessel operator must slow down to 4 knots (unless unsafe to do so) and may resume normal vessel operations once the vessel has passed the sea turtle. If a sea turtle is sighted within 50 m of the forward path of the operating vessel, the vessel operator must shift to neutral when safe to do so and then proceed away from the turtle at a speed of 4 knots or less until there is a separation distance of at least 100 m at which time normal vessel operations may be resumed; (3) The vessel will spend 15 minutes prior to each tow at the sampling station looking out for sea turtles. If a sea turtle is sighted during transit to a sampling station, during scouting, or while the gear is being prepared and deployed, the vessel will immediately proceed to an alternative tow station away from where the animal was observed; (4) Between June 1 and November 30, vessels will avoid transiting through areas of visible jellyfish aggregations or floating sargassum lines or mats. In the event that operational safety prevents avoidance of such areas, vessels will slow to 4 knots while transiting through such areas; and (5) All vessel crew members will be briefed in the identification of sea turtles and in regulations and best practices for avoiding vessel collisions. Reference materials will be available aboard all project vessels for identification of sea turtles. The expectation and process for reporting of sea turtles (including live, entangled, and dead individuals) will be clearly communicated and posted in highly visible locations aboard all project vessels, so that there is an expectation for reporting to the designated vessel contact (such as the lookout or the vessel captain), as well as a communication channel and process for crew members to do so.

These measures will avoid and minimize the incidental take of sturgeon and sea turtles due to incidental capture or vessel interactions. The alternatives considered were determined by SMAST to either: (1) substantially reduce the ability of the survey to detect changes; (2) result in significant impact delays to the initiation of the surveys, thus jeopardizing the ability to collect pre-construction baseline data that is necessary to understand the response of wild fish populations to offshore wind development; or (3) rely upon unproven methods. Funding for the proposed conservation measures will be provided by the five offshore wind developers directly to SMAST.

Issuing an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit constitutes a Federal action requiring NMFS to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) as implemented by 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Policy Act (1999). NMFS intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment to consider a range of reasonable alternatives and fully evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts likely to result from issuing a permit.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments received during the comment period to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. If NMFS determines that the requirements are met, a permit will be issued for incidental takes of ESA-listed sturgeon. The final NEPA and permit determinations will not be made until after the end of the comment period. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the Federal Register .

Title: Registration under the Commodity Exchange Act (OMB Control No. 3038-0072). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The information collected under OMB Control No. 3038-0072 is gathered through the use of forms for registration of swap dealers and major swap participants. Swap dealers and major swap participants are required by section 4s(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) (7 U.S.C. 6s(a)) to register with the Commission. The CFTC uses various forms for registration (and withdrawal therefrom) (the “Registration Forms”). OMB Control No. 3038-0072 applies to the Registration Forms for registration of swap dealers and major swap participants, 2 to the alternative method provided under Commission regulations to submission of a fingerprint card for foreign natural persons; and to the process for requesting cross-border comparability determinations for substituted compliance with requirements otherwise applicable to swap dealers and major swap participants.

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. 3 On April 28, 2023, the Commission published in the Federal Register notice of the proposed extension of this information collection and provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed extension, 88 FR 26279 (“60-Day Notice”). The Commission did not receive any comments on the 60-Day Notice.

Burden Statement: The Commission continues to estimate the burden for this collection as described below.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Users of Commission registration forms that are swap dealers and major swap participants.

Estimated number of respondents: 779.

Estimated average burden hours per respondent: 1.14 hours.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 888 hours.

Frequency of responses: Periodically.

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

Under the PRA, 1 Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA  2 requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below. 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. 3

Title: Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Conflicts of Interest and Business Conduct Standards with Counterparties (OMB Control No. 3038-0079). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Section 731 of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act  4 amended the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) to add sections 4s(h) and 4s(j)(5)  5 , which provide the Commission with both mandatory and discretionary rulemaking authority to impose business conduct requirements on SDs and MSPs in their dealings with counterparties, including “Special Entities,”  6 and require that each SD and MSP implement conflicts of interest systems and procedures. Congress granted the Commission broad discretionary authority to promulgate business conduct requirements, as appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the CEA. 7

Accordingly, the Commission has adopted subpart H of part 23 of its regulations (“EBCS Rules”)  8 and § 23.605, 9 requiring SDs and MSPs to follow specified procedures and provide specified disclosures in their dealings with counterparties, to adopt and implement conflicts of interest procedures and disclosures, and to maintain specified records related to those requirements.

The recordkeeping and third-party disclosure obligations imposed by the regulations are essential to ensuring that SDs and MSPs develop and maintain procedures and disclosures required by the CEA and Commission regulations. 10

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

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

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

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

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

You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations. 11

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

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection based on a decrease in the current number of Commission-registered SDs. 12 The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 106.

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 2,352.9 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 249,412 hours.

Frequency of Collection: Ongoing.

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

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

Title: Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (OMB Control No. 3038-0096). This is a request for revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The collection of information is needed to ensure that the CFTC and other regulators have access to swap data as required by the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). The Dodd-Frank Act directed the CFTC to adopt rules providing for the reporting of data relating to swaps. In 2012, the CFTC adopted Regulation 45, which imposes recordkeeping and reporting requirements relating to swaps. The Commission is revising its burden hours and hourly labor cost estimates following the Commission's designation of a Unique Product Identifier (“UPI”) and product classification system for certain swap asset classes. The Commission is revising its burden estimates associated with the reporting obligations under part 45 of the Commission rules to account for new burden associated with the requirements of part 45.7.

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

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

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

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

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

You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the CFTC to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the CFTC's regulations. 1

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

Burden Statement: CFTC Regulation 45.7 results in information collection requirements within the meaning of the PRA. With respect to the ongoing reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with swaps, the CFTC believes that SDs, MSPs, SEFs, DCMs, DCOs, SDRs, and non-SD/MSP counterparties incur an annual time-burden of 1,093 hours. This time-burden represents a proportion of the burden respondents incur to operate and maintain their swap data recordkeeping and reporting systems.

In addition, the Commission estimates that regulation 45.7 will create costs for entities required to retrieve and transmit UPIs to update their systems to retrieve and transmit UPIs. The Commission estimates that SDRs, SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties required to retrieve and transmit UPIs will incur a one-time initial burden of one hour per entity to modify their systems to adopt the required changes, for a total estimated hours burden of 1,732 hours. The associated labor cost per entity is estimated to be $93.31 for a total cost across entities of $161,620.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants, SEFs, DCMs, DCOs, and other counterparties to a swap transaction ( i.e., end-user, non-SD/non-MSP counterparties).

Estimated number of respondents: 1,732.

Estimated average burden hours per respondent: 1.6 hours.

Estimated total annual burden hours on ÷respondents: 2,825 hours.

Frequency of collection: Ongoing.

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

Because Congress charged the CFPB with the responsibility of overseeing many lenders and products, the CFPB has long used a risk-based approach to prioritizing supervisory examinations and enforcement activity. This approach helps ensure that the CFPB focuses on areas that present substantial risk of credit discrimination for consumers and small businesses. 1

As part of the prioritization process, the CFPB identifies emerging developments and trends by monitoring key consumer financial markets. If this field and market intelligence identifies fair lending risks in a particular market, that information is used to determine the type and extent of assets applied to address those risks.

The prioritization process incorporates a number of additional factors, including tips and leads from industry whistleblowers, advocacy groups, and government agencies; supervisory and enforcement history; consumer complaints; and results from analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and other data.

As a result of its annual risk-based prioritization process, in 2022 the CFPB focused much of its fair lending supervision efforts on mortgage origination and pricing, small business lending (including agricultural lending), policies and procedures regarding geographic and other exclusions in underwriting, and on the use of automated systems and models, sometimes marketed as artificial intelligence and machine learning models.

As in previous years, the CFPB's 2022 mortgage origination work continued to focus on redlining (intentional discrimination against applicants and prospective applicants living or seeking credit in minority neighborhoods, including by discouragement); assessing potential discrimination in underwriting and pricing processes; assessing whether lenders are illegally steering applicants on a prohibited basis; and HMDA data integrity and validation reviews (both as standalone exams and in preparation for subsequent Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) exams).

The CFPB's small business lending work assessed whether there were disparities in application, underwriting, and pricing processes, and whether there were weaknesses in fair lending-related compliance management systems.

Across multiple markets, the CFPB assessed whether lenders complied with the adverse action notice requirements of ECOA and Regulation B and evaluated whether lenders maintain policies and procedures that exclude property on the basis of geography in underwriting decisions and to ensure those policies and procedures do not unlawfully exclude certain types of income.

The CFPB continued to expand its evaluation of automated systems and models, sometimes marketed as artificial intelligence and machine learning models, as used by institutions, including in evaluating applicants for credit.

Congress authorized the CFPB to bring actions to enforce the requirements of eighteen enumerated statutes, including ECOA, HMDA, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), which prohibits unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices (UDAAPs). The CFPB engages in research, conducts investigations, files administrative complaints, holds hearings, and adjudicates claims through the CFPB's administrative enforcement process. The CFPB also uses its independent litigation authority to file cases in Federal court alleging violations of fair lending laws under the CFPB's jurisdiction. Like other Federal regulators, the CFPB is required to refer matters to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when it has reason to believe that a creditor has engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination. 2

In 2022, the CFPB announced one fair lending-related enforcement action, Trident Mortgage Company, LP (Trident). 3 On July 27, 2022, the CFPB, together with the DOJ, filed a complaint and proposed consent order in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to resolve the agencies' allegations against Trident. The court entered the order on September 14, 2022. Trident is incorporated in Delaware and had locations in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania at the time of the alleged conduct. Before the complaint was filed, Trident ceased originating mortgages. The States of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania entered into concurrent agreements with Trident. The CFPB and DOJ's joint complaint alleged that Trident engaged in unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin against applicants and prospective applicants, including by redlining majority-minority neighborhoods in the Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area (Philadelphia MSA) and engaged in acts and practices directed at prospective applicants that would discourage prospective applicants from applying for credit in violation of ECOA, Regulation B, and the CFPA. DOJ also alleged that Trident's conduct violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA). As part of remediation, the order requires Trident to invest $18.4 million in a loan subsidy program under which Trident will contract with a lender to increase the credit extended in majority-minority neighborhoods in the Philadelphia MSA and make loans under the loan subsidy fund. That lender must also maintain at least four licensed branch locations in majority-minority neighborhoods in the Philadelphia MSA. Trident must also fund targeted advertising to generate applications for credit from qualified consumers in majority-minority neighborhoods in the Philadelphia MSA and take other remedial steps to serve the credit needs of majority-minority neighborhoods in the Philadelphia MSA. Trident must also pay a civil money penalty of $4 million. This settlement is the first Federal government resolution involving illegal lending discrimination by a nonbank mortgage lender.

The CFPB must refer to DOJ a matter when it has reason to believe that a creditor has engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination in violation of ECOA. 4 The CFPB may refer other potential ECOA violations to DOJ as well. 5 In 2022, the CFPB referred five matters to DOJ about discrimination pursuant to section 706(g) of ECOA. The referrals included four matters involving discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in mortgage lending (redlining) and one matter involving discrimination in underwriting mortgage loans on the basis of receipt of public assistance income.

When an enforcement action is resolved through a public enforcement order, the CFPB (together with other government entities, when relevant) takes steps to ensure that the respondent or defendant complies with the requirements of the order. Depending on the specific requirements of individual public enforcement orders, the CFPB may take steps to ensure that borrowers who are eligible for compensation receive remuneration and that the defendant has complied with the injunctive provisions of the order, including implementing a comprehensive fair lending compliance management system.

In 2022, the CFPB had a number of ongoing and newly opened fair lending investigations of institutions. The CFPB investigated or is actively investigating potential discrimination in several markets, including student lending, payday lending, credit cards, small business lending, and mortgage lending, including the unlawful practices of redlining and discriminatory targeting, as well as discrimination in home valuation and mortgage pricing exceptions. In 2022, the CFPB also investigated issues with HMDA reporting. The CFPB is looking into potential discriminatory conduct, including under ECOA and the statutory prohibition on unfair acts or practices targeted at vulnerable populations and leading to bias in automated systems and models.

The CFPB's Supervision program assesses compliance with Federal consumer financial protection laws and regulations at banks and nonbanks over which the CFPB has supervisory authority. As a result of the CFPB's efforts to fulfill its fair lending mission during 2022, the CFPB initiated 32 fair lending examinations or targeted reviews, which represents a 146 percent increase in fair lending examinations/targeted reviews since 2020.

For supervisory communications issued by Supervision during 2022, the most frequently identified issues related to the CFPB's review of mortgage origination underwriting policies and guidelines, particularly those that exclude lending for properties in certain locations or geographies.

In 2022, the CFPB issued several fair lending-related Matters Requiring Attention and entered Memoranda of Understanding directing entities to take corrective actions that the CFPB will monitor through follow-up supervisory actions. Examiners encouraged lenders to enhance oversight and identification of fair lending risk and to implement policies, procedures, and controls designed to effectively manage HMDA activities, including regarding integrity of data collection. The CFPB also directed mortgage lenders to correct violations relating to redlining, including by providing consumer remediation designed to spur lending in the redlined areas.

During 2022, informed by the Director's priority to address risks of consumer harm from advanced and emerging technologies in consumer finance, the CFPB focused additional resources on advanced data science and analytics during exam events to identify fair lending risks and violations in models.

Consistent with a recommendation from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)  6 the CFPB re-introduced several measures and performance goals specific to its fair lending supervision and enforcement, specifically the number of fair lending supervision events opened during the fiscal year and the percentage of all fair lending enforcement cases concluded by the CFPB that were successfully resolved through litigation, a settlement, issuance of a default judgment, or other means. The CFPB will again report progress for all supervisory and enforcement events relating to fair lending laws within the CFPB's jurisdiction in subsequent years in the CFPB's Annual Performance Plan.

During 2022, the CFPB continued to make progress on the small business lending data collection rulemaking required by Congress under section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act and participated in an interagency rulemaking to implement quality control standards for automated valuation models (AVMs). Under HMDA (Regulation C), the CFPB also issued a final rule amending the official commentary regarding the asset-size exemption threshold and a technical amendment regarding the coverage threshold for closed-end mortgage loans.

The CFPB publishes an agenda of its planned rulemaking activity biannually, which is available at: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulatory-agenda.

In the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress directed the CFPB to adopt regulations governing the collection of small business lending data. Section 1071 amended ECOA to require financial institutions to compile, maintain, and submit to the CFPB certain data on applications for credit for women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.

Congress enacted section 1071 for the purpose of facilitating enforcement of fair lending laws and enabling communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities for women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.

The CFPB previously issued a proposed rule amending Regulation B to implement changes to ECOA made by section 1071. 7 The comment period for this proposed rule closed on January 6, 2022. Consistent with section 1071, the CFPB proposed to require covered financial institutions to collect and to report to the CFPB data on applications for credit for small businesses, including those that are owned by women or minorities. The proposal also addressed the CFPB's approach to privacy interests and the publication of small business lending data, shielding certain demographic data from underwriters and other persons, recordkeeping requirements, enforcement provisions, and the proposed rule's effective and compliance dates. 8

More information is available at: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/1071-rule/, a page compiling key materials related to the CFPB's small business lending rulemaking.

The CFPB determined that the AVM rulemaking should follow the process set forth in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) to obtain input from small business that are likely to be impacted by the proposed regulation. In 2021, the CFPB began the SBREFA process to consult with representatives of small entities likely to be affected directly by the proposed AVM rulemaking. On February 23, 2022, the CFPB published the Outline of Proposals and Alternatives Under Consideration for the Small Business Advisory Review Panel for Automated Valuation Model Rulemaking. 9 To address potential fair lending risk in models, the proposal noted that the CFPB would consider proposing a requirement that covered institutions establish policies, practices, procedures, and control systems to ensure that their AVMs comply with applicable nondiscrimination laws.

The CFPB is participating in this interagency rulemaking with the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) (collectively, the Agencies) to develop regulations to implement the amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) concerning AVMs. The FIRREA amendments require implementing regulations for quality control standards for AVMs. These standards are designed to ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by the valuation models, protect against the manipulation of data, seek to avoid conflicts of interest, require random sample testing and reviews, and account for any other such factor that the Agencies determine to be appropriate. The Agencies have continued to work to develop a proposed rule to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's AVM amendments to FIRREA. 10

On December 27, 2022, the CFPB issued a final rule amending the official commentary that interprets the requirements of Regulation C to reflect the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions based on the annual percentage change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. 11

On December 21, 2022, the CFPB issued a technical amendment to Regulation C to reflect the closed-end mortgage loan reporting threshold of 25 mortgage loans. 12

In April 2020, the CFPB issued a final rule (2020 HMDA Final Rule) to amend Regulation C that increased the closed-end mortgage loan reporting threshold from 25 loans to 100 loans. On September 23, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the 2020 HMDA Final Rule as to the increased loan volume reporting threshold for closed-end mortgage loans. As a result of the September 23, 2022, court order, the threshold for reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans is the 25-loan threshold established by the 2015 HMDA Rule. This technical amendment updates the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the effective closed-end loan reporting threshold. For more information regarding this and other litigation matters, please see section 4 of this report.

The CFPB issues guidance to its various stakeholders in many forms, including Consumer Financial Protection Circulars ( Circulars ), advisory opinions, interpretive rules, statements, bulletins, publications such as Supervisory Highlights, and other resources to aid in compliance.

On May 26, 2022, the CFPB released a Circular to remind the public, including those responsible for enforcing Federal consumer financial protection law, of creditors' adverse action notice requirements under ECOA. 13 The Circular affirmed that Federal anti-discrimination law requires companies to explain to applicants the specific reasons for denying an application for credit or taking other adverse actions, even if the creditor is relying on credit models using complex algorithms. The Circular makes clear that Federal consumer financial protection laws, including adverse action requirements, should be enforced regardless of the technology used by creditors, and that creditors cannot justify noncompliance with ECOA based on the mere fact that the technology they use to evaluate credit applications is too complicated, too opaque in its decision-making, or too new.

On May 9, 2022, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion affirming that ECOA bars lenders from discriminating against applicants after they have received a loan, not just during the application process. 14 The advisory opinion and accompanying analysis clarify that ECOA protects borrowers from discrimination in all aspects of a credit transaction. The advisory opinion is consistent with a legal brief filed in 2021 by the CFPB, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the FRB, and DOJ. 15 Among other things, the advisory opinion affirms that ECOA and Regulation B protect applicants who have received credit and are existing account holders, not just those in the process of applying for credit. In addition, the advisory opinion explains that creditors must provide adverse action notices to applicants against whom they take adverse action, and that certain adverse actions—such as revoking existing credit or changing the terms of an existing credit arrangement—are only actions that can be taken against applicants who have already received credit.

On August 10, 2022, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule clarifying when digital marketing providers for financial firms must comply with Federal consumer financial protection law. 16 Section 1002 of the CFPA defines the term “service provider” and sets forth two exceptions to that definition. Under one of those exceptions, a person is not a service provider solely by virtue of such person offering or providing to a covered person time or space for an advertisement for a consumer financial product or service through print, newspaper, or electronic media. As explained in the interpretive rule, digital marketers that are involved in the identification or selection of prospective customers or the selection or placement of content to affect consumer behavior do not fall under this narrow exception and thus are typically service providers for purposes of the law. Digital marketers acting as service providers can be held liable by the CFPB or other law enforcers for committing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices as well as other consumer financial protection violations. The interpretive rule explains that digital marketers provide material services to financial firms and that the CFPB, along with other consumer protection enforcers, can sue digital marketers to stop violations of consumer financial protection law.

The CFPB's Supervisory Highlights reports provide guidance and general information about the CFPB's supervisory activities at banks and nonbanks without identifying specific entities. These reports communicate the CFPB's key examination findings and operational changes to the CFPB's supervision program. Supervisory Highlights is also a convenient and easily accessible resource for information on the CFPB's recent guidance documents. In 2022, the CFPB published three issues of Supervisory Highlights. 17

On May 2, 2022, the CFPB released the 26th edition of Supervisory Highlights. 18 The findings included in this report cover examinations completed between July 2021 and December 2021 in the areas of auto servicing, consumer reporting, credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, mortgage origination, prepaid accounts, remittances, and student loan servicing. 19 This report also discussed the publication of the CFPB's updated exam manual for evaluating UDAAPs, explaining that the updates cover discriminatory practices that may also be “unfair” under the CFPA.

A special edition of Supervisory Highlights, Issue 27, Student Loan Servicing Special Edition, Fall 2022, was released on September 29, 2022. 20 This report focused on specific supervisory findings unique to the student loan market.

The CFPB released the 28th edition of Supervisory Highlights on November 16, 2022, covering examinations completed between January 2021 and June 2021. 21 This report included the fair lending enforcement matter, Trident, which the CFPB's supervisory activities supported. For more information on the Trident matter, please see section 1.2.1 above.

All issues of Supervisory Highlights are available at: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/supervisory-highlights/.

Given the importance of accurately reported HMDA data to the CFPB's fair lending mission, the CFPB maintains a comprehensive suite of resources on its public website to help filers fulfill their reporting requirements under HMDA and Regulation C and to allow others to evaluate and study mortgage lending. These resources include: an Executive Summary of HMDA rule changes;  22 Small Entity Compliance Guide;  23 Key Dates Timeline;  24 Institutional and Transactional Coverage Charts;  25 Reportable HMDA Data Chart;  26 sample data collection form;  27 FAQs, 28 a new Beginners Guide to Accessing and Using HMDA Data, 29 and downloadable webinars, 30 which provide an overview of the HMDA rule. In 2022, the CFPB published a summary of the 2021 data on mortgage lending. 31 The CFPB also provides on its website an interactive version of Regulation C that is easier to access and navigate than the printed version of Regulation C. 32

Together with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), 33 the CFPB also routinely updates its HMDA resources throughout the year to ensure HMDA reporters have the most up-to-date information. For example, in September 2022, the CFPB released the 2023 Filing Instructions Guide  34 and the 2023 Supplemental Guide for Quarterly Filers. 35 Together with the FFIEC, in February 2022, the CFPB also published the 2022 edition of the HMDA Getting it Right Guide. 36 The CFPB also works with the FFIEC to publish data submission resources for HMDA filers and vendors on its Resources for HMDA Filers website, https://ffiec.cfpb.gov.

In addition, HMDA reporters can ask questions about HMDA and Regulation C, including how to submit HMDA data, by emailing the CFPB's HMDA Help at HMDAHelp@cfpb.gov. The CFPB also offers financial institutions, service providers, and others informal staff guidance on specific questions about the statutes and rules the CFPB implements, including ECOA and Regulation B and HMDA and Regulation C, through its Regulation Inquiries platform at www.reginquiries.consumerfinance.gov.

The CFPB engages with external stakeholders, including consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, industry, academia, and other government agencies. This engagement comes in varied forms, including broadcasting the CFPB's work and policy priorities through CFPB channels like blogs, press releases, or speeches; and reaching out directly to advocates and consumers through website updates and social media. The CFPB also regularly issues reports analyzing data and market conditions. To further an all-of-government approach to fair lending enforcement, the CFPB also participates in interagency groups. All of these engagements are critical to informing the CFPB's work and broadcasting the CFPB's priorities and recent work to its stakeholders.

The CFPB regularly uses blog posts, statements, press releases, guides, brochures, social media, and other tools to timely and effectively communicate with stakeholders. These tools are targeted to individuals, advocates, civil rights organizations, government agencies, tribal entities, small business owners, financial institutions, and other stakeholders to promote and broadcast news and information about emerging fair lending issues, areas of concern, CFPB initiatives, and more.

In 2022, the CFPB published 12 blog posts related to fair lending topics including: examination findings that some financial companies are unlawfully considering religion when making decisions on financial products;  37 a joint letter sent to The Appraisal Foundation regarding appraisal discrimination;  38 a new initiative to focus on financial issues facing rural communities;  39 announcing efforts to further crack down on discrimination in the financial sector;  40 announcing the publication of the 2021 Fair Lending Annual Report to Congress;  41 providing Spanish-speaking customers with Spanish-language disclosures;  42 announcing the publication of the Beginner's Guide to Accessing and Using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data;   43 identifying and addressing the financial needs of immigrants;  44 the Interagency Statement on Special Purpose Credit Programs Under ECOA and Regulation B;   45 challenging inaccurate appraisals through the reconsideration of value process;  46 research about higher interest rates leading to higher debt burdens for mortgage borrowers;  47 and changes relating to HMDA's closed-end loan reporting threshold. 48

In 2022, the CFPB also issued 16 press releases related to fair lending and access to credit issues, including the announcement of: the publication of the CFPB's Justice-Involved Individuals and the Consumer Financial Marketplace Report;   49 the publication of the SBREFA outline for the AVM rulemaking;  50 the updated UDAAP exam guidance;  51 Director Chopra's statement on the Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE) taskforce's report;  52 the availability of 2021 HMDA data;  53 a report on financial challenges facing rural communities;  54 the issuance of an advisory opinion on the coverage of fair lending laws;  55 the publication of a report on mortgage servicing metrics;  56 the issuance of a CFPB Circular related to adverse action notice requirements under ECOA;  57 the availability of the 2021 HMDA data;  58 the Trident enforcement action;  59 issuance of an interpretive rule laying out when digital marketing providers for financial firms must comply with Federal consumer financial protection law;  60 a report detailing family finances and debt in rural Appalachia;  61 the CFPB's Annual Report of Mortgage Market Activity;  62 the CFPB's effort to spur opportunities for homeowners in the mortgage market;  63 and publication of data from the National Survey of Mortgage Originations. 64

1. Project Background and Authorization. After the devastating Mississippi River Flood of 1927, Congress passed the 1928 Flood Control Act (FCA) which authorized the Mississippi River & Tributaries (MR&T) project. The Mississippi River Levees (MRL) project, which was authorized by the 1928 FCA, as amended, is a component of the MR&T project and prevents inundation of the alluvial valley of the lower Mississippi River (LMR) which begins at Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and gently slopes to the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River levees protect major cities and towns, developed industrial areas, valuable farmlands, and wildlife habitats against the Project Design Flood (PDF) by confining flow to the leveed channel except where it enters backwater areas or is diverted purposely into floodway areas. Backwater areas and floodways were both integral features designed into the overall MRL project.

Backwater areas are the necessary result of gaps left in the main-stem Mississippi River levee system at the mouths of major tributaries that empty into the river. During large flood events, floodwaters from the Mississippi River back into the gaps and/or block discharges from the tributary systems from exiting the backwater areas. The MR&T project is augmented by four backwater areas. The St. Francis River Backwater Area and the White River Backwater Area in the northern section of the LMR, the Yazoo River Backwater Area in the middle section of the LMR, and Red River Backwater Area in the southern section of the LMR. These backwater areas typically operate through the use of backwater levees which tie into the MRL system, water control structures, pumps, and sometimes connecting channels. The St. Francis River, White River, and Red River backwater areas each have operational pump stations; the Huxtable pump station was built in 1977, Graham-Burke pump station was built in 1964, and Tensas-Cocodrie pump station was built in 1986, respectively.

Floodways are intended to safely divert excess floodwaters past critical reaches in the levee system to prevent the PDF from exceeding levee design elevations. The original MR&T project provided for five floodways which were the Birds Point-New Madrid floodway in the northern section of the LMR, the Boeuf/Eudora floodway in the middle section of the LMR, and the West Atchafalaya, Morganza, and Bonnet Carre floodways in the southern section of the LMR. The Boeuf/Eudora floodway, which would have diverted water from the middle section of the LMR, from the mouth of the Arkansas River to Old River, during a PDF, was the only authorized floodway that was never implemented and was eventually removed as an authorized component of the MR&T project. The Boeuf/Eudora floodway would have removed approximately 700,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) of floodwater flow from the Mississippi River during the PDF. Without the Boeuf/Eudora floodway, it became necessary to confine the PDF between higher and stronger levees along the Mississippi River. Prior to the 1941 FCA and in an attempt to reduce the necessity of the Boeuf/Eudora Floodway, the cutoff and channel realignment component of the MR&T was initiated in 1932 for the middle section of the LMR. The cutoff and channel realignment component was intended to eventually increase the carrying capacity of the channel and lower flood stages. Legal action was initiated in 1929 from landowners over the use of the Boeuf/Eudora floodway. By 1941, with the legal conflicts still unresolved, the Mississippi River Commission re-examined the MR&T project but made no formal recommendation on the floodway issue. The 1941 FCA formally abandoned all components of the Boeuf/Eudora floodway and authorized an increase in the height of the Mississippi River levees, a plan developed by the Mississippi River Commission to provide flood protection to the Yazoo Backwater Area.

The Project was authorized by the FCA of 1941 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 77-228) and amended by the FCA of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-298). Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 established cost sharing for flood control projects, or separable elements thereof, on which construction was initiated after April 30, 1986. This provision would have required a local cost share to implement the Project. WRDA of 1996 later amended section 103 of WRDA 1986 to define physical construction as the date of the award of a construction contract, which restored full Federal responsibility for the Project. The FCA of 1941 authorized flood protection to the Yazoo Backwater Area through a combination of levees, associated drainage channels, water control structures, and a pump station. By 1942 the cutoff and channel realignment program was completed, and flood stages were lowered on the Mississippi River at Vicksburg. However, more recent hydrologic studies have revealed that these benefits have largely been reversed, and peak stages on the Mississippi River at the Vicksburg gage are increasing. To date, the levee, three water control structures, and the connecting channel have been completed as part of the authorized project. The levee, known as the Yazoo Backwater Levee, is an extension of the Mississippi River east bank levee, generally along the west bank of the Yazoo River to a connection with the Will M. Whittington (Lower) Auxiliary Channel Levee in the vicinity of the mouth of the Big Sunflower River. The Yazoo Backwater levee was completed in 1978. The authorized water control structures include the Steele Bayou, Little Sunflower River, and Muddy Bayou structures which were completed in 1969, 1975, and 1978, respectively. These water control structures allow for gravity flow drainage. The connecting channel between the Little Sunflower and Steele Bayou water control structures was completed in 1978. The Yazoo Backwater Area is the only major backwater area in the MR&T project that has an authorized yet unconstructed pump station to evacuate impounded water.

The Yazoo Backwater Levee was designed to reduce flood risks from overbank flooding of the Yazoo River, which is a major tributary that empties into the Mississippi River. Water control structures were incorporated into the Yazoo Backwater Levee to facilitate the release of water from the landside to the riverside of the levee, which is dependent on the elevation of the Mississippi River, and subsequently the Yazoo River. For instance, when the Yazoo River stage is lower than the landside stage at the Steele Bayou water control structure, the structure remains open to allow for the gravity flow release of precipitation driven headwaters from within the Yazoo Basin. Likewise, when the Yazoo River stage is higher than the landside stage at the Steele Bayou water control structure, the structure is closed to prevent Yazoo River floodwaters from entering or backing into the Yazoo Backwater Area (typically referred to as backwater flooding). Closure of the Steele Bayou water control structure also impounds any surface water and precipitation from the 4,093 square mile (2.62 million acres) drainage area of the Yazoo Basin. Once these waters become trapped, due to closure of the structure and no drainage potential into the Yazoo River, the flooding becomes known as a backwater flood event. When these conditions are met, and the continued accumulation from local rainfall events within the Yazoo Basin continue to drain southward, the backwater flooding is increased. A pump station would evacuate impounded backwater when the water control structures are closed.

The recurring backwater flooding has demonstrated the need to complete the remaining flood damage reduction feature of the Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater, Mississippi, Project. In the twenty-first century alone, the Yazoo Backwater area has experienced some degree of backwater-induced flooding 19 out of the 23 years. The historic 2019 flood inundated over a half million acres of the Yazoo Backwater Area from February to August. Another backwater flood occurred in February of 2020 and devastated the already flood-ravaged area. The 2020 floodwaters peaked only 2 ft lower than in 2019 and flooded over 450,000 acres of land. More volume of water passed through the Mississippi River at Vicksburg during 2019 than ever before in our period of record (1927-2022). During 2020 the second-most volume of water passed through the Mississippi River at Vicksburg. The volume of water passing through in 2019 was more than twice the amount of volume that Lake Erie can hold.

During backwater flood events, stagnant water conditions can remain, often for extended periods of time, until the Yazoo River stage is lower than the landside stage at the Steele Bayou water control structure, at which time the structure can be opened to allow for gravity flow out of the interior Yazoo Basin Area, reducing the landside stages of a given flood event. During prolonged backwater flood events, stagnant conditions create low dissolved oxygen in the water column which impact aquatic species. The backwater flooding also affects terrestrial areas with significant depths of water, restricting usable habitat and available food for terrestrial species. Therefore, these species must leave the flood zone or face mortality. The human population of the Yazoo Backwater Area also suffers significantly. During the 2019 flood, hundreds were displaced from their flooded homes for over six months. Farmers lost their entire 2019 crop season in the affected area.

2. Joint Agency Collaboration Effort. In January 2023, the U.S. Department of the Army (Civil Works) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a Joint Memorandum of Collaboration stating that the agencies are committed to a collaborative and expeditious path forward to establish flood risk reduction in the Yazoo Backwater Area that would be compliant with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and all other applicable laws and regulations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was also included in the collaborative effort. The Joint Memorandum identified activities “to enable the Army to deliver a preferred approach on flood risk reduction solution(s) for the YBA by June 2023.” The close collaboration between all three agencies throughout the process would serve the Federal Government in meeting flood risk management objectives, ensuring appropriate consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CWA section 404 requirements, addressing the needs of the affected communities, and addressing fish and wildlife issues. Since the issuance of the Joint Memorandum, the USACE, EPA, and USFWS have organized interagency technical and engagement teams to identify issues of concern and develop a draft water management solution. The USACE, EPA, and USFWS also jointly conducted public engagement sessions to allow the public to provide comments on preliminary options under consideration by USACE for a Project. All comments received were cooperatively reviewed by the interagency teams and considered in the development of the USACE Preferred Alternative.

A total of four public engagement sessions were held on February 15, 2023, and a total of four public engagement sessions were held on May 4 and 5, 2023, at the USACE Vicksburg District office. The February 2023 sessions were held to receive input from the communities on their needs and on development of a draft preferred approach, and the May 2023 sessions were held to receive input from the communities on the draft preferred approach. In addition, roundtable sessions were held on February 16, 2023, with various individuals, groups, and organizations, including a session for community leaders, local elected officials, agricultural interests, and environmental organizations. The input gathered throughout these early engagement sessions and on the draft preferred approach was used to inform the development of the USACE Preferred Alternative in this NOI. Transcripts from the May 2023 sessions can be found on the Yazoo Backwater Area Project web page. 1

Commenters spoke on a variety of topics regarding their concerns about, and lived experiences during, flood events, from lack of access to their homes and families, damages to their homes, lack of access to emergency services and education, lack of access to roads and loss of infrastructure, loss of agricultural crops and inability to plant crops, loss of ability to receive payment from crop insurance, economic losses and business hardships with the community being supported generally by agricultural production, loss of recreational values, loss of wetlands through long duration of inundation, as well as trees and other flora, loss of environmental values and harms caused to fish and wildlife, environmental justice concerns, lack of community growth and development opportunities, and impacts to both physical and mental health. The majority of commenters supported a solution that included a structural component. A few commenters stated that only a fully non-structural or nature-based solution should be put forth for any proposed action.

The USACE used the information provided by engagements and comments and the joint agency collaborative efforts to develop its Preferred Alternative for purposes of NEPA compliance. The USACE used information received, such as information related to crop season dates, to modify what the agencies presented to the public in May 2023.

Through this collaborative process, the USACE developed a Preferred Alternative and must go through the NEPA process to identify a final selected alternative for the Project and will fully consider the alternatives described below in the EIS process. To be clear, USACE has not made any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources regarding USACE's Preferred Alternative and seeks public input on all alternatives proposed for their ability to provide a community-driven flood risk reduction solution to the Yazoo Backwater Area.

3. The USACE Preferred Alternative. The USACE Preferred Alternative is a water management solution to reduce flood risk in the Yazoo Backwater Area, resulting from high stages of the Mississippi River, and consists of structural and nonstructural components. The Preferred Alternative provides flood risk reduction for communities and the local economy. Flood risk reduction will target primary residences (and roads isolating them), schools, infrastructure, commercial properties, and prime farmland while minimizing environmental losses.

The structural component consists of a 25,000 cfs pump operated to manage backwater flooding seasonally. The proposed location for the pump station would be on Steele Bayou adjacent to the water control structure in Issaquena County, Mississippi. The backwater will be managed at 90.0 feet (ft), National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD throughout) at the Steele Bayou gage, during the crop season of March 16th through October 15th and will be managed at 93.0 ft at the Steele Bayou gage during the non-crop season of October 16th through March 15th. These elevations are close to the elevations for the 2- (89.3 ft) and 5-year (92.0 ft) floodplains. Including a buffer on the extent of the 2- and 5-year floodplains will help to protect wetlands across the entire 2- and 5-year floodplains, particularly those riverine backwater wetlands located at the outer extent of the floodplains, receive sufficient backwater flood inundation to maintain ecological functioning. Managing water to any specific elevation requires the pumps to be initiated at a lower elevation and managing to 93.0 ft in the non-crop season will allow backwater flooding to benefit more wetlands before pumping is initiated. Similarly, managing to 90.0 ft during the crop season will allow backwater flooding to benefit more wetlands before pumping is initiated. Lastly, there are fewer wetlands anticipated to be impacted between the 90.0-93.0 ft elevations than between the 89.3-92.0 ft elevations, which translates to fewer wetlands to assess for impacts and likely less compensatory mitigation needs.

This seasonal water management solution will ensure flood risk reduction for the primary residences and vital infrastructure, preserving primary economic drivers in the community, while avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, and wetland values. During the seasonal water management at the 93.0 ft elevation, minimal functional losses of aquatic resources are anticipated, while some functional losses, such as fish spawning and rearing habitat, are anticipated during the seasonal water management at the 90.0 ft elevation. However, the USACE Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to convert any wetlands to non-wetlands during operation of the water management solution.

The nonstructural component consists of various features to reduce future flood impacts. One nonstructural feature is modification of the operation of the Steele Bayou water control structure to minimize impacts. Currently the structure is operated to maintain water levels in the Yazoo Backwater Area between 68.5 and 70.0 ft. The Preferred Alternative will modify operation of the structure to maintain water levels in the Yazoo Backwater Area at approximately 75.0 ft. This feature would allow for more exchange of water between the riverside and landside of the Yazoo Backwater Levee, mimicking more natural flood pulses and therefore benefiting the aquatic environment. Water levels would be maintained below top bank of the stream channels and therefore will not result in an increase in flood risk. Modifications to the Steele Bayou water control structure operation manual would be completed as a joint effort between USACE, EPA, and the USFWS. The remaining nonstructural features consist of acquisition ( i.e., property buyouts) or floodproofing of properties. Floodproofing of properties includes additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, and structures and their contents. Floodproofing options may include, but are not limited to, construction of ring levees, elevating homes, septic and sewer protection, and raising road elevations. Any floodproofing option outside of USACE authority will be coordinated with the appropriate State and/or Federal agency. A mitigation plan will be developed to fully compensate for all unavoidable environmental impacts and would be approved by USACE, EPA, and USFWS. In addition to the mitigation plan, a comprehensive monitoring and adaptive management plan will be developed as a joint effort between USACE, EPA, and USFWS. This plan will provide monitoring guidelines throughout the construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative and describe practical solutions to an array of potential environmental challenges in the Yazoo Backwater Area, as well as the Yazoo Basin, potentially associated with the USACE Preferred Alternative.

4. Other Alternatives to be Considered. The EIS will evaluate the USACE Preferred Alternative water management solution described above. As a result of the early joint agency public engagement in the pre-scoping process, three additional reasonable alternatives were developed for consideration in the EIS: the No Action Alternative; variations of the Preferred Alternative providing variations on the crop season dates; an alternative to not exceed the 90.0 ft elevation in water management year round ( i.e., no seasonal water management); and, a fully non-structural solution alternative ( i.e., without structural pumps) using the non-structural methods described above in the Preferred Alternative but more extensive to provide flood risk reduction for all primary residences impacted in the Yazoo Backwater Area. Impacts and environmental consequences of the alternatives on the affected environment will be evaluated and compared for the future with project and future without project conditions.

5. Scoping. The USACE invites all affected Federal agencies, Tribal Nations, State and local agencies, community members with environmental justice concerns implicated by the project, other interested parties, and the general public to participate in the NEPA scoping process during development of the EIS. The purpose of the public scoping process is to provide information to the public, narrow the scope of analysis to significant environmental issues, serve as a mechanism to solicit agency and public input on potential alternatives and issues of concern, and ensure full and open participation in scoping for the EIS. As previously described, the USACE has already provided a number of public opportunities for input that helped inform the development of the USACE Preferred Alternative including robust early engagement and pre-scoping meetings and a written comment period. The engagement process continues in the scoping process described in this NOI. The USACE requests input from interested parties regarding any potential mitigation alternatives and information and analyses relevant to impacts associated with the alternatives, including the USACE Preferred Alternative. Project information can be found on the USACE project website. 2 Comments can be submitted via the methods in the ADDRESSES section above. All personally identifiable information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by a commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

6. Potentially Significant Issues. The EIS will provide data and analyses on, but is not limited to, the following resources: bottomland hardwood wetlands and other wetland resources, endangered species, waterfowl, fisheries, water quality, downstream effects, cultural resources, environmental justice, recreation, and where appropriate consideration of ongoing and projected effects of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Wetlands, downstream effects, aquatics, and environmental justice are discussed briefly below.

Wetlands: The USACE Preferred Alternative will be designed to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Aside from the minimal unavoidable wetland losses associated with construction of an expanded footprint of the pump station facility, the USACE's Preferred Alternative is designed to result in no conversion of wetlands to non-wetlands. Some wetland functional loss is anticipated to occur during the crop season water management period. The USACE will collaborate with EPA and USFWS to estimate wetland impacts and identify compensatory mitigation methods to offset unavoidable impacts.

Downstream Effects: Recent studies have shown the additional water from 25,000 cfs pumps, operating at full capacity, is approximately 1% of the Mississippi River highwater flow, representing a nearly immeasurable contribution to the outflow at the Vicksburg Gage. The additional flow would minimally increase the water surface stage, which would have no appreciable effect to downstream flooding. Water quality impacts are anticipated to be insignificant because the total load of nutrients and organic carbon that will be exported downstream would not be altered because of pump operation. The overall contribution of nutrients downstream, resultant from pump operation, will only affect the timing of nutrient delivery, but not the overall appreciable loading downstream in the Mississippi River.

Aquatics: The USACE Preferred Alternative is anticipated to result in some loss of spawning and rearing habitat, primarily during the crop season. The USACE will collaborate with EPA and USFWS to estimate impacts to fish and other aquatic species and identify compensatory mitigation methods to offset any impacts. Current data shows hypoxia occurs during major backwater flood events and this hypoxia negatively affects certain fish species and other aquatic organisms. Flood-induced hypoxia during the spring and early summer likely impacts successful spawning and rearing regardless of the amount of aquatic habitat available. The EIS will analyze environmental and adaptive management plans to reduce the spatial extent and duration of hypoxia.

Environmental Justice: Backwater flooding events cause severe economic damages to all populations in the Yazoo Backwater Area by destroying homes, farmland, wildlife resources, community infrastructure, and access routes used by residences and the public safety system. The majority of the Yazoo Backwater Area is home to low-income or minority communities which meet the threshold criteria of at least 20 percent or more of households having incomes below poverty levels or an area having a majority of residents identifying as a minority. The Yazoo Backwater Area is also designated as disadvantaged by the Council on Environmental Quality's Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. 3 Backwater flooding events create disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects to these minority, low-income, and underserved communities. Meaningful outreach to communities with environmental justice concerns will be conducted and the EIS will compare the current backwater flood conditions with the future flood conditions across the alternatives and analyze the impacts to each of the communities with environmental justice concerns. 4

7. Anticipated NEPA Schedule. The current schedule anticipates the release of the draft EIS by the USACE for public review and comment in December 2023. After it is published, the USACE will hold a public meeting(s) to present the results of the analysis, to receive comments, and to address questions concerning the Preferred Alternative.

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: Application for the International Research and Studies (IRS) Program (1894-0001).

OMB Control Number: 1840-0795.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 50.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,333.

Abstract: This information collection (OMB 1840-0795) includes application instructions and forms for the International Research and Studies (IRS) Program (CFDA Number 84.017), authorized under title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1125). The program provides grants to institutions, public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals to conduct research and studies to improve and strengthen instruction in modern foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields.

The type of collection is a revision of the previously approved information collection (application). A revision of the application instructions and forms is necessary for IFLE to conduct the future competitions and complete the Department's required grant-making activities.

This collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1894-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

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

Title of Collection: Educational Opportunity Centers Program (EOC) Annual Performance Report.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0830.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved ICR.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 183.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,464.

Abstract: The Department of Education (ED) collects Annual Performance Reports (APRs) from Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) grantees under the authority of title IV, part A, subpart 2, division 1, sections 402A and 402B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, the program regulations in 34 CFR 644, and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), in 34 CFR 74.51, 75.720, and 75.732. The information that grantees submit in their APRs allows ED to annually assess each grantee's progress in meeting their project's approved goals and objectives. The APR data that grantees submit are compared with the projects' approved objectives to determine the projects' accomplishments, to make decisions regarding whether funding should be continued, and to award “prior experience” points. The regulations for this program provide for awarding up to 15 points for prior experience (34 CR 644.22). During a competition for new grant awards, the prior experience points are added to the average of the peer reviewers' scores to arrive at a total score for each application. Funding recommendations and decisions are primarily based on the rank order of applications on the slate; therefore, assessment of prior experience points, based on data in the annual performance report, is a crucial part of the overall application process.

Further, this performance report form is the main source of data for the Department's response to the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) for this program. In addition, the Department uses the annual performance reports to produce program level data for annual reporting, budget submissions to OMB, Congressional hearings and inquiries, and responding to inquiries from higher education interest groups and the general public.

EOC APRs are prepared and submitted by EOC grant projects. For each EOC grant project, the grant project director of record completes, or supervises the completion of the data submission process. The grant project director supervises the administration of an EOC grant. An EOC grant provides counseling and information on college admissions to qualified adults who want to enter or continue a program of postsecondary education. The program also provides services to improve the financial and economic literacy of participants. An important objective of the program is to counsel participants on financial aid options, including basic financial planning skills, and to assist in the application process. The goal of the EOC program is to increase the number of adult participants who enroll in postsecondary education institutions.

The proposed revision to the APR entails replacement of Competitive Preference Priority (CPP) questions with new CPP questions of equal response time. In addition, the annual number of responses and total annual burden hours have been adjusted to reflect an increase in the size of the reporting universe.

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

Title of Collection: Case Service Report (RSA-911).

OMB Control Number: 1820-0508.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved ICR.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 312.

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

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

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

At the August 17th meeting, the TAC will continue to consider and advise the Commission on topics such as 6G, artificial intelligence, advanced spectrum sharing technologies, and emerging wireless technologies. This agenda may be modified at the discretion of the TAC Chair and the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Meetings are broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live/. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Martin Doczkat, the FCC's Designated Federal Officer for Technological Advisory Council by email: martin.doczkat@fcc.gov or U.S. Postal Service Mail (Martin Doczkat, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554). Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Office of Engineering and Technology at 202-418-2470 (voice), (202) 418-1944 (fax). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include your contact information. Please allow at least five days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to fill.

On October 30, 2009, the agencies, along with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) State Liaison Committee and the former Office of Thrift Supervision, adopted the Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts (2009 Statement). 1 The agencies view the 2009 Statement as being useful for the agencies' staff and financial institutions in understanding risk management and accounting practices for commercial real estate (CRE) loan workouts.

To incorporate recent policy and accounting changes, the agencies recently proposed updates and expanded the 2009 Statement and sought comment on the resulting proposed Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Accommodations and Workouts (proposed Statement). 2 The agencies considered all comments received and are issuing this final Statement largely as proposed, with certain clarifying changes based on comments received. The final Statement is described in Section II of the Supplementary Information.

The agencies received 22 unique comments from banking organizations and credit unions, state and national trade associations, and individuals. A summary and discussion of comments and changes incorporated in the final Statement are described in Section III of the Supplementary Information.

The Paperwork Reduction Act is addressed in Section IV of the Supplementary Information. Section V of the Supplementary Information presents the final Statement which is available as of July 6, 2023. This final Statement supersedes the 2009 Statement for all supervised financial institutions.

The risk management principles outlined in the final Statement remain generally consistent with the 2009 Statement. As in the proposed Statement, the final Statement discusses the importance of financial institutions  3 working constructively with CRE borrowers who are experiencing financial difficulty and is consistent with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). 4 The final Statement addresses supervisory expectations with respect to a financial institution's handling of loan accommodation and workout matters including (1) risk management, (2) loan classification, (3) regulatory reporting, and (4) accounting considerations. Additionally, the final Statement includes updated references to supervisory guidance  5 and revised language to incorporate current industry terminology.

Consistent with safety and soundness standards, the final Statement reaffirms two key principles from the 2009 Statement: (1) financial institutions that implement prudent CRE loan accommodation and workout arrangements after performing a comprehensive review of a borrower's financial condition will not be subject to criticism for engaging in these efforts, even if these arrangements result in modified loans with weaknesses that result in adverse classification and (2) modified loans to borrowers who have the ability to repay their debts according to reasonable terms will not be subject to adverse classification solely because the value of the underlying collateral has declined to an amount that is less than the outstanding loan balance.

The agencies' risk management expectations as outlined in the final Statement remain generally consistent with the 2009 Statement, and incorporate views on short-term loan accommodations, 6 information about changes in accounting principles since 2009, and revisions and additions to the CRE loan workouts examples.

The agencies recognize that it may be appropriate for financial institutions to use short-term and less-complex loan accommodations before a loan warrants a longer-term or more-complex workout arrangement. Accordingly, the final Statement identifies short-term loan accommodations as a tool that could be used to mitigate adverse effects on borrowers and encourages financial institutions to work prudently with borrowers who are, or may be, unable to meet their contractual payment obligations during periods of financial stress. The final Statement incorporates principles consistent with existing interagency supervisory guidance on accommodations. 7

The final Statement also reflects changes in GAAP since 2009, including those in relation to the current expected credit losses (CECL) methodology. 8 In particular, the Regulatory Reporting and Accounting Considerations section of the Statement was modified to include CECL references, and Appendix 5 of the final Statement addresses the relevant accounting and supervisory guidance on estimating loan losses for financial institutions that use the CECL methodology.

The final Statement includes updated information about industry loan workout practices. In addition to revising the CRE loan workouts examples from the 2009 Statement, the proposed Statement included three new examples that were carried forward to the final Statement (Income Producing Property—Hotel, Acquisition, Development and Construction—Residential, and Multi-Family Property). All examples in the final Statement are intended to illustrate the application of existing rules, regulatory reporting instructions, and supervisory guidance on credit classifications and the determination of nonaccrual status.

The final Statement includes updates to the 2009 Statement's Appendix 2, which contains a summary of selected references to relevant supervisory guidance and accounting standards for real estate lending, appraisals, restructured loans, fair value measurement, and regulatory reporting matters.

The final Statement retains information in Appendix 3 about valuation concepts for income-producing real property from the 2009 Statement. Further, Appendix 4 provides the agencies' long-standing special mention and classification definitions that are applied to the examples in Appendix 1.

The final Statement is consistent with the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness issued by the Board, FDIC, and OCC, 9 which articulate safety and soundness standards for financial institutions to establish and maintain prudent credit underwriting practices and to establish and maintain systems to identify distressed assets and manage deterioration in those assets. 10

The agencies received 22 unique comments from banking organizations and credit unions, state and national trade associations, and individuals. 11

Many commenters supported the agencies' work to provide updated supervisory guidance to the industry. Some commenters stated that the proposed Statement was reasonable and reflected safe and sound business practices. Further, several commenters stated that the short-term loan accommodation section, accounting changes, and additional examples of CRE loan workouts would be a good reference source as lenders evaluate and determine a loan accommodation and workout plan for CRE loans.

Comments also contained numerous observations, suggestions, and recommendations on the proposed Statement, including asking for more detail on certain aspects of the proposed Statement. A number of the comments addressed similar topics including: requesting examiners base any collateral value adjustments on empirical evidence; considering local market conditions when evaluating the appropriateness of loan workouts; clarifying the “doubtful” classification; addressing the importance of global cash flow and considering a financial institution's ability to support the calculation;  12 clarifying the frequency of obtaining updated financial and collateral information; clarifying and defining terminology; and emphasizing the importance of proactive engagement with borrowers. The following sections discuss in more detail the comments received, the agencies' response, and the changes reflected in the final Statement.

Some commenters suggested that examiners should be required to provide empirical data to support collateral valuation adjustments made by examiners during loan reviews. The proposed Statement suggested such adjustments be made when a financial institution was unable or unwilling to address weaknesses in supporting loan documentation or appraisal or evaluation processes. For further clarification, the agencies affirmed that the role of examiners is to review and evaluate the information provided by financial institution management to support the financial institution's valuation and not to perform a separate, independent valuation. Accordingly, the final Statement explains that the examiner may adjust the estimated value of the collateral for credit analysis and classification purposes when the examiner can establish that underlying facts or assumptions presented by the financial institution are irrelevant or inappropriate for the valuation or can support alternative assumptions based on available information.

The proposed Statement referenced the review of general market conditions when evaluating the appropriateness of loan workouts. Several commenters stated that examiners should focus primarily on local and state market conditions, with less emphasis on regional and national trends, when analyzing CRE loans and determining borrowers' ability to repay. Considering local market conditions is consistent with the existing real estate lending standards or requirements  13 issued by the agencies, which state that a financial institution should monitor real estate market conditions in its lending area. In response to these comments, the final Statement clarifies that market conditions include conditions at the state and local levels. Further, to better align the final Statement with regulatory requirements, the agencies included a footnote referencing real estate lending standards or requirements related to monitoring market conditions.

A commenter suggested wording changes in the discussion of a “doubtful” classification to clarify use of that term. The final Statement clarifies that “doubtful” is a temporary designation and subject to a financial institution's timely reassessment of the loan once the outcomes of pending events have occurred or the amount of loss can be reasonably determined.

Some commenters agreed with the importance of a global cash flow analysis as discussed in the proposed Statement. One commenter stated that the global cash flow analysis discussion should be enhanced. Another commenter noted that small institutions may not have information necessary to determine the global cash flow.

The proposed Statement emphasized the importance of financial institutions understanding CRE borrowers experiencing financial difficulty. Furthermore, the proposed Statement recognized that financial institutions that have sufficient information on a guarantor's global financial condition, income, liquidity, cash flow, contingent liabilities, and other relevant factors (including credit ratings, when available) are better able to determine the guarantor's financial ability to fulfill its obligation. Consistent with safety and soundness regulations, the agencies emphasize the need for financial institutions to understand the overall financial condition and resources, including global cash flow, of CRE borrowers experiencing financial difficulty.

The final Statement lists actions that a financial institution should perform to not be criticized for engaging in loan workout arrangements. One such action is analyzing the borrower's global debt service coverage. The final Statement clarifies that the debt service coverage analysis should include realistic projections of a borrower's available cash flow and understanding of the continuity and accessibility of repayment sources.

Commenters suggested clarifying supervisory expectations for the frequency with which financial institutions should update financial and collateral information for financially distressed borrowers. Consistent with the agencies' approach to supervisory guidance, the final Statement does not set bright lines; the appropriate frequency for updating such information will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the type of collateral and other considerations. Given that each loan accommodation and workout is case-specific, financial institutions are encouraged to use their best judgment when considering the guidance principles in the final Statement and consider each loan's specific circumstances when assessing the need for updated collateral information and financial reporting from distressed borrowers.

Some commenters requested that the agencies define certain terms used in the supervisory guidance to illustrate the level of analysis for reviewing CRE loans. Examples include when the term “comprehensive” described the extent of loan review activity and when “reasonable” described terms and conditions offered to borrowers in restructurings or accommodations. Given that each loan accommodation and workout is case-specific, the agencies are of the view that providing more specific definitions of these terms could result in overly prescriptive supervisory guidance. Accordingly, the final Statement does not define these terms. Financial institutions are encouraged to use their best judgment when considering the principles contained in the final Statement and adapt to the circumstances when dealing with problem loans or loan portfolios.

A few commenters requested changes or more specific supervisory guidance on the definition of a short-term loan accommodation. The agencies are of the view that the scope of coverage on accommodations, as proposed, maintains flexibility for financial institutions. The proposed Statement discussed characteristics that can constitute a short-term accommodation and remained consistent with earlier supervisory guidance issued on the topic. Further, the agencies agree that the proposed Statement's discussion of short-term loan accommodations and long-term loan workout arrangements in sections II and IV, respectively, sufficiently differentiated short-term accommodations and longer-term workouts as separate and distinct options when working with financially distressed borrowers. Accordingly, the agencies have not included revisions related to guidance on short-term loan accommodations  14 in the final Statement.

One commenter stated that the agencies should incentivize proactive engagement with borrowers. The agencies agree that proactive engagement is useful and have clarified in the final Statement that proactive engagement with the borrower often plays a key role in the success of a workout.

In addition to a request for comment on all aspects of the proposed Statement, the agencies asked for responses to five questions.

The first question asked, “ To what extent does the proposed Statement reflect safe and sound practices currently incorporated in a financial institution's CRE loan accommodation and workout activities? Should the agencies add, modify, or remove any elements, and, if so, which and why?” Commenters noted that the Statement does reflect safe and sound practices and did not request significant changes to those elements of the Statement. Commenters generally agreed with the supervisory guidance and the revisions proposed and stated that the supervisory guidance is reasonable, clear, and useful in analyzing and managing CRE borrowers.

The second question asked, “ What additional information, if any, should be included to optimize the guidance for managing CRE loan portfolios during all business cycles and why?” One commenter responded that the supervisory guidance was sufficient as written and that no additional changes were needed. Another commenter suggested the agencies add an appendix containing the components of adequate policies and procedures. The final Statement contains several updated appendices with references to pertinent regulations and supervisory guidance. The final Statement also includes footnotes to highlight the supervisory guidance contained in the existing real estate lending regulation.

The third question asked, “ Some of the principles discussed in the proposed Statement are appropriate for Commercial & Industrial (C&I) lending secured by personal property or other business assets. Should the agencies further address C&I lending more explicitly, and if so, how?” A few commenters suggested including more detail regarding C&I lending in the final Statement, while one commenter stated that no expansion was needed. The agencies recognize the unique risks associated with CRE lending and acknowledge the several commenters who cited the usefulness of having supervisory guidance that specifically addresses CRE risks. Accordingly, the final Statement remains directed to CRE lending. The final Statement acknowledges that financial institutions may find the supervisory guidance more broadly useful for commercial loan workout situations, stating “[c]ertain principles in this statement are also generally applicable to commercial loans that are secured by either real property or other business assets of a commercial borrower.” In the future, the agencies may consider separate supervisory guidance to address non-CRE loan accommodations and workouts.

The fourth question asked, “ What additional loan workout examples or scenarios should the agencies include or discuss? Are there examples in Appendix 1 of the proposed Statement that are not needed, and if so, why not? Should any of the examples in the proposed Statement be revised to better reflect current practices, and if so, how?” Two commenters had specific recommendations for certain examples in Appendix 1. One commenter said the examples should contain more detail; another suggested the agencies either change or delete a scenario in one of the examples. The final Statement retains all of the examples and scenarios largely as proposed and includes additional detail clarifying the discussion of a multiple note restructuring.

The fifth question asked, “ To what extent do the TDR examples continue to be relevant in 2023 given that ASU 2022-02 eliminates the need for a financial institution to identify and account for a new loan modification as a TDR?” The agencies received six comment letters on the accounting for workout loans in the examples in Appendix 1. The commenters asked the agencies to remove references to troubled debt restructurings (TDRs) from the examples, as the relevant accounting standards for TDRs will no longer be applicable after 2023. The agencies agree with the commenters and are removing discussion of TDRs from the examples. The agencies have also removed references to ASC Subtopic 310-10, “Receivables—Overall,” and ASC Subtopic 450-20, “Contingencies—Loss Contingencies,” and eliminated Appendix 6, “Accounting—Incurred Loss Methodology.” Financial institutions that have not adopted ASC Topic 326, “Financial Instruments—Credit Losses,” or ASU 2022-02 should continue to identify, measure, and report TDRs in accordance with regulatory reporting instructions.

Based on a commenter request, the agencies made clarifications to the accounting discussion in Example B, Scenario 3, and in Section V.D, Classification and Accrual Treatment of Restructured Loans with a Partial Charge-Off, as reflected in the final Statement. For the regulatory reporting of loan modifications, financial institution management should refer to the appropriate regulatory reporting instructions for supervisory guidance.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Agencies have determined that this Statement does not create any new, or revise any existing, collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consequently, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.

The text of the final Statement is as follows:

The agencies  1 recognize that financial institutions  2 face significant challenges when working with commercial real estate (CRE)  3 borrowers who are experiencing diminished operating cash flows, depreciated collateral values, prolonged sales and rental absorption periods, or other issues that may hinder repayment. While such borrowers may experience deterioration in their financial condition, many borrowers will continue to be creditworthy and have the willingness and ability to repay their debts. In such cases, financial institutions may find it beneficial to work constructively with borrowers. Such constructive efforts may involve loan accommodations  4 or more extensive loan workout arrangements. 5

This statement provides a broad set of risk management principles relevant to CRE loan accommodations and workouts in all business cycles, particularly in challenging economic environments. A wide variety of factors can negatively affect CRE portfolios, including economic downturns, natural disasters, and local, national, and international events. This statement also describes the approach examiners will use to review CRE loan accommodation and workout arrangements and provides examples of CRE loan workout arrangements as well as useful references in the appendices.

The agencies have found that prudent CRE loan accommodations and workouts are often in the best interest of the financial institution and the borrower. The agencies expect their examiners to take a balanced approach in assessing the adequacy of a financial institution's risk management practices for loan accommodation and workout activities. Consistent with the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness, 6 financial institutions that implement prudent CRE loan accommodation and workout arrangements after performing a comprehensive review of a borrower's financial condition will not be subject to criticism for engaging in these efforts, even if these arrangements result in modified loans that have weaknesses that result in adverse classification. In addition, modified loans to borrowers who have the ability to repay their debts according to reasonable terms will not be subject to adverse classification solely because the value of the underlying collateral has declined to an amount that is less than the outstanding loan balance.

Consistent with the safety and soundness standards, this statement updates and supersedes previous supervisory guidance to assist financial institutions' efforts to modify CRE loans to borrowers who are, or may be, unable to meet a loan's current contractual payment obligations or fully repay the debt. 7 This statement is intended to promote supervisory consistency among examiners, enhance the transparency of CRE loan accommodation and workout arrangements, and support supervisory policies and actions that do not inadvertently curtail the availability of credit to sound borrowers.

This statement addresses prudent risk management practices regarding short-term loan accommodations, risk management for loan workout programs, long-term loan workout arrangements, classification of loans, and regulatory reporting and accounting requirements and considerations. The statement also includes selected references and materials related to regulatory reporting. 8 The statement does not, however, affect existing regulatory reporting requirements or supervisory guidance provided in relevant interagency statements issued by the agencies or accounting requirements under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Certain principles in this statement are also generally applicable to commercial loans that are secured by either real property or other business assets of a commercial borrower.

Five appendices are incorporated into this statement:

• Appendix 1 contains examples of CRE loan workout arrangements illustrating the application of this statement to classification of loans and determination of nonaccrual treatment.

• Appendix 2 lists selected relevant rules as well as supervisory and accounting guidance for real estate lending, appraisals, allowance methodologies, 9 restructured loans, fair value measurement, and regulatory reporting matters such as nonaccrual status. The agencies intend this statement to be used in conjunction with materials identified in Appendix 2 to reach appropriate conclusions regarding loan classification and regulatory reporting.

• Appendix 3 discusses valuation concepts for income-producing real property. 10

• Appendix 4 provides the special mention and adverse classification definitions used by the Board, FDIC, and OCC. 11

• Appendix 5 addresses the relevant accounting and supervisory guidance on estimating loan losses for financial institutions that use the current expected credit losses (CECL) methodology.

The agencies encourage financial institutions to work proactively and prudently with borrowers who are, or may be, unable to meet their contractual payment obligations during periods of financial stress. Such actions may entail loan accommodations that are generally short-term or temporary in nature and occur before a loan reaches a workout scenario. These actions can mitigate long-term adverse effects on borrowers by allowing them to address the issues affecting repayment ability and are often in the best interest of financial institutions and their borrowers.

When entering into an accommodation with a borrower, it is prudent for a financial institution to provide clear, accurate, and timely information about the arrangement to the borrower and any guarantor. Any such accommodation must be consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Further, a financial institution should employ prudent risk management practices and appropriate internal controls over such accommodations. Weak or imprudent risk management practices and internal controls can adversely affect borrowers and expose a financial institution to increases in credit, compliance, operational, or other risks. Imprudent practices that are widespread at a financial institution may also pose a risk to its capital adequacy.

Prudent risk management practices and internal controls will enable financial institutions to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the credit risk of accommodated loans. Prudent risk management practices include developing and maintaining appropriate policies and procedures, updating and assessing financial and collateral information, maintaining an appropriate risk rating (or grading) framework, and ensuring proper tracking and accounting for loan accommodations. Prudent internal controls related to loan accommodations include comprehensive policies  12 and practices, proper management approvals, an ongoing credit risk review function, and timely and accurate reporting and communication.

When short-term accommodation measures are not sufficient or have not been successful in addressing credit problems, financial institutions could proceed into longer-term or more complex loan arrangements with borrowers under a formal workout program. Loan workout arrangements can take many forms, including, but not limited to:

• Renewing or extending loan terms;

• Granting additional credit to improve prospects for overall repayment; or

• Restructuring  13 the loan with or without concessions.

A financial institution's risk management practices for implementing workout arrangements should be appropriate for the scope, complexity, and nature of the financial institution's lending activity. Further, these practices should be consistent with safe and sound lending policies and supervisory guidance, real estate lending standards and requirements, 14 and relevant regulatory reporting requirements. Examiners will evaluate the effectiveness of a financial institution's practices, which typically include:

• A prudent loan workout policy that establishes appropriate loan terms and amortization schedules and that permits the financial institution to reasonably adjust the loan workout plan if sustained repayment performance is not demonstrated or if collateral values do not stabilize;  15

• Management infrastructure to identify, measure, and monitor the volume and complexity of the loan workout activity;

• Documentation standards to verify a borrower's creditworthiness, including financial condition, repayment ability, and collateral values;

• Management information systems and internal controls to identify and track loan performance and risk, including impact on concentration risk and the allowance;

• Processes designed to ensure that the financial institution's regulatory reports are consistent with regulatory reporting requirements;

• Loan collection procedures;

• Adherence to statutory, regulatory, and internal lending limits;

• Collateral administration to ensure proper lien perfection of the financial institution's collateral interests for both real and personal property; and

• An ongoing credit risk review function. 16

An effective loan workout arrangement should improve the lender's prospects for repayment of principal and interest, be consistent with sound banking and accounting practices, and comply with applicable laws and regulations. Typically, financial institutions consider loan workout arrangements after analyzing a borrower's repayment ability, evaluating the support provided by guarantors, and assessing the value of any collateral pledged. Proactive engagement by the financial institution with the borrower often plays a key role in the success of the workout.

Consistent with safety and soundness standards, examiners will not criticize a financial institution for engaging in loan workout arrangements, even though such loans may be adversely classified, so long as management has:

• For each loan, developed a well-conceived and prudent workout plan that supports the ultimate collection of principal and interest and that is based on key elements such as:

➢Updated and comprehensive financial information on the borrower, real estate project, and all guarantors and sponsors;

➢Current valuations of the collateral supporting the loan and the workout plan;

➢Appropriate loan structure ( e.g., term and amortization schedule), covenants, and requirements for curtailment or re-margining; and

➢Appropriate legal analyses and agreements, including those for changes to original or subsequent loan terms;

• Analyzed the borrower's global debt  17 service coverage, including realistic projections of the borrower's cash flow, as well as the availability, continuity, and accessibility of repayment sources;

• Analyzed the available cash flow of guarantors;

• Demonstrated the willingness and ability to monitor the ongoing performance of the borrower and guarantor under the terms of the workout arrangement;

• Maintained an internal risk rating or loan grading system that accurately and consistently reflects the risk in the workout arrangement; and

• Maintained an allowance methodology that calculates (or measures) an allowance, in accordance with GAAP, for loans that have undergone a workout arrangement and recognizes loan losses in a timely manner through provision expense and recording appropriate charge-offs. 18

The primary focus of an examiner's review of a CRE loan, including binding commitments, is an assessment of the borrower's ability to repay the loan. The major factors that influence this analysis are the borrower's willingness and ability to repay the loan under reasonable terms and the cash flow potential of the underlying collateral or business. When analyzing a commercial borrower's repayment ability, examiners should consider the following factors:

• The borrower's character, overall financial condition, resources, and payment history;

• The nature and degree of protection provided by the cash flow from business operations or the underlying collateral on a global basis that considers the borrower's and guarantor's total debt obligations;

• Relevant market conditions, 19 particularly those on a state and local level, that may influence repayment prospects and the cash flow potential of the business operations or the underlying collateral; and

• The prospects for repayment support from guarantors.

Examiners should review the financial attributes of guarantees and sponsorships in considering the loan classification. The presence of a legally enforceable guarantee from a financially responsible guarantor may improve the prospects for repayment of the debt obligation and may be sufficient to preclude adverse loan classification or reduce the severity of the loan classification. A financially responsible guarantor possesses the financial ability, the demonstrated willingness, and the incentive to provide support for the loan through ongoing payments, curtailments, or re-margining.

Examiners also review the financial attributes and economic incentives of sponsors that support a loan. Even if not legally obligated, financially responsible sponsors are similar to guarantors in that they may also possess the financial ability, the demonstrated willingness, and may have an incentive to provide support for the loan through ongoing payments, curtailments, or re-margining.

Financial institutions that have sufficient information on the guarantor's global financial condition, income, liquidity, cash flow, contingent liabilities, and other relevant factors (including credit ratings, when available) are better able to determine the guarantor's financial ability to fulfill its obligation. An effective assessment includes consideration of whether the guarantor has the financial ability to fulfill the total number and amount of guarantees currently extended by the guarantor. A similar analysis should be made for any material sponsors that support the loan.

Examiners should consider whether a guarantor has demonstrated the willingness to fulfill all current and previous obligations, has sufficient economic incentive, and has a significant investment in the project. An important consideration is whether any previous performance under its guarantee(s) was voluntary or the result of legal or other actions by the lender to enforce the guarantee(s).

As the primary sources of loan repayment decline, information on the underlying collateral's estimated value becomes more important in analyzing the source of repayment, assessing credit risk, and developing an appropriate loan workout plan. Examiners will analyze real estate collateral values based on the financial institution's original appraisal or evaluation, any subsequent updates, additional pertinent information ( e.g., recent inspection results), and relevant market conditions. Examiners will assess the major facts, assumptions, and valuation approaches in the collateral valuation and their influence in the financial institution's credit and allowance analyses.

The agencies' appraisal regulations require financial institutions to review appraisals for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 20 As part of that process, and when reviewing collateral valuations, financial institutions should ensure that assumptions and conclusions used are reasonable. Further, financial institutions typically have policies  21 and procedures that dictate when collateral valuations should be updated as part of financial institutions' ongoing credit risk reviews and monitoring processes, as relevant market conditions change, or as a borrower's financial condition deteriorates. 22

For a CRE loan in a workout arrangement, a financial institution should consider the current project plans and market conditions in a new or updated appraisal or evaluation, as appropriate. In determining whether to obtain a new appraisal or evaluation, a prudent financial institution considers whether there has been material deterioration in the following factors:

• The performance of the project;

• Conditions for the geographic market and property type;

• Variances between actual conditions and original appraisal assumptions;

• Changes in project specifications ( e.g., changing a planned condominium project to an apartment building);

• Loss of a significant lease or a take-out commitment; or

• Increases in pre-sale fallout.

A new appraisal may not be necessary when an evaluation prepared by the financial institution appropriately updates the original appraisal assumptions to reflect current market conditions and provides a reasonable estimate of the underlying collateral's fair value. 23 If new money is being advanced, financial institutions should refer to the agencies' appraisal regulations to determine whether a new appraisal is required. 24

The market value provided by an appraisal and the fair value for accounting purposes are based on similar valuation concepts. 25 The analysis of the underlying collateral's market value reflects the financial institution's understanding of the property's current “as is” condition (considering the property's highest and best use) and other relevant risk factors affecting the property's value. Valuations of commercial properties may contain more than one value conclusion and could include an “as is” market value, a prospective “as complete” market value, and a prospective “as stabilized” market value.

Financial institutions typically use the market value conclusion (and not the fair value) that corresponds to the workout plan objective and the loan commitment. For example, if the financial institution intends to work with the borrower so that a project will achieve stabilized occupancy, then the financial institution can consider the “as stabilized” market value in its collateral assessment for credit risk grading after confirming that the appraisal's assumptions and conclusions are reasonable. Conversely, if the financial institution intends to foreclose, then it is required for financial reporting purposes that the financial institution use the fair value (less costs to sell)  26 of the property in its current “as is” condition in its collateral assessment.

If weaknesses exist in the financial institution's supporting loan documentation or appraisal or evaluation review process, examiners should direct the financial institution to address the weaknesses, which may require the financial institution to obtain additional information or a new collateral valuation. 27 However, in the rare instance when a financial institution is unable or unwilling to address weaknesses in a timely manner, examiners will assess the property's operating cash flow and the degree of protection provided by a sale of the underlying collateral as part of determining the loan's classification. In performing their credit analysis, examiners will consider expected cash flow from the property, current or implied value, relevant market conditions, and the relevance of the facts and the reasonableness of assumptions used by the financial institution. For an income-producing property, examiners evaluate:

• Net operating income of the property as compared with budget projections, reflecting reasonable operating and maintenance costs;

• Current and projected vacancy and absorption rates;

• Lease renewal trends and anticipated rents;

• Effective rental rates or sale prices, considering sales and financing concessions;

• Time frame for achieving stabilized occupancy or sellout;

• Volume and trends in past due leases; and

• Discount rates and direct capitalization rates (refer to Appendix 3 for more information).

Assumptions, when recently made by qualified appraisers (and, as appropriate, by qualified, independent parties within the financial institution) and when consistent with the discussion above, should be given reasonable deference by examiners. Examiners should also use the appropriate market value conclusion in their collateral assessments. For example, when the financial institution plans to provide the resources to complete a project, examiners can consider the project's prospective market value and the committed loan amount in their analyses.

Examiners generally are not expected to challenge the underlying assumptions, including discount rates and capitalization rates, used in appraisals or evaluations when these assumptions differ only marginally from norms generally associated with the collateral under review. The examiner may adjust the estimated value of the collateral for credit analysis and classification purposes when the examiner can establish that underlying facts or assumptions presented by the financial institution are irrelevant or inappropriate or can support alternative assumptions based on available information.

CRE borrowers may have commercial loans secured by owner occupied real estate or other business assets, such as inventory and accounts receivable, or may have CRE loans also secured by furniture, fixtures, and equipment. For these loans, examiners should assess the adequacy of the financial institution's policies and practices for quantifying the value of such collateral, determining the acceptability of the assets as collateral, and perfecting its security interests. Examiners should also determine whether the financial institution has appropriate procedures for ongoing monitoring of this type of collateral.

Loans that are adequately protected by the current sound worth and debt service ability of the borrower, guarantor, or the underlying collateral generally are not adversely classified. Similarly, loans to sound borrowers that are modified in accordance with prudent underwriting standards should not be adversely classified by examiners unless well-defined weaknesses exist that jeopardize repayment. However, such loans could be flagged for management's attention or for inclusion in designated “watch lists” of loans that management is more closely monitoring.

Further, examiners should not adversely classify loans solely because the borrower is associated with a particular industry that is experiencing financial difficulties. When a financial institution's loan modifications are not supported by adequate analysis and documentation, examiners are expected to exercise reasonable judgment in reviewing and determining loan classifications until such time as the financial institution is able to provide information to support management's conclusions and internal loan grades. Refer to Appendix 4 for the classification definitions. 28

The loan's record of performance to date should be one of several considerations when determining whether a loan should be adversely classified. As a general principle, examiners should not adversely classify or require the recognition of a partial charge-off on a performing commercial loan solely because the value of the underlying collateral has declined to an amount that is less than the loan balance. However, it is appropriate to classify a performing loan when well-defined weaknesses exist that jeopardize repayment.

One perspective on loan performance is based upon an assessment as to whether the borrower is contractually current on principal or interest payments. For many loans, the assessment of payment status is sufficient to arrive at a loan's classification. In other cases, being contractually current on payments can be misleading as to the credit risk embedded in the loan. This may occur when the loan's underwriting structure or the liberal use of extensions and renewals masks credit weaknesses and obscures a borrower's inability to meet reasonable repayment terms.

For example, for many acquisition, development, and construction projects, the loan is structured with an “interest reserve” for the construction phase of the project. At the time the loan is originated, the lender establishes the interest reserve as a portion of the initial loan commitment. During the construction phase, the lender recognizes interest income from the interest reserve and capitalizes the interest into the loan balance. After completion of the construction, the lender recognizes the proceeds from the sale of lots, homes, or buildings for the repayment of principal, including any of the capitalized interest. For a commercial construction loan where the property has achieved stabilized occupancy, the lender uses the proceeds from permanent financing for repayment of the construction loan or converts the construction loan to an amortizing loan.

However, if the development project stalls and management fails to evaluate the collectability of the loan, interest income could continue to be recognized from the interest reserve and capitalized into the loan balance, even though the project is not generating sufficient cash flows to repay the loan. In this case, the loan will be contractually current due to the interest payments being funded from the reserve, but the repayment of principal may be in jeopardy. This repayment uncertainty is especially true when leases or sales have not occurred as projected and property values have dropped below the market value reported in the original collateral valuation. In this situation, adverse classification of the loan may be appropriate.

A second perspective for assessing a loan's classification is to consider the borrower's expected performance and ability to meet its obligations in accordance with the modified terms over the remaining life of the loan. Therefore, the loan classification is meant to measure risk over the term of the loan rather than just reflecting the loan's payment history. As a borrower's expected performance is dependent upon future events, examiners' credit analyses should focus on:

• The borrower's financial strength as reflected by its historical and projected balance sheet and income statement outcomes; and

• The prospects for the CRE property considering events and market conditions that reasonably may occur during the term of the loan.

Loans to commercial borrowers can have short maturities, including short-term working capital loans to businesses, financing for CRE construction projects, or bridge loans to finance recently completed CRE projects for a period to achieve stabilized occupancy before obtaining permanent financing or selling the property. When there has been deterioration in collateral values, a borrower with a maturing loan amid an economic downturn may have difficulty obtaining short-term financing or adequate sources of long-term credit, despite the borrower's demonstrated and continued ability to service the debt. In such cases, financial institutions may determine that the most appropriate course is to restructure or renew the loan. Such actions, when done prudently, are often in the best interest of both the financial institution and the borrower.

A restructured loan typically reflects an elevated level of credit risk, as the borrower may not be, or has not been, able to perform according to the original contractual terms. The assessment of each loan should be based upon the fundamental characteristics affecting the collectability of that loan. In general, renewals or restructurings of maturing loans to commercial borrowers who have the ability to repay on reasonable terms will not automatically be subject to adverse classification by examiners. However, consistent with safety and soundness standards, such loans should be identified in the financial institution's internal credit grading system and may warrant close monitoring. Adverse classification of a renewed or restructured loan would be appropriate if, despite the renewal or restructuring, well-defined weaknesses exist that jeopardize the orderly repayment of the loan pursuant to reasonable modified terms.

As a general classification principle for a problem CRE loan that is dependent on the sale of the collateral for repayment, any portion of the loan balance that exceeds the amount that is adequately secured by the fair value of the real estate collateral less the costs to sell should be classified “loss.” This principle applies to loans that are collateral dependent based on the sale of the collateral in accordance with GAAP and for which there are no other available reliable sources of repayment such as a financially capable guarantor. 29

The portion of the loan balance that is adequately secured by the fair value of the real estate collateral less the costs to sell generally should be adversely classified no worse than “substandard.” The amount of the loan balance in excess of the fair value of the real estate collateral, or portions thereof, should be adversely classified “doubtful” when the potential for full loss may be mitigated by the outcomes of certain pending events, or when loss is expected but the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably determined. If warranted by the underlying circumstances, an examiner may use a “doubtful” classification on the entire loan balance. However, examiners should use a “doubtful” classification infrequently, as such a designation is temporary and subject to a financial institution's timely reassessment of the loan once the outcomes of pending events have occurred or the amount of loss can be reasonably determined.

Based on consideration of all relevant factors, an assessment may indicate that a loan has well-defined weaknesses that jeopardize collection in full of all amounts contractually due and may result in a partial charge-off as part of a restructuring. When well-defined weaknesses exist and a partial charge-off has been taken, the remaining recorded balance for the restructured loan generally should be classified no more severely than “substandard.” A more severe classification than “substandard” for the remaining recorded balance would be appropriate if the loss exposure cannot be reasonably determined. Such situations may occur when significant remaining risk exposures are identified but are not quantified, such as bankruptcy or a loan collateralized by a property with potential environmental concerns.

A restructuring may involve a multiple note structure in which, for example, a loan is restructured into two notes (referred to as Note A and Note B). Lenders may separate a portion of the current outstanding debt into a new, legally enforceable note (Note A) that is reasonably assured of repayment and performance according to prudently modified terms. When restructuring a collateral-dependent loan using a multiple note structure, the amount of Note A should be determined using the fair value of the collateral. This note may be placed back in accrual status in certain situations. In returning the loan to accrual status, sustained historical payment performance for a reasonable time prior to the restructuring may be taken into account. Additionally, a properly structured and performing Note A generally would not be adversely classified by examiners. The portion of the debt that is unlikely to be repaid or collected and therefore is deemed uncollectible (Note B) would be adversely classified “loss” and must be charged off.

In contrast, the loan should remain on, or be placed in, nonaccrual status if the financial institution does not split the loan into separate notes, but internally recognizes a partial charge-off. A partial charge-off would indicate that the financial institution does not expect full repayment of the amounts contractually due. If facts change after the charge-off is taken such that the full amounts contractually due, including the amount charged off, are expected to be collected and the loan has been brought contractually current, the remaining balance of the loan may be returned to accrual status without having to first receive payment of the charged-off amount. 30 In these cases, examiners should assess whether the financial institution has well-documented support for its credit assessment of the borrower's financial condition and the prospects for full repayment.

Financial institution management is responsible for preparing regulatory reports in accordance with GAAP and regulatory reporting requirements. Management also is responsible for establishing and maintaining an appropriate governance and internal control structure over the preparation of regulatory reports. The agencies have observed this governance and control structure commonly includes policies and procedures that provide clear guidance on accounting matters. Accurate regulatory reports are critical to the transparency of a financial institution's financial position and risk profile and are imperative for effective supervision. Decisions related to loan workout arrangements may affect regulatory reporting, particularly interest accruals and loan loss estimates. Therefore, it is important that loan workout staff appropriately communicate with the accounting and regulatory reporting staff concerning the financial institution's loan restructurings and that the consequences of restructurings are presented accurately in regulatory reports.

In addition to evaluating credit risk management processes and validating the accuracy of internal loan grades, examiners are responsible for reviewing management's processes related to accounting and regulatory reporting. While similar data are used for loan risk monitoring, accounting, and reporting systems, this information does not necessarily produce identical outcomes. For example, loss classifications may not be equivalent to the associated allowance measurements.

Examiners need to have a clear understanding of the differences between credit risk management and accounting and regulatory reporting concepts (such as accrual status and the allowance) when assessing the adequacy of the financial institution's reporting practices for on- and off-balance sheet credit exposures. Refer to Appendix 5 for a summary of the allowance standard under ASC Topic 326, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses. Examiners should also refer to regulatory reporting instructions in the FFIEC Call Report and the NCUA 5300 Call Report guidance as well as applicable accounting standards for further information.

A financial institution needs to consider whether a loan that was accruing interest prior to the loan restructuring should be placed in nonaccrual status at the time of modification to ensure that income is not materially overstated. Consistent with FFIEC and NCUA Call Report instructions, a loan that has been restructured so as to be reasonably assured of repayment and performance according to prudent modified terms need not be placed in nonaccrual status. Therefore, for a loan to remain in accrual status, the restructuring and any charge-off taken on the loan must be supported by a current, well-documented credit assessment of the borrower's financial condition and prospects for repayment under the revised terms. Otherwise, the restructured loan must be placed in nonaccrual status.

A restructured loan placed in nonaccrual status should not be returned to accrual status until the borrower demonstrates sustained repayment performance for a reasonable period prior to the date on which the loan is returned to accrual status. A sustained period of repayment performance generally would be a minimum of six months and would involve payments of cash or cash equivalents. It may also include historical periods prior to the date of the loan restructuring. While an appropriately designed restructuring should improve the collectability of the loan in accordance with a reasonable repayment schedule, it does not relieve the financial institution from the responsibility to promptly charge off all identified losses. For more detailed instructions about placing a loan in nonaccrual status and returning a nonaccrual loan to accrual status, refer to the instructions for the FFIEC Call Report and the NCUA 5300 Call Report.

The rule at 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C, and § 430.310 thereof in particular, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. As a small executive branch agency, OGE has just one board. In order to ensure an adequate level of staffing and to avoid a constant series of recusals, the designated members of OGE's SES Performance Review Board are being drawn, as in the past, in large measure from the ranks of other executive branch agencies. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of each OGE senior executive's performance by his or her supervisor, along with any recommendations in each instance to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. This notice updates the membership of OGE's SES Performance Review Board as it was most recently published at 86 FR 53303 (September 27, 2021).

Due to the departure of Kathleen Silbaugh, the following official has been appointed to the SES Performance Review Board of the Office of Government Ethics: Elizabeth Fischmann, Designated Agency Ethics Official, National Credit Union Administration. The remaining Board members are Shelley K. Finlayson (Chair), Chief of Staff and Program Counsel, Office of Government Ethics; Sean Dent, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and Peter J. Constantine, Associate Solicitor for Legal Counsel, Office of the Solicitor, Department of Labor.

The supplemental funding will be used to:

• Expand/target direct and proactive technical assistance (TA) core content areas.

• Expand TA efforts to collegiate recovery settings.

• Expand and support Recovery Community Organizations (RCO) with development and billing strategies.

• Expand strategies of support for RCOs, with a special emphasis on billing and reimbursement practices.

• Encourage the adoption of SAMHSA's National Model Standards for Peer Support Certification, which can include the development of guidance documents, fact sheets, webinars, trainings, and other resources that support adoption ( e.g., a national peer certification Code of Ethics), and sub-awards for state certifications to help support the implementation of innovative pilot ways to adopt the standards.

Funding Opportunity Title: National Peer-Run Training and TA Center for Addiction Recovery Peer Support, TI-20-004.

Assistance Listing Number: 93.243.

Authority: Section 7152 of the SUPPORT Act for Patients and Communities.

Justification: University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) is the only SAMHSA-funded grant recipient of this NOFO and has the capacity and expertise to provide recovery-related technical assistance (TA). This supplement is to expand recovery-related TA, including TA related to peer recover support services and collegiate recovery.

This is not a formal request for application. Assistance will only be provided to the grant recipient funded in FY 2020 under the National Peer-Run Training and TA Center for Addiction Recovery Peer Support [TI-20-004] based on the receipt of a satisfactory application and associated budget that is approved by a review group.

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

Title of Information Collection: Mortgage Insurance Termination Application for Premium Refund, Tracer Claimant Refund Case Request.

OMB Approval Number: OMB-2502-0414.

OMB Expiration Date: 12/31/2023.

Type of Request: Revision of currently approved OMB collection.

Form Number: Mortgage Insurance Termination HUD-27050-A is submitted electronically; Application for Premium Refund HUD-27050-B.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Mortgage Insurance Termination information is used by servicing mortgagees to comply with HUD requirements for reporting termination of FHA mortgage insurance. This information is used whenever FHA mortgage insurance is terminated and no claim for insurance benefits will be filed. This information is submitted on the internet or via EDI and is used to issue mortgage insurance premium (MIP) refunds directly to eligible claimants. This condition occurs when the form passes the criteria of certain system edits. As a result, the system generates a disbursement to the eligible claimant for the refund consisting of the unused portion of the paid premium. The information collected is used to update HUD's Single Family Insurance System. The billing of mortgage insurance premiums is discontinued as a result of the transaction. Without this information, the premium collection/monitoring function would be severely impeded and program data would be unreliable. Currently when the form is processed but does not pass the criteria in the series of system edits, the system generates the HUD 27050-B Application for Premium Refund for the claimant to complete and return to HUD for further processing of the refund. In general, a Premium Refund is the difference between the amount of prepaid premium and the amount of the premium that has been earned by HUD up to the time the mortgage is terminated. The Tracer Claimant Refund Case Request is used to collect information on the claimant from the tracer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title of Information Collection: Disclosure of Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) Rates.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0322.

OMB Expiration Date: 8-31-2023.

Type of Request: Extension.

Form Number: None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Mortgage lenders must provide loan applicants wishing to obtain an FHA-insured Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) with a pre-loan disclosure that includes a written explanation of the ARM loan features. Loan servicers must also provide mortgagors with adjustable rate mortgages an annual ARM Disclosure Notice at least 25 days before any adjustment to a mortgagor's monthly payment may occur, advising the borrower of the new interest rate, the new monthly payment, index value and how the adjustment was calculated. Lenders generate the ARM Disclosures electronically and generally provide these disclosures on paper to their borrowers or in electronic formats. HUD collects the pre-loan ARM disclosure as part of the origination case binder. HUD may collect post-closing ARM disclosures as part of HUD's program monitoring and enforcement activities, e.g., when a loan is selected for HUD's post-endorsement quality review, or the lender sends the file to HUD for claim. HUD may review collected disclosures to ensure compliance with the ARM disclosure requirements.

Respondents: Lenders.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,250.

Estimated Number of Responses: 60,401.

Frequency of Response: One per FHA-insured adjustable rate loan.

Average Hours per Response: .05.

Total Estimated Burden: 3,020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract: The information requested on Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges—ATF Form 3210.1, fulfills the requirements of 18 U.S.C. chapter 44. Under Federal law, individuals prohibited from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting firearms are permitted to apply for restoration of their firearms privileges. Currently, only corporations may apply for relief as Congress has not appropriated funds for individuals who are prohibited. Information Collection (IC) OMB 1140-0002 is being revised to change the name of the form to “Application for Relief from Federal Firearms Disabilities” to reflect the process characterized in U.S.C. 925(c) and its implementing regulations at 27 CFR 478.144.

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a previously approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: ATF Form 3210.1.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as the obligation to respond:

Affected Public: Private Sector—business or other for-profit.

The obligation to respond is required to obtain or retain a benefit under 18 U.S.C. chapter 44.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 10 respondents will utilize the form annually, and it will take each respondent approximately 30 minutes to complete their responses.

6. An estimate of the total annual burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 5 hours, which is equal to 10 (total respondents) * 1 (# of response per respondent) * .5 (30 minutes or the time to complete each response).

7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: Although postage costs increased from $0.55 per respondent during 2020 to $0.63 currently, the total public cost burden is $6.

If additional information is required contact: John Carlson, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.

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

Abstract: This form is required for Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS), for delivery sellers to register with ATF, States and localities that these products are shipped into and report sales into these jurisdictions and requires distributors who engage in delivery sales to comply with State and local tax, and regulatory laws involving the distribution of ENDS to minors. Effective March 27, 2021, electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) became subject to regulation under the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act (15 U.S.C. 375 et seq.).

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a previously approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act Registration Form.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form number: ATF Form 5070.1/5070.1A.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as the obligation to respond: Affected Public: Private Sector—business or other for-profit. The obligation to respond is mandatory per 15 U.S.C. 375 et seq.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 800 respondents will utilize the form annually, and it will take each respondent approximately 1 hour to complete their responses.

6. An estimate of the total annual burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 800 total hours, which is equal to 800 (total respondents) * 1 (# of response per respondent) * 1 (60 minutes taken to prepare each response).

7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: ATF estimates the cost to businesses impacted will be $27,368 collectively.

If additional information is required contact: John Carlson, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.

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

Abstract: ATF Form 3 (5320.3) is filed by Federal firearms licensees who have paid the special (occupational) tax to import, manufacture or deal in NFA firearms to transfer an NFA firearm to a similarly qualified licensee.

1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a previously approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer of Firearm and Registration to Special Occupational Taxpayer.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: ATF Form 3 (5320.3).

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as the obligation to respond: Affected Public: Private Sector—business or other for-profit, Federal Government. The obligation to respond is mandatory under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 5812.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 255,888 respondents will utilize the form annually, and it will take each respondent approximately 30 minutes to complete their responses.

6. An estimate of the total annual burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 127,944, which is equal to 255,888 (total respondents) * 1 (# of response per respondent) * .5 (30 minutes).

7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: $3,020 (If used full universe of 255,888 × $.63 = $161,209).

If additional information is required contact: John Carlson, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.

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

Abstract: The information collected is used to compile statistics on the manufacture and exportation of firearms. The furnishing of this information is mandatory under 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(5)(A). This form must be submitted annually for every Type 07 and Type 10 Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), even if no firearms were exported or distributed into commerce. The information collection (IC) OMB #1140-0017 is being revised due to material and non-material changes to the form, such as added instructions, definitions, formatting changes (to adjust form length), bolded lines (to fillable boxes), grammatical changes (sentence rephrasing/statement modification), and instruction clarification.

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a previously approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) Under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, Firearms.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: ATF Form 5300.11.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as the obligation to respond:

Affected Public: Private Sector—Business or other for-profit.

The obligation to respond is Mandatory and required to obtain or retain a benefit. The statutory requirements are implemented under 18 U.S.C. chapter 44.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 19,200 respondents will utilize the form annually, and it will take each respondent approximately 20 minutes to complete their responses.

6. An estimate of the total annual burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 6,400 hours, which is equal to 19,200 (total respondents) * 1 (# of response per respondent) *.33333 (20 minutes).

7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: No new cost is associated with this collection. All respondents can electronically submit the AFMER to ATF free of charge, however, it is estimated that half the respondents submit the form to the Federal Firearms Licensing Center by mail. The annual cost has increased due to a change in the postal rate from $0.55 during the last renewal in 2020, to $0.63 in 2023. Consequently, the new public cost burden will be reported as $6,048.00, which is equal to $0.63 (mailing cost per respondent) * 19,200 (# of respondents) * 50% (percentage of responses submitted by mail).

If additional information is required contact: John Carlson, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.

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

Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering in title. This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Justice, information collections currently under review by OMB.

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

1. Type of Information Collection: New collection.

2. Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Restricted 922(o) Machine Gun (National Firearms Act).

3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: ATF Form 5320.24. Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, Federal Government, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Abstract: The Request for Restricted 922(o) Machine Gun (National Firearms Act) (NFA)—ATF Form 5320.24 must be filed by Federal Firearms Licensees who have paid the special (occupational) tax to import, manufacture, deal in, or transfer an NFA firearm to a similarly qualified licensee. The completed ATF Form 5320.24 will also serve as supporting documentation for the Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer of Firearm and Registration to Special Occupational Taxpayer—ATF Form 3 (5320.3) (ATF Form 3), which must be completed by a law enforcement authority requesting demonstration of 922(o) restricted machine guns.

5. Obligation to Respond: Mandatory under statutory requirements implemented in Title 27, CFR 479.105.

6. Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,850 respondents.

7. Estimated Time per Respondent: 20 minutes.

8. Frequency: Once annually.

9. Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 616 hours.

10. Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: The estimated annual cost to the Federal Government is $185.50.

If additional information is required, contact: John R. Carlson, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.

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

Abstract: Persons who wish to ship, transport, receive, or possess explosive materials, but are prohibited from doing so, will complete this form. The form will be submitted to ATF to determine whether the person who provided the information is likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of relief is not contrary to the public interest. The information collection (IC) OMB #1140-0076 is being revised due to minor material changes to the form, such as adding instruction clarification and “month/year” (to block (b) and (c) of item 9 and block (c) and (d) of item 10).

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a previously approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Restoration of Explosives Privileges.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: ATF Form 5400.29.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as the obligation to respond: Affected Public: Individuals or households, private sector—business or other for-profit. The obligation to respond is required to obtain/retain a benefit under 27 CFR part 555.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 300 respondents will utilize the form annually, and it will take each respondent approximately 30 minutes to complete the form.

6. An estimate of the total annual burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 150 hours, which is equal to 300 (total respondents) * 1 (# of response per respondent) * .5 (30 minutes).

7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: ATF estimates the cost to individuals impacted will be $9,789 collectively.

If additional information is required contact: John Carlson, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.

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

Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering either the title of the information collection or the OMB Control Number 1140-0070. This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Justice, information collections currently under review by OMB.

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

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a previously approved collection.

2. Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Explosives License or Permit.

3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: ATF F 5400.13/5400.16.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Affected Public: Private Sector—business or other for-profit, Individuals or households.

Abstract: Each person (individual, partnership, corporation, or association) applying for a Federal explosives license or permit must submit ATF Form 5400.13/5400.16. The information collected on the application is used to determine if the applicant is qualified to be a licensee or permittee under the provisions of the statute. The form will be submitted to ATF to determine whether the person who provided the information, is qualified to be issued a license or permit.

5. Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. The statutory requirements are implemented in 18 U.S.C. 843(a).

6. Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,200 respondents.

7. Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.5 hours.

8. Frequency: Once annually.

9. Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 15,300 hours.

10. Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $4,659.00.

If additional information is required, contact: John Carlson, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.

I. Background: This proposed information collection seeks to update the National Database of Childcare Prices (NDCP). The NDCP is the most comprehensive federal source of childcare prices at the county level. The NDCP was first made available to the public in 2022 and it currently provides data for the years 2008 through 2018. The NDCP is based on data collected by each state in their childcare market rate surveys (MRS). State-administered MRS are conducted by state human services or workforce development offices ( i.e., Lead Agencies) according to federal regulations to receive Child Care and Development Block Grants (CCDBG). MRS provide market prices of various types of child care ( e.g., center-based, home-based) by age of children ( e.g., infants, toddlers, preschoolers, school-age children) and by geography. MRS are used to establish reimbursement rates for childcare subsidies. MRS sample eligible centers and care providers in the priced market and obtain the full market price of care. MRS data are a rich source of local childcare price data. However, these data are not reported to the federal government and they are retained by the states. As a result, reporting metrics are not standardized across states and some of the data is not accessible to the public.

MRS are currently collected in three-year cycles. The most current MRS data collection cycle reflects the years 2019 through 2021. Some states may have applied for waivers and conducted data collection or reporting activities in 2022 due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This information collection would request MRS data for surveys conducted between 2019 and 2022 from all states and the District of Columbia. Data requested would have already been collected by each state to meet federal regulations; no new data collection obligation is created. The Department of Labor would reconcile measures for uniformity across the states and geography would be standardized at the county level to be able to combine these data for analysis with county characteristics that are publicly available from the American Community Survey. The resulting database (NDCP) would be evaluated to protect respondent confidentiality, implementing proper disclosure avoidance techniques in counties with small samples. The database would be made available to the public as a research tool to understand childcare prices at the county level and changes in childcare prices over time. Section 2 of Public Law 66-259 that established the Women's Bureau authorizes this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 13.

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

II. Desired Focus of Comments: This Federal Register Notice provides the opportunity to comment on the proposed data collection. The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments that do the following:

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

○ Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;

○ Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

○ Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology—for example, permitting electronic submissions of responses.

III. Current Actions: At this time, the Department of Labor is requesting clearance to request market rate survey data collected by the states and the District of Columbia between 2019 and 2022 to update the National Database of Childcare Prices.

Type of Review: Reinstatement with Change.

OMB Control Number: 1290-0025.

Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

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

The Standard requires employers to train workers about the hazards of asbestos, to monitor worker exposure, to provide medical surveillance, and maintain accurate records of worker exposure to asbestos. These records will be used by employers, workers, and the Government to ensure that workers are not harmed by exposure to asbestos in the workplace. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2023 (88 FR 19329).

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

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

Agency: DOL-OSHA.

Title of Collection: Asbestos in Shipyards.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0195.

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

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 255.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 3,597.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 1,038 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $ 34,639.

OSHA Student Data Form 182 is used to collect student group and emergency contact information from OSHA Training Institute students. The collected information is used to contact a designated person in case of an emergency. Student group data is used for reports, and tuition receipts. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2023 (88 FR 17026).

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

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

Agency: DOL-OSHA.

Title of Collection: Student Data Form.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0172.

Affected Public: Private sector—individuals or households.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,000.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 2,000.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 167 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

This standard requires employers to monitor employee exposure, provide medical surveillance, and to maintain accurate records of employee exposure to asbestos. These records will be used by employers, employees, and the Government to ensure that employees are not harmed by exposure to asbestos in the workplace. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2023 (88 FR 19682).

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

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

Agency: DOL-OSHA.

Title of Collection: Asbestos in General Industry Standard.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0133.

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

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 121.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 30,269.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 10,124 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $877,203.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2023-001-M.

Petitioner: Bunker Hill Mining Corp., 1 Mine Road, Kellogg, ID 83837.

Mine: Bunker Hill Mine, MSHA ID No. 10-00083, located in Shoshone County, Idaho.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.11052(d), Refuge areas.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 57.11052(d) to allow the mine to use compressed air cylinders to supply air inside the refuge chamber in lieu of the use of a compressed air line and to provide commercially purchased water in sealed bottles inside the refuge chamber in lieu of a waterline.

The petitioner states that :

(a) The mine is an underground silver, zinc, and lead mine with one refuge chamber that is purpose built with sealed cinder block walls integrated into the mine infrastructure.

(b) Mining access is by single, lateral development drifts driven through waste rock adjacent to the ore body with entry points on different levels for ore body exploration and development.

(c) There are generally 15 miners working in the mine when development activities are underway and typically 6 miners working on the same level as the refuge chamber, one to two times a week, for approximately 6 hours at each time.

(d) There is no natural or potable water source at the mine readily available to supply water through a waterline. The storage of commercially purchased bottled water will ensure that high-quality water is available to miners in the refuge chamber, without risk of damage to a waterline.

(e) The mine does not have usable compressed air lines throughout the mine. Due to insufficient power supply, the mine currently uses portable diesel compressors to supply compressed air periodically. However, portable diesel compressors are subject to damage or failure, so the use of portable diesel compressors to supply constant air through compressed air lines for refuge chambers is not practical or safe.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The refuge chamber shall have drinking water supplied with commercially purchased water in sealed bottles inside the chamber.

(1) The water provided shall be sufficient for 6 miners for a 96 hour period. Six cases, each consisting of 32, 16.9 fluid ounce bottles of commercially bottled water shall be maintained in the refuge chamber.

(2) The bottled water shall be visually inspected monthly.

(3) The bottled water shall be replaced every 2 years or sooner in the event of damage, usage, or degradation.

(b) There shall be 4 compressed air cylinders, supplied by OXARC, inc., in the refuge chamber, each providing 322 cubic feet of compressed air.

(1) Each compressed air cylinder shall provide a minimum of 24 hours of air at a setting of 6 liters per minute or 1.32 cubic feet per hour per person of air. The total time of sufficient air provided by the 4 compressed air cylinders shall be at least 96 hours.

(2) The compressed air cylinders shall be inspected monthly during escapeway inspections to ensure that the cylinders have sufficient air and are properly maintaining pressure.

(3) Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) scrubbing inside the refuge chamber shall be administered using ChemBio Enviro curtains (MSHA approval #07-LPA130002).

(4) There shall be 6 units of curtains in the refuge chamber with each curtain supplying each miner with 96 hours of CO 2 scrubbing capability.

(c) All underground personnel shall be trained on the operation of the air cylinders to release air and water rationing for a 96-hour period.

The petitioner provided a ventilation and emergency escape map that shows the refuge chamber location and primary and secondary escapeways, among other information.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method proposed will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

NASA hosts/sponsors numerous events on federally owned/leased property which are open to NASA affiliates and members of the public. The events include but are not limited to meetings, conferences, briefings, public outreach activities, tours, focus groups, etc. Visitor access is substantiated by a credentialed NASA sponsor who validates the visitor's need to access a building/area, guest networking services, etc. for a specific event/purpose. Information is collected to validate identity and enable intermittent access to activities.

Currently, visitor registration is accomplished via several electronic and paper processes. The NASA Office of Protective Services is transitioning to a one-NASA process to manage access for visitors with an affiliation less than 30-days.

NASA may collect event registration information to include but not limited to a visitor's name, address, citizenship, biometric data, purpose of visit, the location to be visited, escort/sponsor name with contact data, and preferred meeting/event sessions when options are available. When parking is provided on Federal owned/leased space, driver's license information as well as vehicle make/model/tag information will be collected.

When visitors/vendors are permitted to bring equipment and/or event set-up materials such as booths and displays, information will be collected to issue property passes and coordinate equipment/property delivery. Information will also be collected, when applicable, to include other associated requirements such as electrical power needs, internet access, etc.

NASA collects, stores, and secures information from individuals requiring routine and intermittent access in a manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable laws, including the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Electronic.

Title: The NASA Visitor Management System for Intermittent Access to NASA Hosted/Sponsored Events and Activities.

OMB Number: 2700-0165.

Type of Review: Reinstatement without change of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Individuals.

Estimated Annual Number of Activities: 400,000.

Estimated Number of Respondents per Activity: 1.

Annual Responses: 400,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 8 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 53,333 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2,000,000.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

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

The NCUA charters, regulates, and insures deposits in FCUs and insures deposits in federally insured State-chartered credit unions (FISCUs). To cover expenses related to its tasks, the Board adopts a biennial budget in the fall of each year. The Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) provides two primary sources to fund the budget: (1) requisitions from the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, referred to as the overhead transfer rate (OTR);  1 and (2) operating fees charged to FCUs. 2

With regard to the operating fee, the FCU Act requires each FCU to, “in accordance with rules prescribed by the Board, . . . pay to the [NCUA] an annual operating fee which may be composed of one or more charges identified as to the function or functions for which assessed.”  3 The fee must “be determined according to a schedule, or schedules, or other method determined by the Board to be appropriate, which gives due consideration to the expenses of the [NCUA] in carrying out its responsibilities under the [FCU Act] and to the ability of [FCUs] to pay the fee.”  4 The statute requires the Board to, among other things, “determine the periods for which the fee shall be assessed and the date or dates for the payment of the fee or increments thereof.”  5

Accordingly, the FCU Act imposes three requirements on the Board related to assessing an operating fee on FCUs: (1) the fee must be assessed according to a schedule or schedules, or other method that the Board determines to be appropriate, which gives due consideration to NCUA's responsibilities in carrying out the FCU Act and the ability of FCUs to pay the fee; (2) the Board must determine the period for which the fee will be assessed and the due date for payment; and (3) the Board must deposit collected fees into the Treasury to defray the Board's expenses in carrying out the FCU Act. Once collected, operating fees, “may be expended by the Board to defray the expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of [the FCU Act,] including the examination and supervision of [FCUs].”  6

The NCUA's regulations govern certain of the operating fee processes. 7 The regulation establishes: (i) the basis for charging operating fees; (ii) a notice process; (iii) rules for new charters, conversions, mergers, and liquidations; and (iv) administrative fees and interest for late payment, among other principles and processes. 8 Certain aspects of and adjustments to the operating fee process, such as changes to which FCUs are exempt from operating fees or the multipliers used to determine fees applicable to FCUs that fall within designated asset tiers, are usually not published in the Federal Register . Instead, in November 2015, the Board delegated authority to the NCUA's Chief Financial Officer to administer the Board-approved operating fee methodology and to set the operating fees as calculated per the approved methodology during each annual budget cycle beginning with 2016. Although it is not required to do so under the Administrative Procedure Act, 9 in January 2016, the Board published its methodology in the Federal Register and requested public comment on the same. 10 The Board provided notice of several revisions to the operating fee in July 2020 and adopted a final operating fee rule in December 2020.

The Board first proposed its operating fee methodology in 1979, after Congress passed the Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978. 11 This legislation permitted the Board to consolidate previously separate chartering, supervision, and examination fees into a single operating fee, charged “in accordance with schedules, and for time periods, as determined by the Board, in an amount necessary to offset the expenses of the Administration at a rate consistent with a credit union's ability to pay.”  12 In combination with a proposed change to section 701.6 of the NCUA's regulations in 1979, the Board proposed an initial fee schedule in the Federal Register , including rates for 12 asset tiers. 13 It later published a final rule in the Federal Register , which included a finalized fee schedule for 1979. 14

On four additional occasions prior to the July 2020 notice, the Board had requested comments on potential changes to the operating fee schedule through a Federal Register notice, independent of any changes to 12 CFR 701.6. First, in 1990, the Board provided notice to the public that it was considering consolidating the operating fee schedule from 14 asset tiers to two asset tiers, retaining an exemption for FCUs with total assets of less than $50,000, and implementing a $100 minimum fee. 15 Second, in 1992, the Board requested comments on a plan to limit operating fees to the first $1 billion of each FCU's assets. 16 Third, in 1995, the Board requested comments on a plan to restructure the operating fee schedule for natural person FCUs and to exempt FCUs with assets of $500,000 or less based on concern about small FCUs' ability to pay the fees. 17 The Board also requested comments on imposing a minimum fee of $100 on all natural person FCUs with assets over $500,000 but less than or equal to $750,000. 18

In 2016, the Board published an updated methodology in detail in the Federal Register and solicited comment. The Board made no changes in response to comments on the methodology published in 2016 and delegated authority to the NCUA Chief Financial Officer to apply the published methodology. In 2020, the Board adopted three revisions to the methodology: (1) including the budget for capital projects within the total annual budget subject to the OTR; (2) including projected miscellaneous revenues within the total annual budget subject to the OTR; and (3) for purposes of determining the annual adjustment to the rate tier thresholds, comparing the average of total system assets reported in Call Reports for the four quarters available at the time the Board approves the budget to the average of total system assets in Call Reports for the four quarters of the respective previous years. Since that time, the Chief Financial Officer has applied the published operating fee methodology and explained its application in the NCUA's annual budget documents.

In general, the Board has not used Federal Register notices in connection with annual adjustments to the asset tiers and rates of the operating fee schedule. Instead, the Board has opted to adopt such changes at its open meetings. As recently as 2012, for example, the Board increased the asset threshold used to exempt FCUs from operating fees from $500,000 to $1 million at an open meeting, without requesting advance comment in the Federal Register . 19 While the Board has varied its practice with respect to operating fee schedule changes, it has done so within the FCU Act's broad directive that the operating fee schedule should be as “determined by the Board to be appropriate,” subject to its consideration of its expenses and the ability of FCUs to pay. 20 In addition, the NCUA's regulation on operating fee processes includes a standing invitation for written comments from FCUs on existing operating fee schedules. 21 Each year the Board also invites comments on the draft NCUA budget, which includes a detailed explanation of how the operating fee is calculated and how changes to the operating fee rates are determined based on application of the published methodology.

The Board adopts an annual budget in the fall of each year, which includes an operating budget for the costs of day-to-day operations such as employee compensation, travel and training expenses, support purchased through contracts, and other miscellaneous administrative expenses. The annual budget also includes a capital budget for the estimated spending on critical projects, such as for computer hardware and software, and for investments in agency-owned real property and equipment. The annual budget provides the resources required to execute the goals and objectives as outlined in the NCUA's strategic plan. 22

Adjustments to the Budget. When calculating the aggregate annual operating fee requirements, the Board adds together the operating budget and capital budget to determine the total annual budget required for the agency's operations and investments. 23 The Board then subtracts from the total annual budget its estimate for miscellaneous revenues that the agency will collect during the year, such as rent collected from other Federal agencies that share NCUA facilities and parking fee revenues. The NCUA owns a share of the parking garage underneath the complex of buildings that includes the agency's Central Office, and the NCUA receives its share of the revenue collected from fees charged to those who park in the garage.

Overhead Transfer Rate: As discussed previously, the FCU Act authorizes the NCUA to expend funds from the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund for administrative and other expenses related to Federal share insurance. 24 The transfer from the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund covers the expenses associated with insurance-related functions of the NCUA's operations. The OTR is one of the funding sources for the budget, but the OTR does not affect the amount of the annual budget. The Board approves the annual budget separately and without regard to the OTR. The OTR is applied to actual expenses incurred each month, and the OTR share of monthly expenses is transferred from the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund to the NCUA's Operating Fund. The estimated annual OTR is subtracted from the total annual budget, net of miscellaneous revenues, to determine the portion of the annual budget financed by the operating fee.

Interest Income and Other Adjustments: The Board reduces the portion of the annual budget financed by the operating fee by its estimate of interest income and by other adjustments in order to compute the net level of collections required to finance the agency's programs. Interest income reduces the required operating fees by providing an additional source of funds to cover regulatory ( i.e., non-insurance) related aspects of operating the NCUA. The NCUA collects interest income by investing balances of operating fee collections in short-term Treasury securities because the collected funds are not immediately required to pay expenses. Other adjustments made by the Board include an estimate of prior-years' operating fee collections that are unlikely to be spent and that therefore reduce the need for new operating fee collections.

Operating Fee Requirements. The result of adjusting the total annual budget by the OTR share, interest income, and other adjustments is the net budget subject to the operating fee and payable by both natural person and corporate FCUs. The natural person FCU operating fees are determined by deducting the corporate FCU operating fees from the total budget operating fee requirements.

The corporate credit union fee schedule was established in 1979 and has changed little over the years. Corporate FCUs hold assets of natural person credit unions, which are already assessed under the natural person operating fees for those members that are FCUs. Assessing corporate FCUs at the same rate would, effectively, assess the same assets twice for natural person FCU members of corporate FCUs. Raising operating fee assessments for corporate FCUs would result in higher expenses for corporate FCUs. Corporate FCUs would need to pass the higher expenses to natural person credit unions in the form of higher fees and lower investment yields. The corporate FCU operating fee schedule is a method of charging corporate FCUs a supervisory fee to defray costs and is now published annually in the budget.

The Board delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer to administer the methodology approved by the Board for calculating the operating fees charged to natural person FCUs and to set the operating fee schedule as calculated per the approved methodology, beginning in 2016. After determining the operating fee requirements for natural person FCUs, the Chief Financial Officer creates the natural person FCU operating fee schedule for the upcoming year. The FCU operating fee schedule is published annually in the budget.

The current fee schedule for natural person FCUs uses three asset tiers. A different assessment rate is applied to each tier, and the threshold for each tier is adjusted annually to reflect growth of the credit union system. Currently, FCUs with $1 million or less in assets pay no operating fee.

There are two steps used to determine adjustments to the operating fee schedule for the upcoming year: (1) updating the prior-year asset tier thresholds using the computed rate of natural person FCU asset growth; and (2) updating the prior-year assessment rates for each asset tier by determining the average assessment rate adjustment.

Updating prior year asset levels. The first step in determining the new operating fee schedule is to adjust the threshold for each asset tier from the prior year by comparing the average of total system assets reported in Call Reports for the four quarters available at the time the Board approves the budget to the average of total system assets in Call Reports for the four quarters of the respective previous years. The tier thresholds are adjusted annually in this manner to preserve the same relative relationship of the scale to the applicable asset base.

Updating the prior year's assessment rates. After updating the prior-year asset tier thresholds, the next step is to project operating fees using the updated asset tier thresholds and the prior-year assessment rates charged for each tier. The percentage difference between the projected operating fee collections using the prior-year assessment rates and the total operating fee collections required to support the budget is the average rate adjustment.

The average rate adjustment is used to amend the prior-year's assessment rates for each asset tier either upwards or downwards. If the projected amount of operating fees is less than the required budgeted amount, then the assessment rates for each asset tier are adjusted upwards. If the projected amount is more than the required budgeted amount, the assessment rates for each asset tier are adjusted downwards.

The resulting new operating fee schedule and due date are communicated through a Letter to Federal Credit Unions and posted online to NCUA.gov within 30 days of Board approval of the annual budget. The Board also makes available on the NCUA website an online operating fee calculator for FCUs to estimate their individual operating fees for the upcoming year. No later than March of each year, natural person FCUs with assets greater than $1 million will receive an invoice for their operating fee. Operating fees are based on the average of the assets reported for the previous four quarters available when the Board approves the budget. The NCUA combines operating fee and capitalization deposit adjustments into a single invoice normally due in April. As required by the FCU Act, the NCUA will deposit the collected fees in the United States Treasury. 25

The Board seeks comment on a change to the exemption level below which FCUs are not charged an operating fee and invites comment on other aspects of the operating fee methodology, as described below.

Currently, FCUs reporting average assets of $1,000,000 or less during the preceding four calendar quarters are exempt from paying an operating fee, because the Board considered and determined that such credit unions do not have the ability to pay the fee. The $1,000,000 average asset exemption level has been in place since 2012 and has not been adjusted since that time. In the intervening 11 years, average assets across FCUs have approximately doubled. To account for this growth in the size of the credit union system, the Board is proposing to raise the average asset exemption level for FCUs to $2,000,000 and to adjust the exemption threshold annually in future years by the computed rate of asset growth in the credit union system. This inflationary adjustment would be included in the operating fee calculation presented in the annual draft NCUA budget published by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1789(b). The NCUA would adjust the exemption threshold by the percentage by which average quarterly assets reported for the credit union system for the most-current four quarters have increased compared to the previous four quarters, using the Call report data available at the time the NCUA budget is published. For example, when the Board approved the 2023-2024 operating budget in December 2022, the average credit union system assets for the four most-current quarters ( i.e., the third and fourth quarters of 2021 and the first two quarters of 2022) were 8.5 percent higher than the previous four quarters ( i.e., the third and fourth quarter of 2020 and the first two quarters of 2021). This increase in assets can be expressed as an inflation multiplier (1.085 in the example given) and applied to the exemption threshold to determine the adjusted level.

The Board believes that this change would appropriately maintain its current policy of exempting the smallest natural person credit unions from paying the operating fee based on those institutions' inability to pay such a fee.

The Board has not substantially modified the current three-tier operating fee schedule since 1993. The current operating fee schedule is regressive; that is, credit unions with a larger amount of total assets pay a lower marginal rate on those assets above the threshold levels for the lower tiers. Given growth and consolidation in the credit union system, the Board is interested in whether such an approach is an equitable method for allocating the operating fee. There is a potentially wide range of approaches for assessing the operating fee. For example, the Board could adopt a single, flat-rate operating fee for all credit unions with total assets that exceed a standard exemption threshold. Overall, a flat-rate operating fee would shift fees away from relatively smaller credit unions to relatively larger ones, making the operating fee schedule less regressive. The Board could also make the operating fee schedule less regressive by increasing the rates for the second and third tiers on the schedule. Alternatively, adjusting the rates upward for the first and second tiers of the current operating fee would create a more regressive schedule. The Board is interested in receiving public comments on whether or how it should consider modifying the operating fee schedule and what specific aspects and conditions of the credit union system it should evaluate when making such decisions.

The Board is also interested in specific suggestions that would increase the equitable distribution of the operating fee across FCUs. Because the operating fee methodology allocates the non-OTR portion of the NCUA budget to all FCUs subject to it, changes to the methodology do not lower total operating fee collections but instead shift the fees to those FCUs required to pay it. The Board is interested in understanding how any proposals to change the methodology can be justified as fair and equitable not only for those FCUs whose operating fee would decrease, but also for those FCUs whose operating fees would increase and therefore bear a greater fee burden compared to the current methodology.

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1755.

The NCUA has made the following substantive changes to this System of Records Notice:

1. NCUA has updated the Purpose(s) of the System to provide additional details of why records are being collected.

2. NCUA has updated the Categories of Records in the System to provide additional details of what types of records are being collected.

3. NCUA has updated its Routine Uses. NCUA has added a routine use relating to obtaining legal advice from the Department of Justice and other prosecutors. NCUA has added a routine use to entities responsible for the oversight of Federal funds. NCUA has added a routine use for disclosure records relating to suspension and debarment actions. NCUA has added a routine use for disclosure of records to the Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency. NCUA has added a routine use to allow the OIG to disclose records to a complainant's employer who at the time of the alleged reprisal was an NCUA contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or subgrantee, without requiring the complainant's consent, to comply with the requirements of 41 U.S.C. 4712(b)(1). NCUA has also added text of the routine uses that had been previously contained in the agency's “Standard Routine Uses.” Finally, NCUA has added two routine uses relating to the disclosure of records in the event of a suspected or actual privacy breach.

4. NCUA has updated Policies and Practices for Storage of Records to reflect that records are electronically maintained.

5. NCUA has updated Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records to reflect that NCUA uses National Archives and Records Administration-approved records schedules.

6. NCUA has updated Administrative, Technical, and Physical Safeguards to accurately reflect how these records are protected.

7. NCUA has updated Record Access, Contesting Record, and Notification Procedures to accurately reflect the NCUA procedures as detailed in 12 CFR 792.55.

8. NCUA has updated History to accurately reflect the SORN's publication history. Non-substantive modifications have also been made to ensure that the format NCUA-11 aligns with the guidance set forth in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-108.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0217 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-2022-0217.

• 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. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession No. ML23089A290. The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML23081A464.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. 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 a.m. and 4 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 proposed collection of information to OMB for review entitled NRC Form 974 “Privacy Act Complaint Form.” 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 February 16, 2023, 88 FR 10149.

1. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 974 “Privacy Act Complaint Form.”

2. OMB approval number: An OMB control number has not yet been assigned to this proposed information collection.

3. Type of submission: New.

4. The form number, if applicable: Form 974.

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

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: The public.

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 12.

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 12.

9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 3.

10. Abstract: The NRC provides an electronic mechanism for the public to voluntarily register a complaint concerning privacy data collection practices at the NRC. The complainant provides the following information: Name, Telephone Number, Email Address, Summary of Privacy Complaint, Summary of any other steps already take if any by them or NRC to resolve complaint, and Preferred method of contact.

On April 26, 2019, the Office of Management and Budget published OMB memorandum 19-16, Centralized Mission Support Capabilities for the Federal Government (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/M-19-16.pdf ). Mission support business standards, established and agreed to by agencies, using the Federal Integrated Business Framework (FIBF) website at https://ussm.gsa.gov/fibf/, enable the Federal Government to better coordinate on the decision-making needed to determine what can be adopted and commonly shared. These business standards are an essential first step towards agreement on outcomes, data, and cross-functional end to end processes that will drive economies of scale and leverage the government's buying power. The business standards will be used as the foundation for common mission support services shared by Federal agencies.

OPM serves as the Human Capital Management (HCM) business standards lead on the Business Standards Council (BSC). The goal of the HCM business standards is to standardize Human Capital Management across the Federal government. The HCM business capabilities, service metrics, and standard data elements document the key activities, inputs, outputs, data elements, and other functional area intersections. OPM is seeking public feedback on these draft business standards, including comments on understandability of the standards, suggested changes, and usefulness of the draft standards to industry and agencies.

Guiding questions in standard development include:

• Do the draft business standards appropriately document the business processes covered?

• Are the draft business standards easy to understand?

• Will your organization be able to show how your solutions and/or services can meet these draft business standards?

• What would you change about the draft business standards? Is there anything missing?

Comments will be used in formulation of the final business standards.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 28, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail, First-Class Package Service, Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 1 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-177, CP2023-181.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 23, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail, First-Class Package Service & Parcel Select Contract 30 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-174, CP2023-178.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 29, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail, First-Class Package Service & Parcel Select Contract 31 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-178, CP2023-182.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 23, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add First-Class Package Service & Parcel Select Service Contract 4 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-176, CP2022-180.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 23, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add First-Class Package Service & Parcel Select Service Contract 3 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-175, CP2022-179.