The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Review USDA FACA Ethics for Advisory Members;

2. Elect a Chairperson;

3. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;

4. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;

5. Approve meeting minutes;

6. Schedule the next meeting; and

7. Establish an Outreach and Recruitment Subcommittee.

The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under DATES .

Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , by or before the deadline, for all questions related to the meeting. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received upon request.

Meeting Accommodations: The meeting location is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the USDA provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpretation, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation to the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

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

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

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;

2. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;

3. Approve meeting minutes; and,

4. Schedule the next meeting.

The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to seven days after the meeting date listed under DATES .

Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , by or before the deadline, for all questions related to the meeting. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received upon request.

Meeting Accommodations: The meeting location is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the USDA provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpretation, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation to the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

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

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

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Approve meeting minutes;

2. Provide information about the status of the comprehensive plan for the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail;

3. Continue discussion and make recommendations regarding the following topics that were identified by the Council in the previous meeting: tribal treaty rights and resources, as well as tribal utilization of areas along the trail; protecting the trail corridor and experience; wildlife; timber and working landscapes; potential nexus with motorized recreation; visitor use management, including carrying capacity, permits, and monitoring; completing the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail as a continuous, nonmotorized trail; and maintaining the trail;

4. Discuss and identify the Council's priorities regarding implementation of the comprehensive plan and administration of the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail; and

5. Schedule the next meeting.

The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under DATES .

Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , by or before the deadline, for all questions related to the meeting. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received upon request.

Meeting Accommodations: The meeting location is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the USDA provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpretation, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation to the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

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

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

This business meeting is open to the public. Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, July 21, 2023, is https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=USCCR . Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.

Background

On May 19, 2023, Commerce published the preliminary results of the 2021-2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results . 2 No interested parties submitted comments. Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the Order are OBAs. A full description of the scope of the Order is provided in the Preliminary Results . 4

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2021, through April 30, 2022:

Because Commerce received no comments on the Preliminary Results, we have not modified our analysis and no decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice. We are adopting the Preliminary Results as the final results of this review. Consequently, there are no new calculations to disclose in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b) for these final results.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. We intend to instruct CBP to apply the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates we calculated for the Preliminary Results on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 5 If the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, then Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries without regard to antidumping duties.

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by TFM, for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate ( i.e., 6.19 percent)  6 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register of this notice for all shipments of OBAs from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for TFM will be 3.89 percent, the weighted-average dumping margin established in these final results; (2) for previously investigated companies not subject to this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 6.19 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 7 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

Commerce is issuing and publishing the final results of this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion for the Assessment Webinar 5 are as follows:

Discuss any leftover data issues that were not cleared up during the data process; answer any questions that the analysts have; and introduce/discuss model development and model setup.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

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

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

Scoping documents, an online public comment form, and other materials will be posted to the Council's website at https://safmc.net/public-hearings-and-scoping/ as they become available. Written comments should be addressed to John Carmichael, Executive Director, SAFMC, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405. Written comments must be received by August 4, 2023, by 5 p.m. During the meetings, Council staff will provide an overview of actions being considered in the amendment. Staff will answer clarifying questions on the presented information and the proposed actions. Following the presentation and questions, the public will have the opportunity to provide comments on the amendment.

The most recent stock assessment (SEDAR 68) assessed scamp and yellowmouth grouper as a single species due to misidentification between the two species and indicated that the stock is overfished but not subject to overfishing. In response to this assessment the Council will need to establish the Scamp Yellowmouth Grouper Complex (which entails revising the composition of the Other Shallow Water Grouper Complex), establish stock determination criteria for the new complex, a rebuilding plan, annual catch limits, allocations and sector annual catch limits, and accountability measures.

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

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

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (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 Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-harassment-authorization-renewals. Any comments received on the potential renewal, along with relevant comments on the initial IHA, have been considered in the development of this proposed IHA renewal, and a summary of agency responses to applicable comments is included in this notice. NMFS will consider any additional public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested renewal, and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

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 preliminarily determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.

On May 20, 2022, NMFS issued an IHA to the City to take marine mammals incidental to Pier 58 Reconstruction Project in Seattle, Washington (87 FR 31985), effective from August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023. NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA on April 3, 2023. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested are a subset of those covered in the initial authorization while a small amount of additional, nearly identical work not covered under the initial authorization has also been included in the request for a renewal IHA. As required, the City also provided a preliminary monitoring report which confirms that it 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 City is in the process of reconstructing Waterfront Park, which will be renamed Pier 58, along the Elliott Bay shoreline in Seattle, Washington. The City is repairing structural and safety deficiencies and optimizing public access and recreational uses of the piers. The Pier 58 reconstruction project includes vibratory removal of existing in-water piles and vibratory and impact installation of new piles. The reconstructed pier requires installation of 120 permanent 30-inch steel piles by vibratory hammer and impact proofing. Under the initial IHA, 76 steel piles were successfully installed. The remaining 44 piles, which represent a subset of the originally planned 120 piles, would be installed under the renewal IHA. In addition, installation of 100 24-inch temporary steel template piles by vibratory hammer and impact proofing was analyzed for the initial IHA. The 24-inch piles were to be subsequently removed by vibratory extraction. However, none of the 100 24-inch temporary piles were installed during the Season 1 and these piles may not be required at all under the renewal IHA. At most, a subset of 33 24-inch temporary piles would be utilized. A total of 31 existing steel H-piles and timber piles were removed under the initial IHA by pulling the piles using vibratory extraction or the clamshell bucket method. The nearly identical activity included under the proposed renewal IHA is the removal of eight 12-inch creosote timber piles (1 day) by vibratory hammer and the vibratory installation of eight 16-inch steel piles (2 days) at the nearby Don Armeni Boat Ramp. All in-water work with the potential to affect marine mammals will occur during the work window allowed by NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. For this renewal request, this window is anticipated to be September 1, 2023, through February 15, 2024. Pile removal and installation will occur during daylight hours, typically during a work shift of 8 hours or fewer. The work would include periods of vibratory removal of timber piles, vibratory installation of steel piles, and impact installation of steel piles.

Under the initial IHA, take by Level B harassment was authorized for 11 species/stocks and limited take by Level A harassment was authorized for 3 of these species (harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), Dall's porpoise ( Phocoenoides dalli ), and harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina )). No species were observed in the estimated Level A harassment zones during Season 1 pile driving. Observations in the Level B harassment zones during pile activity include 130 harbor seals out of 660 take incidents authorized; 92 California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ) out of 700 incidents of take that were authorized; and one Steller sea lion ( Eumetopias jubatus ) out of 140 incidents of take that were authorized. No other species were observed in the Level B harassment zones during pile driving activity. The total number of potential takes by Level B harassment for Season 1 were only a small fraction of what were authorized in the IHA: potential harbor seal takes were only 20 percent of the authorized takes, potential California sea lion takes were only 13 percent of the authorized takes, and potential Steller sea lion takes were only 0.7 percent of the authorized takes.

As part of the originally authorized IHA, Season 1 in-water pile activity occurred at Pier 58 across 45 workdays between October 3, 2022, and February 15, 2023. Most workdays consisted of both vibratory and impact hammer installation of 30-inch steel piles; vibratory pile activity occurred on 36 workdays, and impact pile activity occurred on 36 workdays. Of the total 81 piles installed, 5 test piles and 76 production piles were installed via vibratory and impact hammer.

It is anticipated that approximately 8 additional days will be required for installation of the remaining 44 30-inch steel piles at Pier 58, and approximately 10 days will be required for impact proofing of the 30-inch steel piles. It is anticipated that only 1 day will be required to remove the eight timber piles at Don Armeni Boat Ramp, and 2 days will be required for the installation of eight 16-inch steel piles. This work could occur over a period of 3 months.

A detailed description of the construction activities for which take is proposed, including the installation of 30-inch permanent steel piles and 24-inch temporary template steel piles may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (87 FR 12089, March 3, 2022; 87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022). As previously mentioned, these specific activities represent 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.

Minor changes to the initial scope include the removal of eight 12-inch creosote timber piles by vibratory hammer and the vibratory installation of eight 16-inch steel piles at the boat ramp. Vibratory removal of the 12-inch creosote timber piles, requiring an estimated 2 days, is nearly identical to the vibratory removal of H-piles and timber piles, which required 3 days, under the initial IHA. The installation of eight 16-inch steel piles under the proposed renewal IHA is nearly identical to the installation of 30-inch steel piles under the initial IHA with the only difference being the size of piles (30-inch vs. 16-inch) and the duration (36 days vs. 2 days). The proposed renewal would be effective for a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of expiration of the initial IHA. The effective dates would be from August 1, 2023, through July 31, 2024.

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the Notice of the Proposed IHA for the initial authorization (87 FR 12089, March 3, 2022). 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 (87 FR 12089, March 3, 2022).

A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which the authorization of take is proposed here may be found in the Notice of the Proposed and Final IHA (87 FR 12089, March 3, 2022; 87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022) for the initial authorization. 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 Notice of the Proposed and/or Final IHAs for the initial authorization (87 FR 12089, March 3, 2022; 87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022). Note that the sound source levels (SLs) for the vibratory and impact installation of 30-inch steel piles have been updated based on acoustic measurements from Season 1. The Waterfront Park Reconstruction Project Acoustic Monitoring Report by the Greenbusch Group (2023a) may be found as an attachment to the City's IHA renewal application. Data revealed that the SL for vibratory installation of steel 30-inch piles was 170 decibels (dB) root mean square (RMS), and the SL for impact installation of 30-inch steel piles was 187 dB RMS with a peak of 201.5 dB. Note that the unweighted value for impact driving of 30-inch steel piles (187 dB) was not listed in the Acoustic Monitoring Report but was provided directly by Greenbusch from the Season 1 monitoring data. These SLs were greater than those utilized for the initial IHA (163 dB RMS for vibratory installation; 180 dB RMS and 193 dB Peak for impact installation). Additionally, the total strikes per day during impact installation of 30-inch steel piles was increased from 1,200 strikes per day in Season 1 (3 piles at 400 strikes per pile) to 4,500 strikes per day (5 piles at 900 strikes per pile) under the proposed IHA renewal. The increase in strikes per pile (from 400 to 900 strikes) is based on data from the Waterfront Park Reconstruction Project Acoustic Monitoring Report (Greenbusch 2023a).

The source level used for the vibratory installation of 16-inch steel piles (158 dB RMS) at Don Armeni Boat Ramp was found in Caltrans (2020) while the source level used for the vibratory removal of 12-inch timber piles (145 dB RMS) at the Don Armeni Boat Ramp was taken from the Pier 63 Removal Project Acoustic Monitoring Report (Greenbusch 2023b).

Table 1 below shows the distances to the Level A and Level B harassment zones during Season 1 under the initial IHA while Table 2 shows the distances during Season 2 under the proposed IHA renewal.

The Level A and Level B harassment zone sizes for 30-inch steel pile impact and vibratory installation were calculated to be larger for the Season 2 renewal IHA than those used in Season 1 under the initial IHA. This is due to the results from Season 1 acoustic measurements that demonstrated higher SLs for vibratory and impact driving. In addition, increased zone sizes result from an increase in the number of strikes per pile, number of piles per day and total number of strikes per day for impact driving. Additionally, while the behavioral harassment zone for 30-inch vibratory installation has been calculated to extend to just under 22 kilometers (km), the actual maximum ensonfied distance is approximately 14 km since the sound field is constrained by the shoreline of Elliott Bay as well as by Bainbridge Island located west of Elliott Bay.

The stocks taken (11 total), methods of take (impact and vibratory installation; vibratory removal), and types of take (11 by Level B harassment; 3 by Level A harassment) remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA covering Season 1. The City utilized the same approach for estimating take for Season 2 and the renewal IHA as was used in support of the initial IHA. The results of the preliminary monitoring report were also considered. The 30-inch pile driving work for Pier 58 is anticipated to occur over 18 days within an estimated 2 month time period. The pile removal and driving work for Don Armeni is anticipated to occur over 3 days within 1 month of work.

Detailed explanations describing how the take numbers were derived from observational data may be found in the notice of final IHA (87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022). Note that even though the Level A and Level B harassment zone sizes are larger in the renewal IHA compared to the initial IHA, as a result of NMFS' consideration of new site-specific data, we have concluded that the authorized take numbers remain appropriate and sufficient. As part of the Season 1 monitoring requirements, the City was required to station a protected species monitor on the Seattle-Bainbridge Ferry whenever vibratory installation was underway. The Ferry runs non-stop throughout the day and the PSO recorded all animal observations, even those outside of the specified harassment zones. The number of observations beyond the Level B harassment zone during Season 1 (7,357 m) was comparatively small. Only four species were observed beyond the behavioral harassment zone.

A brief summary of take assumptions for each species is provided here. For gray whales, minke whales, and northern elephant seals, the City, with NMFS' concurrence, assumed a single animal would be taken per month by Level B harassment. For long-beaked common dolphin and common bottlenose dolphin, the City assumed, and NMFS concurred, there would be seven takes per month by Level B harassment. For transient killer whales it was assumed that six animals could be taken per month. The Level A harassment zone is larger than the Level B harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans. For the harbor porpoise, it was assumed that six animals could be taken per day by Level B harassment. That is, they may enter into the larger Level A harassment zone, but are unlikely to remain long enough to accumulate energy at levels that would result in injury. Although the City must implement a shutdown zone of 660 m during this activity, due to the cryptic nature and lower detectability of harbor porpoises at large distances, the City anticipates that up to six of the harbor porpoises (two per month) that enter the Level A harassment zone could enter undetected and remain long enough to experience auditory injury. It was assumed that up to 12 Dall's porpoises could experience Level B harassment per month. As a high frequency cetacean, the Level A harassment zone is larger than the Level B harassment zone. As with harbor porpoises, the Dall's porpoise could enter into the Level A harassment zone, but are unlikely to remain long enough to sustain auditory injury. Therefore, the animal would be exposed to Level B harassment. The City must implement a shutdown zone of 660 m during this activity, but anticipates that due to the cryptic nature and lower detectability of harbor porpoises at large distances, up to 6 of the Dall's porpoises (2 per month) that enter the Level A harassment zone could remain long enough to experience auditory injury. It was assumed that up to 10 California sea lions and 2 Steller sea lions could be taken by Level B harassment each in-water work day. NMFS concurred with the City's request for take by Level B harassment of a single northern elephant seal per month. Finally, it was assumed that 10 harbor seals could enter the Level B harassment zone per day and 1 seal may approach closer and enter the 82 m Level A harassment zone before the animal is detected and activities shut down.

The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are nearly identical to those included in the FR Notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022), although the size of the shutdown and Level B harassment areas has been revised as appropriate, as shown in Table 4 below. The following identical measures are proposed for this renewal:

• Shut down construction operations (including in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving) if a marine mammal comes within 10 m of construction activity or a vessel involved with construction activity ( e.g., barge) to avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals;

• Shut down during active pile driving if marine mammals approach pile driving activities within hearing group-specific shutdown zones;

• Contact the local marine mammal sightings network (Orca Network) hourly to obtain real-time sightings reports of marine mammals in the project area;

• Shut down if any species for which take has not been authorized ( e.g., Southern Resident killer whales, humpback whales), or a species for which take has been authorized but the authorized take numbers have been met, enters the Level B harassment zones;

• Implement impact pile driving soft starts whereby hammer energy is gradually ramped up;

• Use of a bubble curtain during all impact pile driving.

• Use of NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) to monitor the entire Level A and Level B harassment zones;

• Submit draft reports on all monitoring within 90 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring at each pier or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHAs for these projects, whichever comes first;

• Prepare and submit final reports within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS;

• Submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sightings data (in a separate file from the final reports referenced above); and

• Report injured or dead marine mammals.

The shutdown and Level B harassment zones shown in Table 4 have been revised from the Season 1 initial IHA to reflect the updated SLs associated with 30-inch impact and vibratory driving as well as the increase in strikes per day for impact driving described previously.

As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (87 FR 12089, March 3, 2022) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for the project and on the potential for a renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met. No comments were submitted to NMFS during the public comment period in response to the publication of the notice of a proposed IHA (87 FR 12089, March 3, 2022).

The City is in the process of reconstructing Waterfront Park which includes vibratory removal of existing in-water piles and vibratory and impact installation of new piles. The reconstructed pier requires installation of 120 permanent 30-inch steel piles by vibratory hammer and impact proofing. Under the initial IHA, 76 steel piles were successfully installed. The remaining 44 piles, which represent a subset of the originally planned 120 piles, would be installed under the renewal IHA. The pile type, size and method of installation ( i.e., vibratory, impact) would be identical to that conducted in Season 1. A total of 31 existing steel H-piles and timber piles were removed under the initial IHA by pulling the piles using a vibratory extraction method or clamshell bucket. A nearly identical activity proposed under the renewal IHA would be the removal of eight 12-inch creosote timber piles (1 day) by vibratory hammer and the vibratory installation of eight 16-inch steel piles (2 days) at the Don Armeni Boat Ramp.

A detailed description of the construction activities for which take is proposed, including the installation of 30-inch permanent steel piles and, potentially, 24-inch temporary template steel piles may be found in the notice of the proposed and final IHA for the initial authorization (87 FR 12089, March 3, 2022; 87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022). As previously mentioned, these specific activities represent a subset of the activities authorized in the initial IHA that would not be completed prior to its expiration.

Minor changes to the initial scope as described in notice of the proposed and final IHA for the initial authorization (87 FR 12089, March 3, 2022; 87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022) include the removal of eight 12-inch creosote timber piles by vibratory hammer and the vibratory installation of eight 16-inch steel piles at the boat ramp. Vibratory removal of the 12-inch creosote timber piles, requiring an estimated 2 days, is nearly identical to the vibratory removal of H-piles and timber piles, which required 3 days, under the initial IHA. The installation of eight 16-inch steel piles under the proposed renewal IHA is nearly identical to the installation of 30-inch steel piles under the initial IHA with the only difference being the size of piles (30-inch vs. 16-inch) and the duration (36 days vs. 2 days).

There is no new information which would change our potential impacts to the specified marine mammal species and stocks. The anticipated effects of the action under the renewal IHA are expected to be the same as those that may have occurred under the initial IHA. The species proposed for take are identical to those that were identified in the initial IHA. The same species that were authorized for limited take by Level A harassment under the initial IHA are proposed for take by Level A harassment under the renewal IHA. The Level A and Level B harassment zones for 30-inch pile installation under the renewal IHA are larger than those contained in the initial IHA. However, the number of animals of each species proposed for authorized take is less than what was authorized under the initial IHA since the number of in-water work days anticipated is less than half of the number of work days that occurred under the initial IHA. Furthermore, PSO monitoring of the renewal IHA's extended harassment zones demonstrated that most take occur closer to the in-water driving location. The mitigation and monitoring measures proposed for the renewal IHA are identical to those mandated in the initial IHA, with one exception. The shutdown and Level B harassment zones under the proposed renewal IHA are larger than those employed in Season 1.

After analyzing the City's application for the initial IHA, NMFS determined that the action would have a negligible impact on all affected stocks and that the taking of authorized species would be small relative to population size (< 6 percent of the total abundance for all stocks).

NMFS has preliminarily 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 preliminarily determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will affect 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) The City'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.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

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

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a renewal IHA to the City for conducting activities associated with the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project in Seattle, Washington from August 1, 2023 through July 31, 2024, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed and final initial IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act . We request comment on our analyses, the proposed renewal IHA, and any other aspect of this notice. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.

This committee is being established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the DoN S&T Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are found at: https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/apex/FACAPublicAgencyNavigation.

The DoN S&T Board is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice and recommendations on matters relating to the Department of the Navy's (DoN) scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition, logistics, medicine, and business management functions. These matters include, but are not limited to, the pressing and complex scientific and technological problems facing the DoD in such areas as research, engineering, organizational structure and process, business and functional concepts, and manufacturing, and will ensure the identification of new technologies and new applications of technology in those areas to strengthen national security.

The DoN S&T Board shall be composed of no more than 20 members who are prominent authorities in one or more of the following disciplines and fields: science, technology, manufacturing, acquisition, logistics, medicine, climate, and business management functions, as well as other matters of special interest to the DoN. Membership will consist of private and public leaders, fairly balanced to provide a diversity of background, experience, and thought in support of the DoN S&T Board mission.

Individual members are appointed according to DoD policy and procedures and serve a term of service of one-to-four years with annual renewals. One member will be appointed as Chair of the DoN S&T Board. No member, unless approved according to DoD policy and procedures, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the DoN S&T Board, or serve on more than two DoD Federal advisory committees at one time.

DoN S&T Board members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees are appointed as experts or consultants, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, to serve as special government employee members. DoN S&T Board members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees are appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a), to serve as regular government employee members.

All DoN S&T Board members are appointed to provide advice based on their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official DoN S&T Board-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation.

The public or interested organizations may submit written statements about the DoN S&T Board mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meetings of the DoN S&T Board. All written statements shall be submitted to the DoN S&T Board's DFO, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing TA, supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research.

The School Safety National Activities Program provides support to State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for activities to improve student safety and well-being.

Priorities: This competition includes two absolute priorities. Applicants must address both priorities, and we will make one award as a comprehensive investment designed to enhance local and State efforts to improve school climate, conditions for learning, and access to and engagement in the instructional environment, with a focus on students with behavioral challenges, by implementing comprehensive positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) frameworks. 1 Absolute Priority 1 is established in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1)). Absolute Priority 2 is from the Notice of Final priority and requirements—Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities and the School Safety National Activities—National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (NFP), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

Background:

Many students need additional supports to address social, emotional, and behavioral challenges that impact their full access to and participation in learning (Chafouleas, 2020). These challenges, if not properly addressed, can lead to student responses that are inconsistent with school or program expectations. The COVID-19 global pandemic exacerbated these challenges, accelerating the need to provide school-based social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health supports and leverage the existing evidence base to provide nurturing educational environments to meet the needs of our nation's youth.

MTSS frameworks such as PBIS  2 have been validated by numerous randomized control trials (Bradshaw et al., 2012; Freeman et al., 2017). When implemented with fidelity, PBIS outcomes include reductions in removals of students from instruction; improved student exposure to and success in academics (grades and completion); improved educator satisfaction and retention; and improved overall ratings of school safety, belonging, and climate.

Despite improved outcomes and knowledge from PBIS implementation efforts over the last two decades, data from the Office for Civil Rights' Civil Rights Data Collection suggests students from underserved groups are more likely to experience exclusionary discipline ( e.g., suspensions, expulsions) (U.S. Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection SY17-18, Office for Civil Rights, 2021). Disaggregated data shows that disproportionate use of discipline grows when considering race, sex, and disability. Id. Research consistently shows that students of color, particularly Black students, Native students, and Black students with disabilities are significantly more likely than their non-disabled or White peers to be subjected to exclusionary discipline practices, including office discipline referrals and suspensions ( e.g., Gage et al., 2019; McIntosh et al., 2018; McIntosh et al., 2021; Civil Rights Data Collection SY17-18, Office for Civil Rights, 2021). While disproportionality with respect to Black boys has long been acknowledged, more recent data analysis indicates the disproportionality also exists for Black girls as compared to White girls (Hassan & Carter, 2021). Other studies show disproportionality based on gender, historically demonstrating boys receive suspensions and expulsions at higher rates than girls (Bradshaw et al., 2010). Higher rates of punitive discipline practices also exist for students who identify as LGBTQ and those with disabilities (Himmelstein & Brückner, 2011; Brobbey, 2018). When students are denied access to instruction and participation in school opportunities, they are more likely to experience negative outcomes in school and later in life, including poor academic outcomes, lower graduation rates, incarceration, and employment and relationship challenges (Hemez et al., 2020; Lansford et al., 2016).

One of the most significant barriers to reducing exclusionary and aversive discipline practices for students, including students of color and students with disabilities, is the lack of culturally and linguistically inclusive pre-service and in-service training for teachers and leaders on effective practices for creating positive, safe learning environments to teach and support desired school behaviors and for responding to and mitigating behaviors that are inconsistent with school expectations and interfere with learning. The PBIS framework has provided an effective multi-tiered structure through the implementation and examination of systems, practices, and data to assist LEAs and schools in addressing inequities. When there is fidelity in implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs)  3 to prevent, reduce, and mitigate interfering behaviors within a PBIS framework, studies have found the following statistically significant results: improved perception of school safety; reductions in overall behaviors that are inconsistent with classroom or school expectations and that interfere with learning; and reduction of bullying behaviors, office discipline referrals, chronic absenteeism, and suspensions (Waasdorp et al., 2012). The PBIS framework has solidified the importance of core strategies, including implementing EBPs, and providing the systems needed to support those practices and data-based decision-making, to create and sustain positive, safe, and predictable learning environments. Fidelity in the implementation of the core strategies has also demonstrated the importance of adult responses, including effectively supporting and responding to student behavior (Horner et al., 2020).

Although prior Department investments have led to successful implementation of the PBIS framework and positive outcome data in over 27,000 schools, based on persistent needs in the field, the Department has determined that additional and continued TA is needed to focus on: (1) students with more intensive social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs and those most likely to be excluded from the learning environment due to behavior that interferes with learning; (2) pre-service and in-service training on culturally and linguistically inclusive practices that support students from underserved groups; (3) improving implementation fidelity; and (4) addressing other systemic inequities such as access to school funding, experienced educators, and advanced coursework opportunities. In addition, the Department has determined that SEAs and LEAs could benefit from further TA to develop, expand, and sustain school-wide frameworks and to build personnel capacity and expertise to promote safe, positive, predictable, and culturally and linguistically inclusive learning environments where students feel a sense of belonging. Such additional TA would be focused on increasing the use of EBPs to more effectively support and respond to student needs, such as teaching school and classroom expectations, building classroom cultures of respect and belonging, and implementing trauma-informed practices. Such additional TA also would be focused on using EBPs to reduce the use of restraints, seclusion, and corporal punishment; chronic absenteeism; incidents of bullying; the disproportionate application of disciplinary procedures, such as suspension and expulsion, for students, including students of color and those with disabilities; unnecessary referrals of students to law enforcement; and violent and traumatic school incidents.

The Center will support States and LEAs in implementing EBPs within a MTSS/PBIS framework that improves results for children, including those underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, LGBTQI+, English learner, or socio-economic status. While PBIS is one evidence-based MTSS framework for addressing social, emotional, behavioral and mental health needs, the Department expects that the Center will stay abreast of developing frameworks and identify and incorporate a broad array of EBPs to support and respond to student needs, and tailor technical assistance in the settings established in the priority. This investment is aligned to the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612), in the areas of meeting student social, emotional, and academic needs, and promoting equity in student access to educational resources and opportunities.

References:

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2023 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet these priorities.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1—Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities Program—National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) (Center). This Center will assist SEAs and LEAs to enhance their capacity to develop, implement, scale-up, and sustain school-wide frameworks for MTSS/PBIS to improve behavior and climate and to enable all students, especially those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and those with disabilities, to fully participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment.

The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Improved infrastructure at the national, regional, State, and district levels to support, develop, sustain, and expand local implementation efforts ( e.g., an increase in the number of schools) of MTSS/PBIS with fidelity to demonstrate improved student outcomes: academic performance, social-emotional competence, mental health and well-being, academic outcomes, reduced bullying behaviors, reduced student reports of alcohol and drug use for students with or at risk of disabilities and those with the most intensive needs.

(b) Improved capacity for systems implementation at the SEA and LEA levels, including new and existing LEAs and schools, to implement the components of a MTSS/PBIS framework ( i.e., policies, funding, professional development, coaching, data collection, analysis, and use) and develop and utilize new and existing tools for selecting and aligning multiple initiatives within the SEA or LEA with a special focus on PBIS tiers beyond universal and the inclusion of EBPs to address mental health and well-being for children and youth with or at risk of disabilities, especially those with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and those with the most intensive needs;

(c) Improved capacity of existing and new SEA and LEA personnel to enhance the knowledge and skills of members of school leadership teams and individualized education program (IEP) Teams to implement MTSS/PBIS policies and practices for students with or at risk of disabilities and those with the most intensive needs, including the development and implementation of IEPs and behavior intervention plans that are culturally responsive, particularly for students with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, to support positive school behavior and respond to behaviors that interfere with a student's ability to fully participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment;

(d) Increased use by SEAs and LEAs of new and updated reliable and valid tools and processes for evaluating the fidelity of the implementation of a MTSS/PBIS framework and for measuring its outcomes, including reductions in violence and the illegal use of drugs, discipline referrals, suspensions, expulsions, and the use of restraints and seclusion; and improvements in school climate, time spent in instruction, mental health and well-being, and overall academic achievement, particularly for students with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and those with or at risk of disabilities, and those with the most intensive needs; and

(e) Increased body of knowledge to enhance implementation of MTSS/PBIS, particularly for students with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, those with or at risk of disabilities, and for those with the most intensive needs, in high-poverty schools, low-performing schools, rural schools, high schools, alternative public schools, charter schools, mental health settings, private schools, and juvenile correction settings.

Absolute Priority 2: Technical Assistance—School Safety National Activities Program—National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

The purpose of this priority is to enhance the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to implement positive and safe school environments, and effectively support and respond to students' social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs to improve their learning, by implementing EBPs  4 within an MTSS/PBIS framework in the following settings:

(i) Programs or schools serving high percentages of students from low-income families in the following settings:

(1) Early learning programs.

(2) Elementary schools.

(3) Middle schools.

(4) High schools.

(5) Career and technical education programs.

(6) Rural schools.

(ii) Alternative schools and programs.

(iii) Juvenile justice system or correctional facilities.

(iv) Low-performing schools.

(v) Schools with a high student-to-mental health provider ratio.

(vi) Schools with high rates of chronic absenteeism, exclusionary discipline, referrals to the juvenile justice system, bullying/harassment, community and school violence, or substance abuse.

(vii) Schools in which students recently experienced a natural disaster, incident of violence, or traumatic event.

(viii) Schools with high percentages of students with disabilities or English Learners.

(ix) Federally supported elementary schools or secondary schools for Indian students.

To meet this priority, the applicant must propose to achieve, at a minimum, one or more of the following expected outcomes:

(a) Improved systems and resources at the national, regional, State, and district levels to support, develop, align, and sustain local implementation of MTSS/PBIS efforts to organize EBPs to support positive school climates and respond to student social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs to improve access to and engagement in learning.

(b) Improved capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to support the knowledge and skills development of school personnel, including administrators and practitioners, through efforts such as pre-service and in-service training and coaching, to implement MTSS/PBIS as a framework to organize EBPs to support and respond to student needs, particularly those from underserved and, culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and students whose behaviors may interfere with a their ability to fully participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment.

(c) Increased use by SEAs, LEAs, and school-based personnel of reliable and valid tools and processes for enhancing and assessing the fidelity of implementation of an MTSS/PBIS Framework and for measuring intended outcomes, including improvements in school climate; time spent on instruction; well-being and belonging; overall academic achievement; and reductions in absenteeism, discipline referrals, suspensions, expulsions, the use of restraints or seclusion, illegal use of drugs, and referrals to law enforcement.

(d) Improved implementation of a MTSS/PBIS framework and EBPs, and assessment of SEA or LEA recipients of grant programs that focus on improving positive school climates and implementing EBPs to support and respond to students' social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs.

(e) Enhanced response and recovery assistance, as requested by and in collaboration with the Department, for violent or traumatic incidents that impact school communities, including intensive individualized support to facilitate recovery of the learning environment.

(f) Increased body of knowledge and evidence to enhance implementation of PBIS and other emerging MTSS frameworks and EBPs to address the social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs of underserved students in the settings established in the priority.

Common Application Requirements:

To be considered for funding under these priorities, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in these priorities, which are:

(a) Demonstrate how the proposed project will—

(1) Improve SEAs' and LEAs' implementation, scaling, and sustaining of EBPs within a MTSS/PBIS framework and policies that are designed to improve school climate and, as needed, to provide additional behavioral supports for students whose behavior impacts their ability to fully participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment, including students with disabilities and other underserved students in the settings established in the priority. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—

(i) Present applicable State, regional, or local data demonstrating SEAs' and LEAs' needs related to (A) implementation of EBPs and policies to improve school climate, student well-being, and belonging; and (B) increasing students' ability to fully participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment;

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current education issues and policy initiatives relating to MTSS/PBIS and school climate practices and policies and EBPs to effectively support and respond to student behavior that impacts learning; and

(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation of MTSS/PBIS, EBPs, policies, best practices, and benefits for all students, especially underserved students and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds;

(2) [See the Unique Application Requirements section below for the separate requirements applicable to Absolute Priority 1 and Absolute Priority 2 in paragraph (a)(2).]

(b) Demonstrate how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, LGBTQI+, English learner, or socio-economic status. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—

(i) Identify the TA and information needs of the intended recipients; and

(ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients of the TA;

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) The logic model  5 (by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(3) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

Note: The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

(4) Be based on current research and make use of EBPs. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current research on the assessment of the implementation of MTSS/PBIS frameworks and related EBPs;

(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and

(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current and emerging research and practices in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base of MTSS/PBIS:

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, 6 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, 7 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current systems, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, 8 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that will receive the products and services designed to improve school climate and;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the State- and local-level personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current systems, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level;

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs, LEAs, local Part C agencies, charter management organizations, and private school organizations to build or enhance training systems that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching; and

(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system ( e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, families, community providers) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the use of MTSS/PBIS;

(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate, including families, community providers, other federal investments as appropriate, and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes; and

(7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant will systematically distribute information, products, and services to varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies, to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.

(c) Include an evaluation plan for the project as described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and services have met the goals for reaching its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met.

The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the evaluation plan, it will—

(1) Designate, with the approval of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer in consultation with Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) staff, a project liaison with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIPP), 9 the project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following tasks:

(i) Revise the logic model submitted in the application, as appropriate, to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting;

(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the application, as appropriate, to be consistent with the revised logic model and using the most rigorous design suitable ( e.g., prepare evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes; develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation, as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify analytic strategies); and

(iii) Revise the evaluation plan submitted in the application such that it clearly—

(A) Specifies the evaluation questions, measures, and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to answer these questions, suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completing the evaluation activities;

(B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the second project year for use during the project's evaluation (3+2 review) by OSEP for continued funding described under the heading Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; and

(C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project officer in consultation with OESE staff, with the assistance of CIPP, as needed, to specify the project performance measures to be addressed in the project's annual performance report;

(2) Dedicate sufficient staff time and other resources during the first 6 months of the project to collaborate with CIPP staff, including regular meetings ( e.g., weekly, biweekly, or monthly) with CIPP and the OSEP project officer, in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and

(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (C)(1) and (2) of this section and revising and implementing the evaluation plan. Please note in your budget narrative the funds dedicated for this activity.

(d) Demonstrate how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, LGBTQI+, English learner, or socio-economic status, as appropriate;

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

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

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Demonstrate how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

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

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policymakers, among others, in its development and operation.

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

(1) Include personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer, OESE representative, and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative;

(ii) A two- and one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;

(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP or OESE; and

(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, during the second year of the project period;

(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer in consultation with OESE staff as appropriate. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period; and

(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry- recognized standards for accessibility;

(5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website; and

(6) Include an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to a new award at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:

In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), including—

(a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts and recipients of services who have experience and knowledge in MTSS/PBIS. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue funding accordingly.

Requirements Unique to Absolute Priority 1:

Within Absolute Priority 1, we establish the following unique application requirements. In addition to the Common Application Requirements, in order to be considered for funding under Absolute Priority 1, applicants must, in their response to Application Requirement (a), demonstrate how the proposed project will:

(1) Under paragraph (a)(i)(B), present applicable State, regional, or local data demonstrating SEAs' and LEAs' needs related to increasing students' ability to fully participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment, particularly for students with the most significant behavioral challenges; and

(2) Under paragraph (a)(ii), demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives relating to MTSS/PBIS and school climate practices and policies for students whose behavioral challenges interfere with their ability to fully participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment, including students with disabilities; and

(3) Under paragraph (a)(2), demonstrate how the proposed project will improve outcomes for students with behavioral challenges that interfere with their ability or the ability of their peers to fully participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment through the implementation of MTSS/PBIS frameworks, and indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.

Requirements Unique to Absolute Priority 2:

The following unique requirement, drawn from the NFP, applies to Absolute Priority 2. In addition to the Common Application Requirements, in order to be considered for funding under Absolute Priority 2, applicants must, in their response to Application Requirement (a)(2), demonstrate how the proposed project will improve the implementation of EBPs within a MTSS/PBIS framework to effectively support and respond to student behaviors that impact access to and participation in learning.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to Absolute Priority 1 in this notice.

Program Authority: Sections 663 and 681(d) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481); and section 4631(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7281).

Note: Projects must be awarded and operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) the NFP.

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

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: For Absolute Priority 1: $1,850,000 from the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities Program.

For Absolute Priority 2: $2,500,000 from the School Safety National Activities Program.

Note: We will make one award comprised of separate funding under each of the two absolute priorities. Therefore, applicants must submit a separate ED 524 Form (Section A—Budget Summary and Section C—Budget Narrative) for each absolute priority. The Secretary may reject any application that does not separately address the requirements specified in Absolute Priority 1 and Absolute Priority 2 and include a separate budget summary and budget narrative for each of those priorities.

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

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $1,850,000 for Absolute Priority 1 for a single budget period of 12 months. We will not make an award exceeding $2,500,000 for Absolute Priority 2 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State lead agencies under Part C of IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

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

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs, nonprofit organizations, and other public agencies. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantee, consistent with 34 CFR 75.708(b)(2).

4. Other General Requirements:

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

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

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede the version published on December 27, 2021.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2023.

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

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 70 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

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

(a) Significance (10 points).

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

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

(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.

(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.

(b) Quality of project services (35 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

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

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

(ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that framework.

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

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

(v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.

(c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.

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

(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.

(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15 points).

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

(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

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

(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.

(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.

(iv) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and independence, of the evaluator.

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

(vi) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

(vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.

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

(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

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

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

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

(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives is brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

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

4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions, and under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

6. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with—

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities and School Safety National Activities Programs—National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

These performance measures will apply to grant activities under both absolute priorities. These measures are:

• Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review the substantive content of the products and services.

• Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of all Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program includes the percentage of milestones achieved in the current annual performance report period and the percentage of funds spent during the current fiscal year.

• Long-term Program Performance Measure: The percentage of States receiving Technical Assistance and Dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based practices for children, and youth that successfully promote the implementation of those practices in school districts and service agencies.

The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP/OESE. Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590). The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by stakeholders and may require the Center to report on such alignment in their annual and final performance reports.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

DOE is proposing to extend an information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The approved collection is presently being used for three Clean Cities programmatic efforts. The first initiative is the collection of information for a voluntary plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) questionnaire that assists communities and DOE Clean Cities coalitions in assessing the level of readiness of their communities for PEVs. The second effort is intended to develop information that enables DOE to review the progress of DOE's National Clean Fleets Partnership (Partnership). The third effort is referred to as “Ride and Drive Surveys”. DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of these information collection efforts. Previously DOE proposed to include a new information collection instrument to address active and effective Clean Cities Coalition self-assessments to ensure its coalitions can remain in good standing for designation purposes, however, DOE has determined that a specific information collection will not be needed for this work. For this reason, DOE is no longer proposing this specific effort. The net result is that DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of the existing ICR.

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

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-5171; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Clean Cities Vehicle Programs; (3) Type of Review: Extension; (4) Purpose: DOE's Clean Cities initiative has developed three voluntary mechanisms by which communities, certain fleets, and the purchasing public can get a better understanding of their readiness for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), and to help DOE's Clean Cities coalitions prepare for the adoption of these vehicles review their progress in doing so. The voluntary PEV Scorecard is intended to assist communities and the coalitions in assessing the level of readiness of their communities for PEVs. The principal objectives of the questionnaire are to provide respondents with an objective assessment and estimate of their respective community's readiness for PEVs as well as understand the respective community's goals related to integrating these vehicles, and allow communities to assess the magnitude of gaps in their readiness to achieve their goals. DOE intends the questionnaire to be completed by a city/county/regional sustainability or energy coordinator. As the intended respondent may not be aware of every aspect of local or regional PEV readiness, coordination among local stakeholders to gather appropriate information may be necessary.

DOE expects a total respondent population of approximately 1,250 respondents. Selecting the multiple-choice answers in completing a questionnaire is expected to take under 30 minutes, although additional time of no more than 20 hours may be needed to assemble information necessary to be able to answer the questions, leading to a total burden of approximately 25,625 hours. Assembling information to update questionnaire answers in the future on a voluntary basis would be expected to take less time, on the order of 10 hours, as much of any necessary time and effort needed to research information would have been completed previously.

For the Clean Fleets Partnership information collection, the Partnership is targeted at large, private-sector fleets that own or have contractual control over at least 50 percent of their vehicles and have vehicles operating in multiple States. DOE expects approximately 50 fleets to participate in the Partnership and, as a result, DOE expects a total respondent population of approximately 50 respondents. Providing initial baseline information for each participating fleet, which occurs only once, is expected to take 60 minutes. Follow-up questions and clarifications for the purpose of ensuring accurate analyses are expected to take up to 90 minutes. The total burden is expected to be 125 hours.

For the DOE Clean Cities initiative that involves the ride-and-drive surveys, DOE has developed a three-part voluntary survey to assist its coalitions and stakeholders in assessing the level of interest, understanding, and acceptance of PEVs and alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) by the purchasing public. DOE intends the surveys to be completed by individuals who are participating in one of many ride-and-drive events. There are three phases to the Survey: (1) pre Ride-and-Drive; (2) post Ride-and-Drive; and (3) a few months/some time later to discern if the respondent followed through with acquisition of a PEV or another AFV. Respondents provide answers in the first two phases through a user-friendly paper survey and on-line survey, and in the third phase they answer questions via an electronic interface, although a paper survey may be used for those lacking access to an electronic device or computer.

The Surveys' effort relies on responses to questions the respondent chooses to answer. The multiple-choice questions address the following topic areas: (1) Demographics; (2) Current vehicle background; (3) How they learned about ride and drive event; (4) Perceptions of PEVs before and after driving; (5) Post-drive vehicle experience; (6) Purchase expectations; (7) Follow-up survey regarding subsequent behaviors; (8) Purchase information; (9) Barriers; and (10) Future intentions. The survey is expected to take 30 minutes, leading to a total burden of approximately 2,500 hours for the Ride and Drive surveys.

(5) Type of Respondents: Public;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,300;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 16,300;

(8) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 28,250 (25,625 for PEV Scorecard, 125 for Clean Fleets Partnership, and 2,500 for the Ride and Drive Surveys); and

(9) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $2,278,480.

Statutory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 13233; 42 U.S.C. 13252 (a)-(b); 42 U.S.C. 13255.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 10, 2023, by Michael Berube, Acting Program Director, Vehicle Technologies, Office Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3521), the Commission published a notice on March 22, 2023 in the Federal Register regarding FERC-600 (88 FR 17206). The notice sought public comment for a period of 60 days as to the information collection's necessity; the accuracy of the estimated burdens; the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and how to minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond. The comment period expired on May 22, 2023. No comments were submitted.

Title: FERC-600, Rules of Practice and Procedure: Complaint Procedures.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0180.

Type of Request: Three-year extension without change of the current information collection.

Abstract: In accordance with 18 CFR 385.206, any person may file a complaint seeking Commission action against any other person alleged to be in violation of “any statute, rule, order, or other law administered by the Commission, or for any other alleged wrong over which the Commission may have jurisdiction.” Paragraph (b) of section 385.206 states that a complaint must: (1) Clearly identify the action or inaction which is alleged to violate applicable statutory standards or regulatory requirements; (2) Explain how the action or inaction violates applicable statutory standards or regulatory requirements; (3) Set forth the business, commercial, economic or other issues presented by the action or inaction as such relate to or affect the complainant; (4) Make a good faith effort to quantify the financial impact or burden (if any) created for the complainant as a result of the action or inaction; (5) Indicate the practical, operational, or other nonfinancial impacts imposed as a result of the action or inaction, including, where applicable, the environmental, safety or reliability impacts of the action or inaction; (6) State whether the issues presented are pending in an existing Commission proceeding or a proceeding in any other forum in which the complainant is a party, and if so, provide an explanation why timely resolution cannot be achieved in that forum; (7) State the specific relief or remedy requested, including any request for stay or extension of time, and the basis for that relief; (8) Include all documents that support the facts in the complaint in possession of, or otherwise attainable by, the complainant, including, but not limited to, contracts and affidavits; (9) State whether the Enforcement Hotline, Dispute Resolution Service, tariff based dispute resolution mechanisms, or other informal dispute resolution procedures were used, or why these procedures were not used; (10) State whether the complainant believes that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) under the Commission's supervision could successfully resolve the complaint; (11) State what types of ADR procedures could be used; and (12) State any process that has been agreed on for resolving the complaint; (13) Include a form of notice of the complaint on electronic media suitable for publication in the Federal Register in accordance with the specifications in 18 CFR 385.203(d); and (14) Explain with respect to requests for Fast Track processing pursuant to 18 CFR 385.206(h), why the standard processes will not be adequate for expeditiously resolving the complaint.

Any person filing a complaint must serve a copy of the complaint on the respondent, affected regulatory agencies, and others the complainant reasonably knows may be expected to be affected by the complaint. Service must be simultaneous with filing at the Commission for respondents. Simultaneous service may be accomplished by electronic mail in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010(f)(3), facsimile, express delivery, or messenger.

Regulations at 18 CFR part 343 provide for additional procedures and information collection requirements for protests and complaints  1 that pertain to most carriers ( i.e., oil pipelines) under the Interstate Commerce Act. 2 Two sections of Part 343 ( i.e., sections 343.2(c)(1) and 343.2(c)(2)) apply to protests and complaints against pipelines' increased proposed or established rates. Both of these sections provide that protests and complaints must comply with 18 CFR 385.206, and require protestors and complainants to allege reasonable grounds for asserting that an increased rate is so substantially in excess of the pipeline's actual cost increases that it is unjust and unreasonable. Alternatively, one of the regulations focused on rates ( i.e., 18 CFR 343.2(c)(1)) authorize protests and complaints to allege that the challenged rate exceeds an applicable ceiling level.

A third section of Part 343 ( i.e., section 343.2(c)(3)) addresses complaints against a pipeline's operations or practices, other than rates. Complaints under this regulation must allege reasonable grounds for asserting that the operations or practices violate a provision of the Interstate Commerce Act or violate a provision of the Commission's regulations. Like the other two sections of Part 343 discussed above, this section requires complaints to comply with 18 CFR 385.206.

Type of Respondents: Any person that files a complaint for Commission review and resolution.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden  3 and cost  4 for the information collection as shown in the following table.

Background: The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend to the EPA Administrator any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC shall also: advise the EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information; advise the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity; and advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS. As amended, 5 U.S.C., App. Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA carry out a periodic review and revision, as appropriate, of the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and PM.

The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., app. 2, and conducts business in accordance with FACA and related regulations. The CASAC and the CASAC NO X /SO X /PM Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the Chartered CASAC and NO X /SO X /PM Panel will hold a public meeting to discuss a draft CASAC report on EPA's PA.

Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning EPA's PA should be directed to Ms. Ginger Tennant ( tennant.ginger@epa.gov ).

Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible on the CASAC website: https://casac.epa.gov.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments on the topic of this advisory activity, including the charge to the CASAC and the EPA review documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the instructions below to submit comments.

Oral Statements: Individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation during the public meeting will be limited to three minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by August 29, 2023, to be placed on the list of public speakers.

Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by CASAC members, statements should be supplied by August 29, 2023. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO at the contact information above via email. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB website. Copyrighted material will not be posted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202) 564-2050 or yeow.aaron@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO, at the contact information noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to each meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Background: The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend to the EPA Administrator any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC shall also: advise the EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information; advise the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity; and advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS. As amended, 5 U.S.C., app. section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA carry out a periodic review and revision, as appropriate, of the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including lead.

The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., app. 2, and conducts business in accordance with FACA and related regulations. The CASAC and the CASAC Lead Review Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the Chartered CASAC and CASAC Lead Review Panel will hold a public meeting to discuss a draft CASAC report on EPA's Lead ISA.

Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning EPA's Lead ISA should be directed to Dr. Evan Coffman ( cofmman.evan@epa.gov ).

Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible on the CASAC website: https://casac.epa.gov.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments on the topic of this advisory activity, including the charge to the CASAC and the EPA review documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the instructions below to submit comments.

Oral Statements: Individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation during the public meeting will be limited to three minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by August 16, 2023, to be placed on the list of public speakers.

Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by CASAC members, statements should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by August 16, 2023. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO at the contact information above via email. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB website. Copyrighted material will not be posted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202) 564-2050 or yeow.aaron@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO, at the contact information noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to each meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0349) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)566-1744 and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202)566-1752.

The electronic version of the public docket for this action contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

On December 13, 2016, the EPA designated portions of Rusk and Panola Counties, Texas as a “nonattainment” area for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS (effective January 12, 2017). 81 FR 89870. The CAA required the State of Texas to submit a SIP within 18 months of the effective date of the designation that would provide pollution reductions necessary for the Rusk-Panola nonattainment area to attain the SO 2 NAAQS. Texas did not submit a SIP by the 18-month deadline. On August 10, 2020, the EPA issued a statutorily required Finding of Failure to Submit a SIP for the nonattainment area; this created a duty for the EPA to promulgate a FIP for the nonattainment area unless EPA takes final action approving a corrective SIP from the State within two years of the effective date of the Finding of Failure to Submit (by September 9, 2022). Texas did not obtain approval of a corrective SIP by September 9, 2022.

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff Sierra Club filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Oakland Division, alleging that the EPA failed to promulgate a FIP within two years of finding that Texas failed to submit a SIP for the Rusk/Panola 2010 SO 2 NAAQS nonattainment area. 1

The proposed consent decree would establish a deadline of December 13, 2024 for EPA to take final action promulgating a FIP for the nonattainment area unless the EPA approves a corrective SIP for the area satisfying the requirements of CAA section 172(c), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c), before that deadline.

In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0349, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

This notice is directed to the general public and may be of specific interest to persons or entities that register antimicrobial pesticides. Because other entities may also be interested in this notice, the agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this subject. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see Tips for Effective Comments at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. Please note that once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.

Historically, EPA has approved claims for efficacy against viruses only as additional claims on certain antimicrobial products, such as those with sterilant and disinfectant claims, but not those that bear only sanitizer claims.

EPA received requests for guidance to add virucidal claims to products with sanitizing claims on hard surfaces. There is a significant interest from stakeholders and the public to add these virucidal claims to products with sanitizer label claims.

This draft guidance is intended to allow registrants to provide consumers with additional products that are effective against viruses including SARS-CoV-2. This draft guidance reiterates recommended test methods and guidance for the addition of virucidal claims to products that meet the criteria for hard surface disinfections claims in OCSPP 810.2200, Disinfectants for Use on Environmental Surfaces, Guidance for Efficacy Testing (EPA publication No. 712-C-17-004 (2018)).

Products should meet the test guidance requirements as described in OCSPP 810.2300 Sanitizers for Use on Hard Surfaces—Efficacy Data Recommendations (EPA publication No. 712-C-07-091 (2012)), (food or non-food contact sanitization) to treat hard, non-porous surfaces before a virucidal claim is added.

OCSPP test guidelines can be accessed online through https://www.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances.

Since there will be no changes to the test methods or performance standards recommended for virus claims, there is no concern about a reduced level of efficacy against viruses. Products that meet the basic criteria to allow for sanitizer claims and have data to support the addition of virucidal label claims, may be used only in non-healthcare use-sites in residential, commercial and institutional settings ( e.g., cafeterias, waiting rooms) specifically on hard non-porous surfaces.

Additional anticipated benefits include the availability of more products with reduced contact times (time the surface must remain wet) and/or more products on EPA's Design for the Environment list that are also effective against viruses. The expansion of the availability of virucidal claims under this draft guidance will facilitate the addition of virus claims to products bearing only sanitizer claims.

As guidance, these documents are not binding on the Agency or any outside parties, and the Agency may depart from it where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in the guidance, the obligations of EPA and the regulated community are determined by statutes, regulations, or other legally binding documents. In the event of a conflict between the discussion in the guidance documents and any statute, regulation, or other legally binding document, the guidance documents will not be controlling.

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

The official public docket for this action (identified by EPA-HQ-OGC-2019-0478) contains a copy of the proposed stipulated settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

The electronic version of the public docket for this action contains a copy of the proposed stipulated settlement agreement and is available through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

On January 20, 2011, Plaintiffs (non-governmental environmental organizations) filed a complaint in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California asserting a single claim against EPA for allegedly violating section 7(a)(2) of the ESA by failing to initiate and reinitiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) with respect to 382 pesticide active ingredients. After motions practice and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint on June 29, 2018 for failure to initiate consultation under ESA section 7(a)(2) for certain pesticide products containing 35 pesticide active ingredients. In October 2019, the parties entered a partial settlement agreement, in which EPA committed to a schedule to complete effects determinations for eight active ingredients and request initiation of any necessary ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultations with NMFS and/or FWS. This proposed stipulated settlement agreement incorporates all still outstanding obligations from the prior partial settlement agreement and resolves the remaining claims.

Among other provisions, the proposed agreement sets a deadline of no later than September 30, 2027 for EPA to complete final Biological Evaluations on the potential effects of the following eight active ingredients on ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat: acephate, bensulide, dimethoate, ethoprop, naled, phorate, phosmet, and s,s,s-tributyl phosphorotrithioate (tribufos); and to request initiation of any necessary ESA section 7(a)(2) consultations with NMFS and/or FWS. The proposed agreement also includes statements of EPA's intent to take preceding actions, including: to complete draft biological evaluations no later than one year prior to the deadline for the final biological evaluations; to provide notice and a 60-day opportunity for public comment on any such draft; and, consistent with current practice, to conduct nationwide-scale effects determinations.

Additionally, the proposed agreement sets deadlines for EPA to issue certain ESA “strategies” that were contemplated in its work plan issued on April 12, 2022, entitled Balancing Wildlife Protection and Responsible Pesticide Use: How EPA's Pesticide Program Will Meet its Endangered Species Act Obligations. These strategies aim to identify mitigation measures to address the effects of pesticides to ESA-listed species based on certain criteria that EPA has or expects to develop based on what it has learned from its ESA section 7 consultations to date.

The proposed agreement also includes, as well as other related commitments, a commitment by the agricultural industry Defendant-Intervenors to organize and fund a workshop for interested stakeholders to explore how offsets may be used to address the effects of pesticide registrations on ESA-listed species and how such offsets could be incorporated into the pesticide registration process.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will accept written comments relating to the proposed settlement from persons who are not named as parties to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to enter the proposed agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the ESA or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent should be withdrawn, the terms of the proposed agreement will be affirmed.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2019-0478 via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

During the meeting, the Subcommittee may also hear progress reports from its workgroups as well as updates and announcements on Office of Transportation and Air Quality activities of general interest to attendees.

Participation in virtual public meetings. The virtual public meeting will provide interested parties the opportunity to participate in this Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

For individuals with disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please email MSTRS@epa.gov . To request accommodate of a disability, please email MSTRS@epa.gov, preferably at least 10 business days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

EPA is asking all meeting attendees, even those who do not intend to speak, to register for the meeting by sending an email to the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above, by Wednesday, July 26, 2023. This will help EPA ensure that sufficient participation capacity will be available.

Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the meeting logistics, including potential additional sessions, will be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/caaac/mobile-sources-technical-review-subcommittee-mstrs-caaac . While EPA expects the meeting to go forward as set forth above, please monitor the website for any updates.

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

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0573.

Title: Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise, FCC Form 394.

Form Number: FCC Form 394.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business of other for-profit entities; State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,000 respondents; 1,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third Party Disclosure Requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 7,000 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $750,000.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 394 is a standardized form that is completed by cable operators in connection with the assignment and transfer of control of cable television systems. On July 23, 1993, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92-264, FCC 93-332, Implementation of Sections 11 and 13 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Horizontal and Vertical Ownership Limits, Cross-Ownership Limitations and Anti-Trafficking Provisions. Among other things, this Report and Order established procedures for use of the FCC Form 394.

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

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-0920.

Title: Form 2100, Schedule 318—Low Power FM Station Construction Permit Application; Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-25 Creation of Low Power Radio Service; Sections 73.801, 73.807, 73.809, 73.810, 73.816, 73.827, 73.850, 73.865, 73.870, 73.871, 73.872, 73.877, 73.878, 73.318, 73.1030, 73.1207, 73.1212, 73.1300, 73.1350, 73.1610, 73.1620, 73.1750, 73.1943, 73.3525, 73.3550, 73.3598, 11.61(ii).

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule 318.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 24,606 respondents with multiple responses; 31,324 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .0025-12 hours.

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

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in sections 154(i), 303, 308 and 325(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 52,889 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $1,229,370.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 2100, Schedule 318, Low Power FM (LPFM) Station Construction Permit Application (Schedule 318), is used to: (1) apply to construct a new Low Power FM (LPFM) broadcast station; (2) make changes to an authorized LPFM broadcast station; (3) amend a pending LPFM construction permit application; or (4) propose mandatory time-sharing.

Schedule 318's Online Notice (third party disclosure) Requirement: 47 CFR 73.3580, as amended in the Commission's 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, discussed below, requires local public notice of the filing of all applications to construct a new LPFM broadcast station. Notice is given by an applicant posting notice of the application filing on its station website, its licensee website, its parent entity website, or on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 consecutive days beginning within five business days of acceptance of the application for filing. The online notice must link to a copy of the application as filed in the Commission's LMS licensing database. In the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, the Commission also clarified LPFM stations' obligations to provide local public notice, and amended section 73.801 of the rules to indicate that the local public notice rule, 47 CFR 73.3580, applies to the LPFM service.

FCC staff uses the data to determine whether an applicant meets basic statutory and regulatory requirements to become a Commission licensee and to ensure that the public interest would be served by grant of the application. In addition, the information contained within this information collection ensures that (1) the integrity of the FM spectrum is not compromised, (2) unacceptable interference will not be caused to existing radio services, (3) statutory requirements are met, and (4) the stations operate in the public interest.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1039.

Title: Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act—Review Process, WT Docket No. 03-128.

Form No.: FCC Form 620 and 621, TCNS E-filing.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 70,152 respondents and 70,152 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 303(q), 303(r), 309(a), 309(j) and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(q), 303(r), 309(a), 309(j) and 319, sections 101(d)(6) and 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470a(d)(6) and 470f, and section 800.14(b) of the rules of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.14(b).

Total Annual Burden: 97,929 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $13,087,425.

Needs and Uses: FCC staff, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) and the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (ACHP) use the data to take such action as may be necessary to ascertain whether a proposed action may affect sites of cultural significance to tribal nations and historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register as directed by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Commission's rules.

FCC Form 620, New Tower (NT) Submission Packet is to be completed by or on behalf of applicants to construct new antenna support structures by or for the use of licensees of the FCC. The form is to be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) or to the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (“THPO”), as appropriate, and the Commission before any construction or other installation activities on the site begins. Failure to provide the form and complete the review process under section 106 of the NHPA prior to beginning construction may violate section 110(k) of the NHPA and the Commission's rules.

FCC Form 621, Collocation (CO) Submission Packet is to be completed by or on behalf of applicants who wish to collocate an antenna or antennas on an existing communications tower or non-tower structure by or for the use of licensees of the FCC. The form is to be submitted to the State historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) or to the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (“THPO”), as appropriate, and the Commission before any construction or other installation activities on the site begins. Failure to provide the form and complete the review process under section 106 of the NHPA prior to beginning construction or other installation activities may violate section 110(k) of the NHPA and the Commission's rules.

The Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) is used by or on behalf of Applicants proposing to construct new antenna support structures, and some collocations, to ensure that Tribal Nations have the requisite opportunity to participate in review prior to construction. To facilitate this coordination, Tribal Nations have designated areas of geographic preference, and they receive automated notifications based on the site coordinates provided in the filing. Applicants complete TCNS before filing a 620 or 621 and all the relevant data is pre-populated on the 620 and 621 when the forms are filed electronically.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0249.

Title: Sections 74.781, 74.1281 and 78.69, Station Records.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; State, Federal or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 14,052 respondents; 19,077 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.375 hour-1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 12,751 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $6,030,000.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in this collection are as follows:

47 CFR 74.781 information collection requirements include the following: (a) The licensee of a low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station shall maintain adequate station records, including the current instrument of authorization, official correspondence with the FCC, contracts, permission for rebroadcasts, and other pertinent documents.

(b) Entries required by § 17.49 of this Chapter concerning any observed or otherwise known extinguishment or improper functioning of a tower light: (1) The nature of such extinguishment or improper functioning. (2) The date and time the extinguishment or improper operation was observed or otherwise noted. (3) The date, time and nature of adjustments, repairs or replacements made.

(c) The station records shall be maintained for inspection at a residence, office, or public building, place of business, or other suitable place, in one of the communities of license of the translator or booster, except that the station records of a booster or translator licensed to the licensee of the primary station may be kept at the same place where the primary station records are kept. The name of the person keeping station records, together with the address of the place where the records are kept, shall be posted in accordance with § 74.765(c) of the rules. The station records shall be made available upon request to any authorized representative of the Commission.

(d) Station logs and records shall be retained for a period of two years.

47 CFR 74.1281 information collection requirements include the following: (a) The licensee of a station authorized under this Subpart shall maintain adequate station records, including the current instrument of authorization, official correspondence with the FCC, maintenance records, contracts, permission for rebroadcasts, and other pertinent documents.

(b) Entries required by § 17.49 of this chapter concerning any observed or otherwise known extinguishment or improper functioning of a tower light:

(1) The nature of such extinguishment or improper functioning.

(2) The date and time the extinguishment of improper operation was observed or otherwise noted.

(3) The date, time and nature of adjustments, repairs or replacements made.

(c) The station records shall be maintained for inspection at a residence, office, or public building, place of business, or other suitable place, in one of the communities of license of the translator or booster, except that the station records of a booster or translator licensed to the licensee of the primary station may be kept at the same place where the primary station records are kept. The name of the person keeping station records, together with the address of the place where the records are kept, shall be posted in accordance with § 74.1265(b) of the rules. The station records shall be made available upon request to any authorized representative of the Commission.

(d) Station logs and records shall be retained for a period of two years.

47 CFR 78.69 requires each licensee of a CARS station shall maintain records showing the following: (a) For all attended or remotely controlled stations, the date and time of the beginning and end of each period of transmission of each channel;

(b) For all stations, the date and time of any unscheduled interruptions to the transmissions of the station, the duration of such interruptions, and the causes thereof;

(c) For all stations, the results and dates of the frequency measurements made pursuant to § 78.113 and the name of the person or persons making the measurements;

(d) For all stations, when service or maintenance duties are performed, which may affect a station's proper operation, the responsible operator shall sign and date an entry in the station's records, giving:

(1) Pertinent details of all transmitter adjustments performed by the operator or under the operator's supervision.

(e) When a station in this service has an antenna structure which is required to be illuminated, appropriate entries shall be made as follows:

(1) The time the tower lights are turned on and off each day, if manually controlled.

(2) The time the daily check of proper operation of the tower lights was made, if an automatic alarm system is not employed.

(3) In the event of any observed or otherwise known failure of a tower light:

(i) Nature of such failure.

(ii) Date and time the failure was observed or otherwise noted.

(iii) Date, time, and nature of the adjustments, repairs, or replacements made.

(iv) Identification of Flight Service Station (Federal Aviation Administration) notified of the failure of any code or rotating beacon light not corrected within 30 minutes, and the date and time such notice was given.

(v) Date and time notice was given to the Flight Service Station (Federal Aviation Administration) that the required illumination was resumed.

(4) Upon completion of the 3-month periodic inspection required by § 78.63(c):

(i) The date of the inspection and the condition of all tower lights and associated tower lighting control devices, indicators, and alarm systems.

(ii) Any adjustments, replacements, or repairs made to insure compliance with the lighting requirements and the date such adjustments, replacements, or repairs were made.

(f) For all stations, station record entries shall be made in an orderly and legible manner by the person or persons competent to do so, having actual knowledge of the facts required, who shall sign the station record when starting duty and again when going off duty.

(g) For all stations, no station record or portion thereof shall be erased, obliterated, or willfully destroyed within the period of retention required by rule. Any necessary correction may be made only by the person who made the original entry who shall strike out the erroneous portion, initial the correction made, and show the date the correction was made.

(h) For all stations, station records shall be retained for a period of not less than 2 years. The Commission reserves the right to order retention of station records for a longer period of time. In cases where the licensee or permittee has notice of any claim or complaint, the station record shall be retained until such claim or complaint has been fully satisfied or until the same has been barred by statute limiting the time for filing of suits upon such claims.

Title of Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

OMB Control Number: 3084-0159.

Current Actions: Extension of approval for a collection of information.

Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 6,240.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,057.

Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback is information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Commission and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

Request for Comment: On April 24, 2023, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 88 FR 24798. One germane comment was received. Bruce Grimm opined that the three year extension be considered for approval “[i]f the FTC can make sure that the information collected is going to provide accurate and reliable information in order to make informed agency policy changes and decisions that benefit the public.” He also noted that, “Surveying for the sake of gathering information should ensure that quantifiable data is provided and that it can be easily analyzed. Focus groups, on the other hand, tend to encourage good discussion, but they are found to be time consuming and costly, That kind of data can be harder to analyze.”

The FTC responds that the use of this generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. The FTC will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services and make improvements in service delivery based on feedback. Each collection will be low-burden and targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with an FTC program or may have experience with the program in the near future.

Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the information collections.

Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule § 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before August 16, 2023. Write “Chaucer/Bates Accessories; File No. 222 3163” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the https://www.regulations.gov website.

Because of heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the https://www.regulations.gov website. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Chaucer/Bates Accessories; File No. 222 3163” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20580.

Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other State identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule § 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule § 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule § 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the https://www.regulations.gov website—as legally required by FTC Rule § 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from that website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule § 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

Visit the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov to read this document and the news release describing the proposed settlement. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments it receives on or before August 16, 2023. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Chaucer Accessories, Inc., Bates Accessories, Inc., Bates Retail Group, Inc., and Thomas P. Bates (“Respondents”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter involves Respondents' labeling and advertising of belts, shoes, and other products as “Made in USA” or “Made in USA from Global Materials.” According to the FTC's complaint, Respondents (1) advertised certain products as made in the United States even though, in numerous instances, they were wholly imported or incorporated significant imported components, and (2) labeled and advertised certain other products as “Made in USA from Global Materials” even though, in numerous instances, those products were wholly imported with de minimis finishing in the United States. The FTC's complaint also alleges that, by distributing promotional materials containing misrepresentations regarding the origin of their products, Respondents provided trade customers the means and instrumentalities for the commission of deceptive act or practices. Based on the foregoing, the complaint alleges Respondents violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a).

The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Consistent with the FTC's Made in USA Labeling Rule, 16 CFR part 323, and its Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S.-Origin Claims, Part I prohibits Respondents from making U.S.-origin claims for their products unless: (1) the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States; (2) a clear and conspicuous qualification appears immediately adjacent to the representation that accurately conveys the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients or components, and/or processing; or (3) for a claim that a product is assembled in the United States, the product is last substantially transformed in the United States, the product's principal assembly takes place in the United States, and United States assembly operations are substantial.

Part II prohibits Respondents from making any representation about the country of origin of a product or service, unless the representation is not misleading and Respondents have a reasonable basis substantiating it. Part III prohibits Respondents from providing others with the means and instrumentalities to make the claims prohibited in Parts I or II.

Parts IV through V are monetary provisions. Part IV imposes a judgment of $191,481. Part V includes additional monetary provisions relating to collections. Part VI requires Respondents to provide sufficient customer information to enable the Commission to administer consumer redress, if appropriate.

Part VII is a notice provision requiring Respondents to identify and notify certain consumers of the FTC's action within 30 days after the issuance of the order, or within 30 days of the consumer's identification, if identified later. Respondents are also required to submit reports regarding their notification program.

Parts VIII through IX are reporting and compliance provisions. Part VIII requires Respondents to acknowledge receipt of the order, to provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors, and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from each such person that they have received a copy of the order. Part IX requires Respondents to file a compliance report within one year after the order becomes final and to notify the Commission within 14 days of certain changes that would affect compliance with the order. Part X requires Respondents to maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. Part XI requires Respondents to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview Respondents' personnel.

Finally, Part XII is a “sunset” provision, terminating the order after 20 years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.

Purpose: The Committee is charged with providing advice and guidance to the Director, DHQP; the Director, NCEZID; the Director, CDC; and the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, regarding (1) the practice of healthcare infection prevention and control; (2) strategies for surveillance, prevention, and control of infections, antimicrobial resistance, and related events in settings where healthcare is provided; and (3) periodic updating of CDC guidelines and other policy statements regarding prevention of healthcare-associated infections and healthcare-related conditions.

Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include the following updates: The Healthcare Personnel Guideline Workgroup; Isolation Precautions Guideline Workgroup; National Healthcare Safety Network Workgroup; and Dental Unit Waterlines Guideline Update. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

Oral Public Comment: Time will be available for public comment. Members of the public who wish to provide public comments should plan to attend the public comment session at the start time listed. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments.

Written Public Comment: The public may submit written comments in advance of the meeting. Comments should be submitted in writing by email to the contact person listed above. The deadline for receipt of written public comment is August 25, 2023. All requests must contain the submitter's name, address, and organizational affiliation, as well as the topic being addressed. Written comments should not exceed one single-spaced typed page in length and delivered in 3 minutes or less. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting.

The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

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

1. Enter into a written agreement, which must be prepared in accordance with the Privacy Act, approved by the Data Integrity Board of each source and recipient federal agency, provided to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and made available to the public, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o), (u)(3)(A), and (u)(4).

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

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

4. Report the matching program to Congress and the OMB, in advance and annually, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o) (2)(A)(i), (r), and (u)(3)(D).

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

This matching program meets these requirements.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is the recipient agency, and the Social Security Administration (SSA) is the source agency.

The statutory authority for the matching program is 42 U.S.C. 18081 and 18083.

The purpose of the matching program is to provide CMS with SSA information which CMS will use to determine individuals' eligibility for initial enrollment in a Qualified Health Plan through an Exchange established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for Insurance Affordability Programs (IAPs), and for certificates of exemption from the shared responsibility payment; and to make eligibility redeterminations and renewal decisions, including appeal determinations. IAPs include:

1. Advance payments of the premium tax credit (APTC) and cost sharing reductions (CSRs),

2. Medicaid,

3. Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and

4. Basic Health Program (BHP).

The individuals whose information will be used in the matching program are consumers (applicants and enrollees) who receive the eligibility determinations and redeterminations described in the preceding Purpose(s) section.

The categories of records used in the matching program are identity information, citizenship and death/disability indicators, incarceration information, and income information. To request information from SSA, CMS will submit a submission file to SSA that contains the following mandatory specified data elements: last name, first name, date of birth, Social Security Number (SSN), and citizenship indicator. When SSA is able to match the SSN and name provided by CMS and information is available, SSA will provide CMS with the following about each individual, as relevant: last name, first name, date of birth, death indicator, disability indicator, incarceration information, Title II (annual and monthly) income information, and confirmation of attestations of citizenship status and SSN. SSA may also provide Quarters of Coverage data when CMS requests it.

The systems of records and routine uses that support this matching program are identified below:

• CMS Health Insurance Exchanges System (HIX), System No. 09-70-0560, last published in full at 78 FR 63211 (Oct. 23, 2013) and amended at 83 FR 6591 (Feb. 14, 2018). Routine use 3 authorizes CMS' disclosures of identifying information about applicants to SSA for use in this matching program.

• Master Files of SSN Holders and SSN Applications (referred to as the Enumeration System), 60-0058, last fully published at 87 FR 263 (Jan. 4, 2022);

• Prisoner Update Processing System (PUPS), 60-0269, last fully published at 64 FR 11076 (Mar. 8, 1999) and updated at 72 FR 69723 (Dec. 10, 2007), 78 FR 40542 (July 5, 2013), and 83 FR 54969 (Nov. 1, 2018);

• Master Beneficiary Record (MBR) 60-0090, last fully published at 71 FR 1826 (Jan. 11, 2006), and updated at 72 FR 69723 (Dec. 10, 2007), at 78 FR 40542 (July 5, 2013), at 83 FR 31250 (July 3, 2018) and at 83 FR 54969 (Nov. 1, 2018); and

• Earnings Recording and Self-Employment Income System (referred to as the Master Earnings File (MEF)), 60-0059, last fully published at 71 FR 1819 (Jan. 11, 2006) and amended at 78 FR 40542 (July 5, 2013) and 83 FR 54969 (Nov. 1, 2018).

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of the currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Collection of Prescription Drug Data from MA-PD, PDP and Fallout Plans/Sponsors for Medicare Part D Payments; Use: The PDE data is used in the Payment Reconciliation System to perform the annual Part D payment reconciliation, any PDE data within the Coverage Gap Phase of the Part D benefit is used for invoicing in the CGDP, and the data are part of the report provided to the Secretary of the Treasury for Section 9008.

The information users will be pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), third party administrators and pharmacies, and the PDPs, MA-PDs, Fallbacks, and other plans that offer coverage of outpatient prescription drugs under the Medicare Part D benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. The statutorily required data is used primarily for payment and is used for claim validation as well as for other legislated functions such as quality monitoring, program integrity and oversight. In addition, the PDE data are used to support operations and program development.

CMS has used PDE data to create summarized dashboards and tools, including the Medicare Part D Drug Spending Dashboard & Data, the Part D Manufacturer Rebate Summary Report, and the Medicare Part D Opioid Prescribing Mapping Tool. The data are also used in the Medicare Trustees Report. Due to the market sensitive nature of PDE data, external uses of the data are subject to significant limitations. However, CMS does analyze the data on a regular basis to determine drug cost and utilization patterns in order to inform programmatic changes and to develop informed policy in the Part D program. Form Number: CMS-10174 (OMB control number: 0938-0982); Frequency: Monthly; Affected Public: Private Sector, Federal Government; Number of Respondents: 856; Total Annual Responses: 1,499,064,780; Total Annual Hours: 62,918. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Shelly Winston at (443) 934-3621.)

Description: To date, MIHOPE has been collecting data through the time children in the study were in approximately kindergarten. The currently approved materials under this OMB number include those for the kindergarten follow-up. The kindergarten direct data collection with study participants is complete, but some administrative data are still being collected from states and local education agencies.

This request is to complete administrative data collection for the kindergarten follow-up and to conduct the following data collection activities for MIHOPE-3G: (1) child welfare records data collection from states and (2) school records data collection from states and local education agencies. Future information collection requests and related Federal Register notices will describe future data collection efforts for this project.

Data collected during the third grade follow-up study is being used to estimate the effects of MIECHV-funded programs on the following seven domains: (1) maternal health, (2) child health, (3) child development and school performance, (4) child maltreatment, (5) parenting, (6) crime or domestic violence, and (7) family economic self-sufficiency.

Respondents: For MIHOPE-3G, we will seek to obtain child welfare data from 11 states and school records data from up to 48 states and local education agencies. This data will be collected for 4,105 families who are currently participating in MIHOPE.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,301.

Description: The Title V SRAE Program has mandatory, formula allotments for state and territories to apply. The application process is for states and territories to submit and for ACYF/FYSB to collect an application, state plan, and semi-annual performance progress reports.

Purpose and Use of the Information Collection: The application and state plans will offer information about the proposed state project and it will be used as the primary basis to determine whether or not the project meets the minimum requirements of the NOFO for the grant award. The Performance Progress Reports are collected semi-annually and will inform the monitoring of the grantees' program design, program evaluation, management improvement, service quality and compliance with agreed upon goals. ACYF/FYSB will use the information to assure effective service delivery for program participants. Finally, the data from this collection will be used to report outcomes and efficiencies and will provide valuable information to policy makers and key stakeholders in the development of program and research efforts.

Respondents: Thirty-eight states and nine Territories, to include, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,512.

Comments: The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

Authority: Section 510 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 710), as amended by Section 50502 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-123) and extended by Division CC, Title III, Section 303 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law 117-103).

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

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

This information collection request supports FDA regulations found in 21 CFR 130.17 (section 130.17). Section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 341) directs FDA to issue regulations establishing definitions and standards of identity (SOIs) for food. Under section 403(g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(g)), a food that is subject to a definition and SOI prescribed by regulation is misbranded if it does not conform to such definition and SOI. Section 130.17 provides for the issuance by FDA of temporary marketing permits (TMPs) that enable the food industry to test consumer acceptance and measure the technological and commercial feasibility in interstate commerce of experimental packs of food that deviate from applicable definitions and SOIs. Section 130.17(c) enables the Agency to monitor the manufacture, labeling, and distribution of experimental packs of food that deviate from applicable definitions and SOIs. The information so obtained can be used in support of a petition to establish or amend the applicable definition or SOI to provide for the variations. Section 130.17(i) specifies the information that a firm must submit to FDA to obtain an extension of a TMP. To assist respondents with the TMP process, we have developed guidance entitled “Temporary Permits for Interstate Shipment of Experimental Packs of Food Varying from the Requirements of Definitions and Standards of Identity: Guidance for Industry” (November 2021). This resource can be found on our website https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-temporary-permits-interstate-shipment-experimental-packs-food-varying-requirements.

Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of information include private sector businesses including institutional and/or industrial customers and food industry members such as manufacturers, packers, or distributors desiring to apply for a TMP or TMP extension.

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

Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.

Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title of the Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (Online Customer Surveys).

Type of Collection: Extension.

OMB No.: 0990-0379—OS/ASPA.

Abstract: This collection of information is necessary to enable the Agency to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with our commitment to improving service delivery. The information collected from our customers and stakeholders will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience with the Agency's programs. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.

Type of respondent; frequency (annual, quarterly, monthly, etc.); and the affected public (individuals, public or private businesses, state or local governments, etc.).

Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title of the Collection: Fast-Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Routine Customer Feedback on HHS Communications.

Type of Collection: Father Generic ICR.

OMB No.: 0990-0459—ASPA.

Abstract: This collection of information is necessary to enable HHS to garner customer and stakeholder feedback. Information will be collected from our customers and stakeholders from the concept phase to the end of the product life cycle. This will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience with HHS communications products. If this information is not collected, vital feedback on HHS communications will be unavailable, preventing programs from developing communications products that meets the needs of the audience and demonstrating impact of the communications products developed.

Type of respondent; frequency (annual, quarterly, monthly, etc); and the affected public (individuals, public or private businesses, state or local governments, etc.).

Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 117-286, 5 U.S.C., ch. 10). The Committee is authorized, by section 602 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-282, 132 Stat. 4190, and is codified in 46 U.S.C. 70112. The Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 46 U.S.C. 15109. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee provides advice, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to national maritime security.

The agenda for the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee meeting is as follows:

(1) Call to Order.

(2) Introduction.

(3) Designated Federal Official Remarks.

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

(5) Remarks from Committee Leadership.

(6) Discussion of ongoing task. The Committee will provide an update on the following task:

a. Task T-2022-5: Working Group on Cybersecurity Information Sharing.

(7) Discussion of new tasks. The Committee will engage in discussion on new tasks being proposed by the U. S. Coast Guard.

a. Task T-2023-1: Update of NVIC 03-03, “Implementation Guidance for the Regulations Mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 for Facilities.”

b. Task T-2023-2: Active Shooter/Active Threat in the Maritime Environment

c. Task T-2023-3: Unmanned Systems in the Maritime Environment

(8) Public Comment Period.

(9) Meeting Recess.

The agenda for the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee meeting is as follows:

(1) Call to order.

(2) Introduction.

(3) Designated Federal Official Remarks.

(4) Committee Chair Remarks.

(5) Committee Sector Report. Committee members will provide an update on related efforts within their sector and will provide items of future interest for the Committee to consider.

(6) Public Comment Period.

(7) Closing Remarks/Plans for Next Meeting.

(8) Adjournment of Meeting.

A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/NMSAC no later than August 18, 2023. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Ryan Owens as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

There will be a public comment period at the end of meetings. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments.

Please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above to register as a speaker.