Background

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

Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of fruits and vegetables that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section.

APHIS received a request from the national plant protection organization of Guatemala to allow the importation of Hass avocado ( Persea americana var. Hass) from Guatemala into the United States. As part of our evaluation of Guatemala's request, we have prepared a pest risk assessment to identify the pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of the importation of fresh Hass avocado ( Persea americana var. Hass) into the United States from Guatemala. Based on the pest risk assessment, a risk management document (RMD) was prepared to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the fresh Hass avocado ( Persea americana var. Hass) to mitigate the pest risk.

Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing the availability of our pest risk assessment and RMD for public review and comment. Those documents, as well as a description of the economic considerations associated with the importation of fresh Hass avocado ( Persea americana var. Hass) fruit from Guatemala, may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of the pest risk assessment and RMD by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the subject of the analysis you wish to review when requesting copies.

After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the import status of fresh Hass avocado ( Persea americana var. Hass) from Guatemala in a subsequent notice. If the overall conclusions of our analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk remain unchanged following our consideration of the comments, then we will authorize the importation of fresh Hass avocado ( Persea americana var. Hass) from Guatemala into the United States subject to the requirements specified in the RMD.

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

This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may attend this meeting in person or virtually. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email svillanueva@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Sarah Villanueva at svillanueva@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-202-656-8937.

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

Background

On November 24, 2023, Commerce published in the Federal Register its preliminary results and indicated that interested parties will be notified of the deadline for the submission of case briefs at a later date. 1 Because Commerce received no comments from any interested party, no decision memorandum accompanies this notice. The deadline for these final results has been extended by 57 days to April 12, 2024. 2

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The product covered by the Order is carbazole violet pigment 23. The merchandise subject to the Order is classifiable under subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Results.

Commerce verified Sudarshan's questionnaire responses between November 30 and December 8, 2023. 4 We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and accounting records, and original source documents provided by Sudarshan.

Based on its findings at verification, Commerce made several changes to the Preliminary Results. A summary of these changes, which are fully described in the Calculation Memorandum, 5 is as follows:

• Commerce revised the U.S. and comparison market sales databases consistent with the minor corrections provided by Sudarshan at verification. 6

• For comparison market sales, Commerce revised the reported indirect selling expenses to include certain expenses previously incorrectly reported as general and administrative (G&A) expenses. Commerce also revised the reported inventory carrying costs to use the corrected total cost of manufacturing. 7

• With respect to the reported cost data, Commerce revised the G&A expense ratio to exclude certain incorrectly reported expenses. Commerce also revised the interest expense ratio to include the net consolidated foreign exchange amount. 8

• For U.S. sales, Commerce recalculated foreign market indirect selling expenses to reflect the currency in which they were incurred ( i.e., Indian rupees). Commerce revised the indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States to include expenses that were previously incorrectly excluded. Additionally, Commerce added the countervailing duties for export subsidies on U.S. sales of CVP-23. Commerce also revised the reported inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States to use the transfer price of CVP-23 between Sudarshan and its United States subsidiary, Sudarshan North America. Further, Commerce revised the inventory carrying costs incurred in the country of manufacture to use the corrected total cost of manufacturing. 9

As a result of this new shipper review, Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR December 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022:

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(b), Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these final results of review within five days of after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 10 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).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Sudarshan's weighted-average dumping margin is zero, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 11

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise produced and exported by Sudarshan, no cash deposit will be required;  12 (2) for subject merchandise exported, but not produced by Sudarshan, the cash deposit rate will be the producer's rate, or the all-others rate ( i.e., 27.48 percent)  13 if the producer does not have its own rate; and (3) for subject merchandise produced, but not exported by Sudarshan, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter, or the all others rate if the exporter does not have its own rate. 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) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing 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 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 or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results of the new shipper review in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h)(2).

Background

Commerce has received additional timely requests, in accordance with the Supplemental Opportunity Notice, 1 for administrative reviews of the AD and CVD orders on quartz surface products from China for the company and the periods of review (PORs) noted below.

In accordance with the Supplemental Opportunity Notice, 2 based on requests from Artelye Inc., we are initiating AD and CVD administrative reviews on quartz surface products from China for Unique Stone Sdn. Bhd. (Unique Stone). In accordance with the Correction Notice, 3 the expanded POR of the AD review is November 4, 2021, through June 30, 2023, while the expanded POR of the CVD review is November 4, 2021, through December 31, 2022. In accordance with the Supplemental Opportunity Notice, Commerce's AD and CVD reviews of Unique Stone will be limited to the company's eligibility to participate in the certification process. 4 Moreover, as noted in the Supplemental Opportunity Notice, we will only examine Unique Stone in these AD and CVD reviews to the extent that it has suspended entries of subject merchandise during the expanded AD and CVD PORs noted above.

We intend to issue the preliminary results of these reviews not later than July 30, 2024.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305, which apply to these administrative reviews. Parties wishing to participate in these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures ( e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

Background

On November 19, 2018, Commerce issued its Final Scope Ruling on pipe fittings from China. 1 In its Final Scope Ruling, Commerce found that Crane's ductile iron flanges were within the scope of the AD order  2 on pipe fittings from China. 3 Crane appealed Commerce's final scope ruling. During the course of litigation, the CIT issued several remand orders culminating in MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. United States and ASC Engineered Solutions, LLC, Court No. 18-00248, Slip Op. 22-128 (November 18, 2022) ( Crane III ). In Crane III, the CIT directed Commerce to issue a new determination, based on reasoning that did not misconstrue a previous decision of the court and in a form that would go into effect if sustained upon judicial review, determining whether Crane's ductile iron flanges are within the scope of the Order. 4 Pursuant to the CIT's instructions, on remand, and under respectful protest, on December 16, 2022, Commerce found that Crane's ductile iron flanges are outside the scope of the Order. 5 On March 11, 2024, the CIT sustained Commerce's Third Remand Redetermination. 6

In its decision in Timken, 7 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 8 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's March 11, 2024, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's final scope ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

There is now a final scope decision with respect to the Final Scope Ruling. Therefore, Commerce is amending its Final Scope Ruling and finds that the scope of the Order does not cover the products addressed in the Final Scope Ruling. The period to appeal the CIT's ruling expires on May 10, 2024. Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that, pending any appeals, the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for entries of Crane's ductile iron flanges from China. In accordance with the CIT's order sustaining Commerce's third final remand redetermination, Commerce intends to, with the publication of this notice, issue instructions to CBP to lift suspension of liquidation of such entries, and to liquidate entries of the door thresholds without regard to antidumping duties, with consideration for any potential appeal of the CIT's final judgement.

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

This EFP would exempt the participating vessel from the following Federal regulation:

The proposed EFP is a continuation of a project conducting exploratory fishing in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) that mimics the structure of the GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption originally approved for sectors from fishing years 2010 through 2012. The objective of the sector exemption was to increase haddock catch while avoiding the catch of cod and sublegal sized haddock. In fishing year 2013, we did not approve the exemption due to concerns regarding the status of the GOM haddock stock, which at the time was subject to overfishing and approaching an overfished condition.

In 2019, the Operational Assessment for GOM haddock determined that the haddock stock was not overfished or subject to overfishing, and that spawning stock biomass was above the biomass target. In 2020, the current applicant proposed an EFP using 6-inch (15.24 cm) mesh gillnets to increase haddock catch without an increased catch of cod or sublegal haddock. The goal of the EFP was to collect data that could be used to inform the efficacy of the 6-inch (15.24 cm) mesh gillnet, and possibly lead to a defined geographic area of a future exemption area. We approved this EFP for fishing years 2021-22 and 2022-23. The proposed EFP would be unchanged from prior EFPs and would be the third year of this project.

From the date of issuance through May 31, 2024, the participating vessel would conduct up to 12 trips under the EFP in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area (RMA) during which it would make up to 16 hauls with 6-inch (15.24 cm) mesh gillnet gear. The maximum number of individual nets that could be deployed is 75. Gillnets would be set for a soak of up to 24 hours, and would be actively tended by the vessel ( i.e., the vessel would not leave the fishing grounds while nets are deployed).

A northeast fisheries at-sea monitor or observer would be deployed on all groundfish trips taken under the EFP. Allowable discards would be discarded at-sea, while all other species would be retained, landed, and processed per normal commercial fishing procedures. Monitors would document all discards of allocated sub-legal catch.

While on EFP trips, the vessel may also occasionally deploy longline and 6.5-inch (16.51 cm) mesh gillnet gear, in order to generate catch composition data that could be used to compare the catchability of the 6-inch (15.24 cm) mesh gear with other gears used on a normal fishing trip. The gillnet gear would consist of 12 to 24 nets in a single string, while the longline gear would have between 1,000 and 2,400 hooks. All groundfish catch, including both discards and landings, would be deducted from the appropriate sector allocation and the EFP would not authorize catch above the sector allocation.

If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

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

The applicant submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Cooperative Research Branch is requesting an EFP to allow participants in their Study Fleet Program to collect biological information on catch. The Center established the Study Fleet Program in 2002 to more fully characterize commercial fishing operations and provide sampling opportunities to augment NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service's data collection programs. As part of the program, the Center contracts commercial fishing vessels to collect biological data and fish specimens for use in research relevant to stock assessments and fish biology.

Under the EFP, Study Fleet participants would be allowed to temporarily possess catch that is below minimum size restrictions and above possession limits for the purposes of biological sampling. When directed by the Center, participating vessels would be authorized to retain and land specific amounts of fish exceeding possession limits and/or below minimum fish sizes, for research purposes only. The captain or crew would deliver these fish to Center staff or local Port Agents upon landing. In these limited circumstances, the Study Fleet Program would give participating vessels a formal biological sampling request prior to landing. This would ensure that the landed fish do not exceed any collection needs of the Study Fleet Program, as detailed below.

During EFP trips, crew would sort, weigh, measure, and collect biological data from fish prior to discarding. During sampling, some discarded fish would remain on deck slightly longer than they would under normal sorting procedures. Exemptions from minimum fish sizes and possession restrictions would allow vessels to temporarily retain catch for at-sea sampling.

Vessels would be required to comply with all other applicable regulations specified at 50 CFR part 648 and would not be exempt from any inseason quota closures. All catch would be attributed to the appropriate commercial fishing quota. For a vessel fishing on a groundfish sector trip, all catch of groundfish stocks allocated to sectors would be deducted from the vessel's sector's annual catch entitlement (ACE). If the ACE for a stock has been reached in a sector, participating vessels would no longer be allowed to fish in that stock area unless the sector acquires additional ACE for the stock in question. For participating common pool vessels, all groundfish catch would be counted toward the appropriate trimester total allowable catch (TAC). Common pool vessels would be exempt from the possession and trip limits, but would still be subject to trimester TAC closures.

If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

All comments received are a part of the public record and may be posted for public viewing without change. All personal identifying information ( e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “anonymous” as the signature if you wish to remain anonymous).

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

Section 204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and in consultation with the Council, to negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands. The Governor of the Pacific Insular Area to which the PIAFA applies must request the PIAFA. The Secretary of State may negotiate and enter the PIAFA after consultation with, and concurrence of, the applicable Governor.

Before entering into a PIAFA, the applicable Governor, with concurrence of the Council, must develop and submit to the Secretary a 3-year MCP providing details on uses for any funds collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA. NMFS is the designee of the Secretary for MCP review and approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires payments received under a PIAFA to be deposited into the United States Treasury and then conveyed to the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for which funds were collected.

In the case of violations by foreign fishing vessels in the EEZ around any Pacific Insular Area, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including sums collected from the forfeiture and disposition or sale of property seized subject to its authority, are deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area adjacent to the EEZ in which the violation occurred, after direct costs of the enforcement action are subtracted. The Pacific Insular Area government may use funds deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for fisheries enforcement and for implementation of an MCP.

Federal regulations at 50 CFR 665.819 authorize NMFS to specify catch limits for longline-caught bigeye tuna for U.S. territories. NMFS may also authorize each territory to allocate a portion of that limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels that are permitted to fish under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). Payments collected under specified fishing agreements are deposited into the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund, and any funds attributable to a particular territory may be used only for implementation of that territory's MCP. An MCP must be consistent with the Council's FEPs, must identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives have been met), and must prioritize planned marine conservation projects.

At its September 2023 meeting, the Council reviewed and concurred with the MCP. On November 27, 2023, the Governor of Guam submitted the MCP to NMFS for review and approval. The MCP contains the following six conservation and management objectives:

1. Fisheries resource assessment, research and monitoring;

2. Effective surveillance and enforcement mechanisms;

3. Promote ecosystems approach in fisheries management, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and regional cooperation;

4. Public participation, research, education and outreach, and local capacity building;

5. Domestic fisheries development; and

6. Recognizing the importance of island cultures and traditional fishing practices and community based management.

Please refer to the MCP for projects and activities designed to meet each objective, the evaluative criteria, and priority rankings.

This notice announces that NMFS has reviewed the MCP and determined that it satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Accordingly, NMFS has approved the MCP for the time period from the publication of this notice through August 3, 2026. This MCP supersedes the one approved previously for August 4, 2020, through August 3, 2023 (85 FR 55642, September 9, 2020).

WIPO is a specialized United Nations agency based in Geneva, Switzerland. The WIPO SCT is a forum at which WIPO Member States  1 and accredited observers facilitate coordination and provide guidance on the development of international law on trademarks, industrial designs, and geographical indications, including the harmonization of national laws and procedures.

The draft DLT aims to help designers obtain easier, faster and cheaper protection for their industrial designs—both in domestic and foreign markets. The DLT would streamline the global system for protecting industrial designs, which are an integral part of many brands, by simplifying and aligning requirements associated with industrial design filings. If approved, these changes would benefit the community of designers, particularly for small-scale designers who may have limited access to legal support for registering their industrial designs. In particular, the DLT would make it significantly easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to obtain industrial design protection overseas as a result of simplified, streamlined and aligned procedures and requirements.

Work on the simplification of procedures for the protection of industrial designs was initially started in the WIPO SCT in 2006 and gradually matured into an initial set of draft Articles (WIPO/SCT/35/2, 2 the “Industrial Design Law and Practice—Draft Articles”) and draft Regulations (WIPO/SCT/35/3, 3 the “Industrial Design Law and Practice—Draft Regulations”) for a treaty. Similar treaties already exist in the area of patents (Patent Law Treaty of 2000) and trademarks (Trademark Law Treaty of 1994 and Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks of 2006).

In 2006 and 2007, the SCT requested the WIPO Secretariat to develop a set of questionnaires relating to the formalities of industrial design registration and to the differences between all types of marks and industrial designs, with a view to promoting a better understanding of the different design systems. In response, the Secretariat developed a set of questionnaires on industrial design law and practice and circulated them among SCT members. After receiving replies from the SCT members, the Secretariat compiled a summary of replies to the set of questionnaires (WIPO/Strad/INF/2 Rev.2). 4 In addition, in 2011 and 2012, the SCT requested that the Secretariat prepare a study on the impact of the Draft Articles and Draft Regulations. In response, the Secretariat, with the involvement of the WIPO Chief Economist prepared the study (WIPO/SCT/27/4  5 and WIPO/SCT/27/4 ADD). 6

In addition, at its Fifty-Fifth (30th Extraordinary) Session, held in Geneva on July 14-22, 2022, the WIPO General Assembly decided to convene a diplomatic conference (to be held no later than 2024) to conclude and adopt a Design Law Treaty, based on: document WIPO/SCT/35/2; document WIPO/SCT/35/3; the 2019 proposal considered by the WIPO General Assembly, on draft Articles and Regulations on Industrial Design Law and Practice; and any other contributions by Member States. The General Assembly further decided to convene a Preparatory Committee in the second half of 2023 to establish the necessary modalities of the diplomatic conference. The General Assembly also directed the SCT to meet in a special session for five days in the second half of 2023, preceding the Preparatory Committee, to further close any existing gaps to a sufficient level. Following that session of the WIPO General Assembly, the Secretariat prepared an updated set of draft Articles (WIPO/SCT/S3/4, 7 the “Industrial Design Law and Practice—Draft Articles”) (“the Draft Articles”) and draft Regulations (WIPO/SCT/S3/5, 8 the “Industrial Design Law and Practice—Draft Regulations”) (“the Draft Regulations”) for a treaty.

A special session of the SCT, held in Geneva on October 2-6, 2023, worked to close existing gaps in the text based on document WIPO/SCT/S3/4; document WIPO/SCT/S3/5; and any other contributions by Member States. The special session is summarized in document WIPO/SCT/S3/9. 9 In addition, a Preparatory Committee of the Diplomatic Conference, also held in Geneva on October 9, 2023, established the procedures for the diplomatic conference. The Preparatory Committee further determined that the diplomatic conference to conclude and adopt a design treaty will take place in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from November 11-22, 2024. 10 The Preparatory Committee meeting is summarized in document WIPO/DLT/2/PM/6. 11

This request for comments seeks public/stakeholder input to inform U.S. government participation in the diplomatic conference (scheduled from November 11-22, 2024) to conclude and adopt a Design Law Treaty. The proposed Design Law Treaty is a formalities treaty that would require contracting parties—that is, the countries and intergovernmental organizations that accede to the treaty—to adhere to certain requirements with respect to the protection of industrial designs. Examples of its provisions include:

• Limits on the requirements that contracting parties can impose as a condition for according design application filing dates to applicants;

• Requirements that contracting parties provide design applicants with certain flexibilities, including flexibilities for applicants who miss a time limit during the application process or who unintentionally allow the registration to lapse;

• Requirements that contracting parties must allow design applicants to correct or add a priority claim to an application in certain circumstances;

• Requirements that contracting parties provide for a grace period during which public disclosure would not affect eligibility requirements for obtaining the right; and

• Limits on the requirements that contracting parties may impose as to when applicants can be required to obtain local representation to take an action before the local office.

In addition, certain provisions are the subject of alternative options or proposals supported by several delegations, including:

• Requirements for an applicant disclosure in design applications of the origin or source of traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge or biological/genetic resources providing inspiration for, tangentially associated with, or utilized or incorporated in, some aspect of the industrial design;

• Limits on the requirements in requests for recording of a license or a security interest; and

• Effects of the non-recording of a license.

The USPTO welcomes any relevant comments on the topics described in this Request for Comments. However, the USPTO is particularly interested in comments responsive to the questions below. When responding to the questions, please identify yourself. Commenters need not respond to every question and may provide relevant information even if it is not responsive to a particular question.

1. Please discuss any experiences with filing for industrial design protection outside of the United States, and to the extent possible, please: (a) identify the jurisdiction(s); (b) describe the specific formalities requirements in these jurisdictions; and (c) describe any experiences associated with satisfying the specific formalities requirements in these jurisdictions.

2. Please identify any particular challenges encountered in relation to requirements across jurisdictions when pursuing protection for an industrial design in multiple jurisdictions.

3. Please describe instances, if any, in which particular formality requirements associated with the submission of design applications have resulted in any loss of design rights, additional costs, or other negative consequences.

4. Please discuss any experiences with filing for industrial design protection in a jurisdiction that requires disclosure of the source of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, or traditional cultural expressions in an industrial design application, and to the extent possible, please: (a) identify the jurisdiction(s) that required such disclosure; (b) describe the circumstances associated with satisfying the patent disclosure requirement in that jurisdiction; and (c) describe any experiences associated with the ease or difficulty in satisfying the patent disclosure requirement in that jurisdiction.

5. Please characterize the level of difficulty in complying with the aforementioned disclosure requirement. Please describe any anticipated or unanticipated problems that resulted or may result from the disclosure itself or the associated requirement for the disclosure.

6. Please describe how experiences with the disclosure requirement in the aforementioned jurisdiction or other jurisdictions affect the conduct of a design applicant or holder's business. Where possible, please identify the jurisdiction as well as any relevant details of the disclosure requirement.

7. Please identify any type of disclosure requirement associated with the filing of an application for industrial design protection, in particular, requirements pertaining to the disclosure of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, or traditional cultural expressions, that you believe is necessary, and any benefits or detriments stemming from such disclosure requirements.

8. Please share whether the existence of an industrial design disclosure requirement for the source of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, or traditional cultural expressions in an industrial design application was (or is or would be) a consideration in pursuing industrial design protection on a design in a given jurisdiction. Please provide details in relation to relevant sectors, industries or technologies where this may be a consideration, as well as alternative actions, if any, that the public has taken or would take in lieu of pursuing industrial design protection in that jurisdiction.

9. Would a disclosure requirement related to genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and/or traditional cultural expressions make the industrial design application process more simplified, consistent, straight-forward, and time and cost efficient for applicants, including for small and medium sized enterprises? Please explain why or why not.

10. Should a disclosure requirement related to genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and/or traditional cultural expressions be included in the Design Law Treaty? Please explain why or why not.

11. Please describe your views on the current working text for an International Legal Instrument Relating to a Design Law Treaty, which has been approved for consideration by the Diplomatic Conference. Please describe recommendations, if any, for additions, deletions, or changes that you would recommend to Articles 1 through 32 of the Articles or to the Common Regulations, namely Rules 1 through 17. These texts can be found at the links below:

(a) Current working text “substantive articles” (Articles 1 through 23 from the WIPO Industrial Design Law and Practice—Draft Articles), as revised in the Third Special Session of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs, and Geographic Indicators, held in Geneva on October 2-6, 2023, as included as pages 3-22 of Annex I to document WIPO/SCT/S3/9, which can be found on the WIPO website, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_s3/sct_s3_9.pdf.

(b) Current working text “administrative provisions and final clauses” (Articles 24 through 32 from the WIPO Draft Administrative Provisions and Final Clauses for a Design Law Treaty), as revised in the Preparatory Committee of the Diplomatic Conference to Conclude and Adopt a Design Law Treaty, held in Geneva on October 9, 2023, as included as pages 2-6 of the Annex to document WIPO/DLT/2/PM6, which can be found on the WIPO website, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/dlt_2_pm/dlt_2_pm_6.pdf.

(c) Current working text “draft regulations” (Rules 1 through 17 from the WIPO Industrial Design Law and Practice—Draft Regulations), as revised in the Third Special Session of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographic Indicators, held in Geneva on October 2-6, 2023, as included as pages 2-14 of Annex II to document WIPO/SCT/S3/9, which can be found on the WIPO website, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_s3/sct_s3_9.pdf.

(d) WIPO has established a website dedicated to the Diplomatic Conference to Conclude and Adopt a Design Law Treaty which can be found at https://www.wipo.int/diplomatic-conferences/en/design-law/ which contains the aforementioned Articles and Regulations and other information regarding the Diplomatic Conference, the Design Law Treaty being considered, and other related information.

(e) Please identify any additional issues in relation to formalities for industrial designs that you believe should be considered for inclusion in the Design Law Treaty that are not already included or any amendments you recommend to existing provisions. Similarly, please identify any provisions ( e.g., Article or Rules) presently included that should not be included. In any of these instances, please explain the rationale for this recommendation of an addition, amendment, or deletion of a provision.

Title of Collection: Consumer Response Government and Congressional Portal Boarding Forms.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0057.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: State, local, and tribal governments; Federal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 60.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 14.

Abstract: Section 1013(b)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act or Act) requires the CFPB to “facilitate the centralized collection of, monitoring of, and response to consumer complaints regarding consumer financial products or services.”  1 The Act also requires the CFPB to “share consumer complaint information with prudential regulators, the Federal Trade Commission, other Federal agencies, and State agencies.”  2 To facilitate the collection of complaints, the CFPB accepts consumer complaints submitted by Members of Congress on behalf of their constituents with the consumer's express written authorization for the release of their personal information. In furtherance of its statutory mandates related to consumer complaints, the CFPB uses Government and Congressional Portal Boarding Forms ( i.e., Boarding Forms) to register users for access to secure, web-based portals. The CFPB has developed separate portals for congressional users and other government users as part of its secure web portal offerings (the “Government Portal” and the “Congressional Portal,” respectively). 3

Through the Government Portal, government users can view consumer complaint information in a user-friendly format that allows easy review of complaints currently active in the CFPB process, complaints referred to a prudential Federal regulator, and other closed/archived complaints.

Through the Congressional Portal, Members of Congress and authorized congressional office staff can view data associated with consumer complaints they submit on behalf of their constituents with the consumer's express written authorization for the release of their personal information. The Congressional Portal only displays information about complaints submitted by the individual congressional office.

Changes in this revision reflect the requirements outlined in 12 CFR 1070.43(b)(2) that requires a citation to the agency's legal authority to review, possess, and examine consumer complaints. Therefore, new language and fields have been added to the form.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CFPB, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the CFPB's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the 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. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (as enacted on Dec. 27, 2022, by section 3(a) of Pub. L. 117-286) (formerly the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., Appendix), section 552b of title 5, United States Code (popularly known as the Government in the Sunshine Act), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board meeting is to provide dedicated time for members to begin collaboration on research and formally commence the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board's FY24 Secretary of the Air Force directed studies.

In accordance with section 1009(d) of title 5, United States Code (formerly sec. 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix) and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Administrative Assistant of the Air Force, in consultation with the Air Force General Counsel, has agreed that the public interest requires this meeting of the United States Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board be closed to the public because it will involve discussions involving classified matters covered by section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

Written Statements: Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the United States Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), section 1009(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code (formerly sec. 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act), and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed above at any time. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submissions with the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. Written statements received after the meeting that is the subject of this notice may not be considered by the Scientific Advisory Board until the next scheduled meeting.

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

Title of Collection: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Regulatory Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 1880-0543.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved ICR.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 20,293,021.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,914,593.

Abstract: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) requires that subject educational agencies and institutions notify parents and students of their rights under FERPA and requires that they record disclosures of personally identifiable information from education records, with certain exceptions.

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

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1910-NEW;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Voluntary Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Purchase Disclosures;

(3) Type of Request: Regular collection;

(4) Purpose: DOE will request voluntary submissions from buyers of CDR services about their purchases, including but not limited to: purchasing entity, supplying entity, removal project details, removal certification details, purchase date, price, and quantity. This request is associated with the Voluntary Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Removal Purchasing (CO 2 RP) Challenge planned to launch in 2024. Information collected will enable DOE to measure the success of the challenge, publish resources improving public understanding of the CDR market, and administer programs stimulating growth of the CDR market;

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 respondents;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 700 responses;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 350 hours;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $10,000.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 § 969D, 42 U.S.C. 16298d; Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58 § 41005 (2021).

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 21, 2024, by Jennifer Wilcox, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, 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 .

This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from 2/01/2024 to 2/29/2024. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs, and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

1. Submitting confidential business information (CBI). Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

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

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

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

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

This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: The Urban Waters Federal Partnership is a voluntary program created in 2011 that seeks to reconnect urban communities, particularly those that are overburdened or economically distressed, with their waterways to become stewards for clean urban waters. Working with a diverse set of partners, the program seeks to help communities restore and protect water quality and revitalize adjacent rural, suburban, and urban neighborhoods throughout the watershed.

As part of its strategic planning efforts, the EPA encourages programs to develop meaningful performance measures, set ambitious targets, and link budget expenditures to results. Data collected under this ICR will assist the Urban Waters Federal Partnership in demonstrating results and carrying out evaluation efforts to ensure continual program improvement. In addition, the data will help the EPA estimate the environmental and programmatic impact of the program and evaluate the health of the partnership at each location.

Form Numbers: * Forms not yet finalized in italics.

Respondents/affected entities: Respondents consist of Urban Waters Federal Partnership Ambassadors and a wide variety of organizations and businesses that partner with Ambassadors at each Urban Waters Federal Partnership designated location.

Respondent's obligation to respond: voluntary.

Estimated number of respondents: 2,806 (total).

Frequency of response: Urban Waters Federal Partnership designated locations will submit a Workplan every other year. Urban Waters Federal Partnership designated locations will submit Annual Reporting Forms and Partnership Evaluation Forms each year.

Total estimated burden: 9,614 hours (per year) for both Respondents and the EPA. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $671,346 (per year), which includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs for both Respondents and the EPA.

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: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: ADA Dental Claim Form; Use: The ADA Dental Claim form and corresponding HIPAA-compliant electronic transaction, known as the 837D, are used widely in the US dental industry to submit claims for health or dental insurance reimbursement.

Medicare has traditionally accepted the Professional (CMS-1500/837P transaction) and Institutional (UB04/837I transaction) claims to provide payment for Medicare-covered services. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) now plans to allow providers to submit Medicare-covered dental services on the dental claim form, a similar information collection as the already-approved professional and institutional claim forms.

CMS issued policy clarifications as part of its annual Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) Rule that further define when dental services are inextricably linked to a covered medical service. Additional clarifications were included in the CY2024 MPFS final rule. CMS further established a process by which the agency will consider clinical evidence for future policy clarification consideration. CMS anticipates that these regulatory policy clarifications will result in more dental provider participation in the Medicare program. As a result, the Agency's General Counsel has advised that CMS should begin to accept dental claim formats to remain in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (Pub. L. 104-191). Therefore, CMS through its Part B Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) will begin accepting and processing claims submitted by dental providers on the ADA Dental Claim form and HIPAA-standard electronic format equivalent (837D). Form Number: CMS-10883; Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector, Business or other for-profits; Number of Respondents: 50,000; Total Annual Responses: 50,000; Total Annual Hours: 12,500. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Charlene Parks at 410-786-8684).

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of currently approved Information Collection; Title of Information Collection: Machine Readable Data for Provider Network and Prescription Formulary Content for FFM QHPs; Use: Under 45 CFR 156.122(d)(1)(2), 156.230(b), and 156.230(c), as finalized in the rule, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2018 (CMS-9934-F), established standards for qualified health plan (QHP) issuers for the submission of provider and formulary data in a machine-readable format to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and for posting the data on issuer websites. These standards provide greater transparency for consumers, including by allowing software developers to access formulary and provider data to create innovative and informative tools. On September 30, 2015, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) granted approval to the data collection Information Collection for Machine Readable Data for Provider Network and Prescription Formulary Content for FFE QHPs under OMB control number 0938-1284. OMB approval was granted again on November 3, 2017, and March 22, 2021. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is continuing that information collection request (ICR) in connection with these machine-readable standards. This ICR serves as a formal request for the renewal of the data collection clearance. The burden estimate for the ICR included in this package reflects the time and effort for QHP and SADP issuers to update and publish the appropriate data and submit it to CMS. No comments were received in response to the 60-day Federal Register notice. Form Number: CMS-10558 (OMB control number: 0938-1284); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Business, and Not-for-Profits; Number of Respondents: 434; Number of Responses: 434; Total Annual Hours: 39,126. (For questions regarding this collection, contact Ana Alza at (667) 290-8569, ext. 70008569).

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Handling and Retention of BA and BE Testing Samples.” This guidance is a revision of the previously issued final guidance of the same name from May 2004 and is intended to provide recommendations for applicants of NDAs and ANDAs, including supplemental applications, and CROs, regarding the procedures for handling reserve samples from relevant BA and BE studies, as required by §§ 320.38 and 320.63 (21 CFR 320.38 and 320.63), and recommendations regarding responsibilities of each party involved in the study pertaining to reserve samples. Additionally, this guidance revises and supersedes the Agency's compliance policy related to the quantity of BA and BE samples retained under FDA regulations described in the final guidance entitled “Compliance Policy for the Quantity of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Samples Retained Under 21 CFR 320.38(c)” (August 2020) (the 2020 Compliance Policy), which is hereby withdrawn.

This guidance is issued in part as final guidance and in part as draft guidance. Specifically, section IV.B. of this guidance is issued as final guidance for immediate implementation. It revises and supersedes the Agency's compliance policy related to the quantity of BA and BE samples retained under § 320.38(c) (21 CFR 320.38(c)) described in the 2020 Compliance Policy, and describes the conditions under which the Agency generally does not intend to take enforcement action against an applicant or CRO that retains less than the quantity of reserve samples (that is, samples of the test article (T) and reference standard (RS) that were used in an in vivo BA or in vivo or in vitro BE study) specified in the regulation. It also supersedes statements related to quantity of reserve samples in section IX. Number of Reserve Samples for BA and BE Testing of the draft guidance entitled “Nasal Aerosols and Nasal Sprays for Local Action” (April 2003).

In accordance with section 701(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(h)(1)(C)(i)) and the good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (§ 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)), the Agency is immediately implementing section IV.B. of the guidance on the quantity of reserve samples without prior public comment because FDA has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate as public comment would not affect the specifications of FDA's testing of retention samples (§ 10.115(g)(2)). FDA has made this determination under § 10.115(g)(2) because, with technological advances, the reduced quantity of reserve samples is sufficient for FDA testing; this reduced quantity will provide a less burdensome approach for applicants and CROs but remains consistent with the Agency's mission to ensure public health. Although this subsection of the guidance document is immediately in effect, it remains subject to comment in accordance with FDA's GGP regulation and FDA will consider all comments received and revise the guidance document as appropriate (§ 10.115(g)(3)). The remainder of the guidance is being issued in draft, consistent with the GGP regulation, to solicit public comment prior to implementation.

In the Federal Register on November 8, 1990 (55 FR 47034), FDA issued an interim rule that amended, in relevant part, part 320 (21 CFR part 320), by adding a requirement to retain reserve samples of certain drug products (that is, samples of the drug products that were used to conduct BA or BE studies) for a specified period and, when specifically requested, to release the reserve samples to the Agency. The interim rule was intended largely to help ensure BE between generic drugs and their reference listed drugs and to help FDA investigate possible fraud in BA and BE testing. After consideration of public comments, FDA published a final rule in the Federal Register on April 28, 1993 (58 FR 25918).

In the final rule, §§ 320.38 and 320.63 require an NDA or ANDA applicant (or, if testing is performed under contract, its CRO) to retain reserve samples of the T and RS that were used to conduct certain in vivo BA studies or an in vivo or in vitro BE study submitted in support of the approval of an application or supplemental application. In the preamble to the final rule, the Agency stated that the study sponsor and/or drug manufacturer should not separate out the reserve samples of the T and RS before sending the drug product to the testing site, to ensure that the reserve samples are in fact representative of the drug product provided by the study sponsor and/or drug manufacturer for the testing. The Agency also noted that the organization that conducts the BA or BE study is responsible for retaining the reserve samples to eliminate potential sample substitution by the study sponsor and/or drug manufacturer and alteration of any reserve samples from a study before release of drug product samples to FDA.

FDA has observed a number of concerning handling and retention practices upon inspections of clinical and analytical sites that perform BA and BE studies for study sponsors and/or drug manufacturers seeking approval of drug products under NDAs and ANDAs. Based on this experience, FDA is updating and clarifying our recommendations for applicants of NDAs and ANDAs, including supplemental applications, and CROs regarding the procedures related to the handling and retention of reserve samples from relevant BA and BE studies, as required by §§ 320.38 and 320.63. In the context of §§ 320.38 and 320.63, the term applicant includes, as appropriate, study sponsor and/or drug manufacturer and the term CRO refers to any party contracted to help conduct BA or BE testing, including, as appropriate, site management organizations, investigators, and testing sites. Specifically, the guidance highlights: (1) how the T and RS for BA and BE studies should be distributed to the testing sites, (2) how testing sites should randomly select samples for testing and material to maintain as reserve samples, and (3) how the reserve samples should be retained. Examples of typical roles of each stakeholder for the handling and retention of reserve samples in various study settings are also discussed in the guidance.

In response to comments received to the August 2020 Compliance Policy, the Agency has updated its policy on the conditions under which FDA generally does not intend to enforce the quantity requirement at § 320.38(c) (to retain reserve samples of sufficient quantity to permit FDA to perform five times all the release tests required in an application or supplemental application) to reduce further the recommended minimum quantity of reserve samples to be retained. The additional reduction in the recommended minimum quantity described in this guidance relative to what was described in the August 2020 Compliance Policy is reflective of adjustments made to the Agency's procedures to accommodate continued concerns from industry, particularly for studies involving multiple shipments to multiple testing sites, regarding the ability to retain a sufficient quantity of reserve samples.

FDA has determined that, using the Agency's current testing methodology, the updated recommended minimum quantities of reserve samples described in this guidance are sufficient for FDA to conduct the necessary testing of the T and RS samples used in a BA or BE study as intended by the regulation. Accordingly, at this time and based on FDA's current understanding of the risks involved, FDA generally does not intend to enforce the requirement to retain a sufficient quantity to perform five times all the release tests required in the application or supplemental application, so long as the recommended lower quantities in this guidance are retained. This compliance policy is applicable to all reserve samples for BA and BE studies held to date, including reserve samples from previously completed BA or BE studies.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's GGP regulation (§ 10.115). The draft portion of the guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Handling and Retention of BA and BE Testing Samples.” A guidance does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for investigational new drug products have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for new drug applications and abbreviated new drug applications have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information in part 320 for “Investigational New Drug Safety Reporting Requirements for Human Drug and Biological Products and Safety Reporting Requirements for Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies in Humans” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0672. The recordkeeping requirement for current good manufacturing practice sample retention in 21 CFR 211.170 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139.

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

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

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

(1) Call to Order.

(2) Roll Call of Members.

(3) Opening Remarks by Chairperson.

(4) Opening Remarks by Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife.

(5) Opening Remarks by Senior U.S. Coast Guard Leadership.

(6) Swearing In of New Members.

(7) Memorial of Mr. Terry West, Georgia Boating Law Administrator.

(8) Minutes Approval and Pending Agenda Items from NBSAC 8.

(9) U.S. Coast Guard Public Affairs Presentation on U.S. Coast Guard Communications Capabilities.

(10) National Recreational Boating Safety Survey Update.

(11) Program Updates:

a. Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) Calendar.

b. Lifejacket Approval Harmonization Update.

c. Uniform Certificate of Titling Act for Vessels, Titling,

d. Vessel Identification System Update.

e. Strategic Plan Dashboard.

f. Data Analysis Project Dashboard.

(12) Recommendations Dashboard

a. Life Jacket wear on boats less than 16 feet in length.

b. Data analysis on Emergency Locator Beacons.

c. Update on throwables equivalency.

d. Alternatives to flares.

e. Task Closure of Task Statement 1, Resolutions and Task Statement 2, Strategic Plan.

f. Rental vessel survey.

g. Acceptance of report on Human Factors.

h. Timeline for Task Statement 3, Standards.

i. Progress update on outstanding Task Statements.

(13) Grant Product Warehousing Update.

(14) Grant Evidence Modeling Update.

(15) Social Media Calendar Update for Feb-Oct.

(16) Engine Cut-Off and other Citations issued by U.S. Coast Guard and States.

(17) Regulatory Projects Update.

(18) Digital Certificate of Number Certificate of Number Update.

(19) Grant Product Profiles.

a. JSI Life Jacket Wear Rate Observation Study.

(20) Review of Common Deficiencies.

(21) Hull Identification Number (HIN) exemption for Stand-Up Paddleboards and Kite Boards; assignment of HINs to vessels previously exempted.

(22) Preliminary Statistics Report.

(23) Public Comment Period.

(24) Whale Protection Rulemakings Update.

(25) Fees Recommendation Update.

(26) California and Maine State Law on Visual Distress Signals Flares; confusion of enforcement on electronic Visual Distress Signaling Devices among States.

(27) Maritime Mobility Service Identity and Digital Selective Calling Update.

(28) Lithium-Ion Batteries Update.

(29) Meeting Recess.

(1) Boats and Associated Equipment Subcommittee.

a. Issues to be discussed, “Boats and Associated Equipment Items.”

(2) Prevention Through People Subcommittee.

a. Issues to be discussed, “Prevention through People items.”

(3) Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Planning Subcommittee.

a. Issues to be discussed, “The National RBS Strategic Plan.”

The full Committee will resume meeting.

(1) Call to Order.

(2) Subcommittee Out-briefs.

(3) Discussion of Subcommittee recommendations and Committee Actions.

(4) Full Committee Open Discussion of Boating Safety Related Topics.

(5) Public Comment Period.

(6) Voting on any recommendations to be made to the U.S. Coast Guard.

(7) Administration.

(8) Closing Remarks.

(9) Adjournment of Meeting.

A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/federal-advisory-committees/national-boating-safety-advisory-committee-(nbsac)/committee-meetings no later than April 22, 2024. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Thomas Guess as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

There will be a public comment period from approximately 3:00 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. CDT on April 23, 2024, and on April 25, 2024, from 10:00 a.m. until 10:15 a.m. CDT. 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.

To receive automatic email notices of future National Boating Safety Advisory Committee meetings in 2024, go to the online docket, USCG-2010-0164 ( https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USCG-2010-0164 ). Next, click on the “Subscribe” email icon. We plan to use the same docket number for notices of all 2024 meetings of this Committee. When the next meeting notice is published and added to the docket, you will receive an email alert. In addition, you will receive notices of other items being added to the docket.

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

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on July 3, 2023 at 88 FR 42737.

Title of Information Collection: Technical Suitability of Products.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0313.

OMB Expiration Date: 3/31/2024.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Form Number: HUD-92005, Description of Materials.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information is needed under HUD's Technical Suitability of Products program, which provides for the acceptance of new materials and products used in buildings financed with HUD-insured mortgages. This includes new single-family homes, multi-family homes, and healthcare-type facilities.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 39.

Estimated Number of Responses: 39.

Frequency of Response: 1.

Average Hours per Response: 26.

Total Estimated Burden: 1,131 hours.

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

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

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

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

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

(5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

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

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on October 31, 2023 at 88 74505.

Title of Information Collection: Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Insurance Application for the Origination of Reverse Mortgages and Related Documents.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0524.

Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

Form Number: HUD-92901, HUD-92902, HUD-92051, HUD-92541, HUD-92544, HUD-92561, HUD-92564-CN, HUD-92800.5b, HUD-92900-A, HUD 92900-C, HUD-1, HUD-1a, HUD-9991, HUD-9992, FNMA-1003, FNMA-1004, FNMA-1004C, FNMA-1004D, FNMA-1007, FNMA-1009, FNMA-1025, FNMA-1073, FNMA-1103, NPMA-99A, NPMA-99B.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program is the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) reverse mortgage program that enables seniors who have equity in their homes to withdraw a portion of the accumulated equity. The intent of the HECM Program is to ease the financial burden on elderly homeowners facing increased health, housing, and subsistence costs at a time of reduced income. The currently approved information collection is necessary to screen mortgage insurance applications in order to protect the FHA insurance fund and the interests of consumers and potential borrowers.

Form HUD-92901, Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Anti-Churning Disclosure has been revised to: (1) update the Privacy Act notice and Notice the Borrower; (2) include the purpose of the disclosure and Public Reporting Burden Statement; (3) wholly revise the table for the mortgagee's best estimate of the total cost of the refinancing to the borrower and increase in the borrower's principal limit; (4) added a mortgagee's certification and revised the borrower's acknowledgement; (5) included a warning of the actions that may be taken against anyone who knowingly submits a false claim or makes a false statement.

HUD also seeks to transition from the discontinued Fannie Mae form 1009, Residential Loan Application for Reverse Mortgages to Fannie Mae form 1003, Uniform Residential Loan Application that is also used in the mortgage industry by Government Sponsored Enterprises to originate conventional mortgages. HUD plans to replace its use of form HUD 92900-A, HUD/VA Addendum to Uniform Residential Loan Application with form HUD 92900-C, HUD Addendum to Uniform Residential Loan Application for Reverse Mortgages. The purpose of form HUD 92900-C is to collect loan-level data that is needed for insuring purposes and not found on Fannie Mae form 1003. The standard loan application to originate a HECM will comprise Fannie Mae form 1003, form HUD-92900-C, and Fannie Mae form 1103, Supplemental Consumer Information Form, which has been adopted by the mortgage industry and is being added to this information collection.

This collection is being revised to also to add the model Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Program Disclosure to serve as a compliance aid for mortgagees to satisfy the regulatory requirements at 24 CFR 206.13 by providing borrowers with a disclosure the explains all products, features, and options of the HECM program that HUD will insure.

Respondents: Mortgagees.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 224.

Estimated Number of Responses: 444,408.

Frequency of Response: Varies.

Average Hours per Response: 0.05 to 2.00.

Total Estimated Burdens: $20,425,126.14.

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

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

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

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

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

(5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

The Director of ODEEO is issuing this order of succession of officials authorized to perform the duties and functions of the Director of ODEEO when the Director is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d). This publication supersedes all prior Orders of Succession for ODEEO.

Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq., ) during any period when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Director is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the Director of ODEEO, the following officials within ODEEO are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Director of ODEEO. These officials shall perform the functions and duties of the office in the order specified herein, and no official shall serve unless all the other officials, whose position precedes theirs in this order, are not available to act by reason of absence, disability or vacancy in office. No individual who is serving in an office listed below in an acting capacity may perform the duties of the Director of ODEEO pursuant to this Order of Succession. Accordingly, the Director of ODEEO designates the following Order of Succession:

(1) Deputy Director;

(2) Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Division;

(3) Director, Affirmative Employment Division.

This Order of Succession supersedes all prior Orders of Succession for ODEEO.

Authority: Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)).

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on September 26, 2023 at 88 FR 66043.

Title of Information Collection: Mod Rehab SRO Renewal HAP & Rent Calculation Form.

OMB Approval Number: 2506-0216.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Form Number: N/A.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This submission is to request an extension of a currently approved collection for reporting burden associated with the Renewal Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contract and Rent Calculation Form for the renewal of expiring contracts under the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Program. This submission is limited to the SRO renewal process under the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 Act (MAHRA). The information to be collected will be used to facilitate the execution of a renewal HAP contract for expiring SRO projects set at the correct renewal rents as required by MAHRA. HUD will use this detailed information to determine the correct renewal rents as observed in the renewal HAP contract. The regulations covering section 8 SRO renewals are contained in 24 CFR part 402.5(b) (1-2).

Respondents: Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) administering the SRO HAP contracts and owner/sponsors of the SRO project.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.

Estimated Number of Responses: 300.

Frequency of Response: 1 time annually.

Average Hours per Response: 5.

Total Estimated Burdens: The total number of hours needed for all reporting is 1,500 hours.

HUD is submitting this proposed extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection requirement to the OMB for review, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended].

Title of Information Collection: Implementation of the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA).

OMB Control Number: 2529-0046.

Type of Request: Proposed extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection requirement.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Fair Housing Act [42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. ], prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, occupancy, advertising, insuring, or financing of residential dwellings based on familial status (individuals living in households with one or more children under 18 years of age). However, under § 3607(b)(2) of the Act, Congress exempted three (3) categories of “ housing for older persons ” from liability for familial status discrimination: (1) housing provided under any State or Federal program which the Secretary of HUD determines is “ specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons (as defined in the State or Federal program )”; (2) housing ” intended for, and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older ”; and (3) housing “ intended and operated for occupancy by at least one person 55 years of age or older per unit [`55 or older' housing].” In December 1995, Congress passed the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA) [Pub. L. 104-76, 109 STAT. 787] as an amendment to the Fair Housing Act. The HOPA modified the “55 or older” housing exemption provided under § 3607(b)(2)(C) of the Fair Housing Act by eliminating the requirement that a housing provider must offer “ significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons. ” In order to qualify for the HOPA exemption, a housing community or facility must meet each of the following criteria: (1) at least 80 percent of the occupied units in the community or facility must be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age of older; (2) the housing provider must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate housing for persons 55 years of age or older; and (3) the housing provider must demonstrate compliance with “ rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy, which shall . . . provide for [age] verification by reliable surveys and affidavits. ”

The HOPA did not significantly increase the record-keeping burden for the “55 or older” housing exemption. It describes in greater detail the documentary evidence which HUD will consider when determining, during a familial status discrimination complaint investigation, whether or not a housing facility or community qualified for the “55 or older” housing exemption as of the date on which the alleged Fair Housing Act violation occurred.

The HOPA information collection requirements are necessary to establish a housing provider's eligibility to claim the “55 or older” housing exemption as an affirmative defense to a familial status discrimination complaint filed with HUD under the Fair Housing Act. The information will be collected in the normal course of business in connection with the sale, rental, or occupancy of dwelling units situated in qualified senior housing facilities or communities. The HOPA's requirement that a housing provider must demonstrate the intent to operate a “55 or older” housing community or facility by publishing, and consistently enforcing, age verification rules, policies and procedures for current and prospective occupants reflects the usual and customary practice of the senior housing industry. Under the HOPA, a “55 or older” housing provider should conduct an initial occupancy survey of the housing community or facility to verify compliance with the HOPA's “ 80 percent occupancy ” requirement and should maintain such compliance by periodically reviewing and updating existing age verification records for each occupied dwelling unit at least once every two years. The creation and maintenance of such occupancy/age verification records should occur in the normal course of individual sale or rental housing transactions and should require minimal preparation time. Further, a senior housing provider's operating rules, policies and procedures are not privileged or confidential in nature, because such information must be disclosed to current and prospective residents, and to residential real estate professionals.

The HOPA exemption also requires that a summary of the occupancy survey results must be made available for public inspection. This summary need not contain confidential information about individual residents; it may simply indicate the total number of dwelling units that are actually occupied by persons 55 years of age or older. While the supporting age verification records may contain confidential information about individual occupants, such information would be protected from disclosure unless the housing provider claims the “55 or older” housing exemption as an affirmative defense to a jurisdictional familial status discrimination complaint filed with HUD under the Fair Housing Act. HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity will only require a housing provider to disclose such confidential information to HUD if and when HUD investigates a jurisdictional familial status discrimination complaint filed against the housing provider under the Fair Housing Act, and if and when the housing provider claims the “55 or older” housing exemption as an affirmative defense to the complaint.

Agency form number(s), if applicable: None.

Members of affected public: The HOPA requires that small businesses and other small entities that operate housing intended for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older must routinely collect and update reliable age verification information necessary to meet the eligibility criteria for the HOPA exemption. The record keeping requirements are the responsibility of the housing provider that seeks to qualify for the HOPA exemption.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection, including the number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: Housing providers claiming eligibility for the HOPA's “55 or older” housing exemption must demonstrate ongoing compliance with the HOPA exemption requirements. The HOPA does not authorize HUD to require submission of this information by individual housing providers as a means of certifying that their housing communities or facilities qualify for the exemption. Further, since the HOPA has no mandatory registration requirement, HUD cannot ascertain the actual number of housing facilities and communities that are currently collecting this information with the intention of qualifying for the HOPA exemption. Accordingly, HUD has estimated that approximately 1,000 housing facilities or communities would seek to qualify for the HOPA exemption. HUD has estimated that the occupancy/age verification data would require routine updating with each new housing transaction within the facility or community, and that the number of such transactions per year might vary significantly depending on the size and nature of the facility or community. HUD also estimated the average number of housing transactions per year at ten (10) transactions per community. HUD concluded that the publication of policies and procedures is likely to be a one-time event, and in most cases will require no additional burden beyond what is done in the normal course of business. The estimated total annual burden hours are 5,500 hours [See Table below].

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection in order to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of HUD's program functions; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of HUD's assessment of the paperwork burden that may result from the proposed information collection; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information which must be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on responders, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology ( e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

For HUD, a commitment to equal opportunity is fundamental, not only relative to the public's expectations of fair housing without discrimination, but also to HUD's employment of a workforce that reflects the communities it serves. HUD remains committed to building a leading equal employment opportunity (EEO) program. Section 1614.102 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations requires that the agency's EEO program be organized and structured to maintain a workplace that is free from discrimination in any of the agency's policies, procedures, or practices. It also provides that the EEO program supports the agency's strategic mission and that the ODEEO Director be under the direct supervision of the agency head. The ODEEO Director, Deputy Director, and other ODEEO professional staff that are responsible for EEO programs must have regular and effective means of informing the agency head and senior management officials of the status of EEO programs and must be involved in, and consulted on, management/personnel actions.

The Secretary hereby delegates to the Director and Deputy Director of ODEEO concurrent authority and responsibility to promulgate and implement all policies, procedures, and practices to operate a model EEO program. The Secretary may revoke the authority authorized herein, in whole or part, at any time.

The authority delegated in this document does not include the authority to sue or be sued or to issue or waive regulations.

The authority delegated in this document may be redelegated.

This Delegation of Authority supersedes all prior delegations of authority for ODEEO including the delegation of authority published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36567).

Authority: Section 7(d) of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

The agency received one comment in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in Federal Register volume 88 page 40844 on June 22, 2023. Upon publication of this notice, IAF will submit to OMB a request for approval of the following information collection.

Title of Collection: Grantee Social Inclusion Consultation.

Type of Review: New information collection.

OMB Control Number: Not assigned, new information collection.

Type of Respondent/Affected Public: IAF Grantees and non-grantees (women, youth, people with disabilities, Indigenous people, LGBTQ+ people and Afro-descendants).

Frequency: This is a one time data collection effort.

Abstract: Currently, the IAF is soliciting comments concerning the information collection to carry out an equity gap analysis with grantees and underserved populations in Latin America and Caribbean countries where the IAF currently has grant programs. The quantitative and qualitative data collection, which is a priority identified in the IAF's Equity Action Plan, in compliance with Executive Order 13985, would serve to better understand the barriers those groups face to (a) accessing IAF programming and (b) achieving their development objectives. Findings will help the IAF adjust its practices to better support marginalized groups and the grantees who work with them, and to identify networks and platforms through which we can expand our outreach across marginalized populations.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 10), the BIE is announcing the Advisory Board will hold its next meeting in-person and online. The Advisory Board was established under the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. ) to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, on the needs of Indian children with disabilities. All meetings, including virtual sessions, are open to the public in their entirety.

The following agenda items will be for the April 25, 2024, and April 26, 2024, meetings. The reports concern special education topics.

• The BIE's Division of Performance and Accountability will provide updates about the BIE FFY 2022 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR); the BIE Special Education Policy & Procedures Handbook; the SY 2023-2024 Fiscal and Programmatic monitoring activities; the SY 2023-2024 Transition activities; and the Indian Health Services Memorandum of Understanding.

• Updates about the BIE's Native American Student Information System (NASIS).

• Provide an overview about Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Training (part 39, Authority: 25 U.S.C. 13, 2008; Pub. L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425).

• Provide an overview about the Federal Fiscal Grants Management/IDEA part B Awards, focusing on ISEP and IDEA programs and activities, and what are allowable costs and how to determine allowable costs?

• Provide an overview about section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

• Provide information about the Education for Parents of Indian Children with Special Needs, (EPICS) Program.

• The Advisory Board will also have work sessions to address the next meeting logistics, discuss next steps, provide recommendations for future projects or meetings, wrap-up important decisions, discuss outstanding tasks, and share working folder with board members for future meetings.

• Four Public Comment Sessions will be provided during both meeting days.

○ On Thursday, April 25, 2024, two sessions (15 minutes each) will be provided, 10:45 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. MST and 2:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. MST. Public comments can be provided verbally via webinar or in writing using the chat box.

○ On Friday, April 26, 2024, two sessions (15 minutes each) will be provided, 9:45 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. MST and 11:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. MST. Public comments can be provided verbally via webinar or in writing using the chat box.

○ Public comments can also be emailed to the DFO at Jennifer.Davis@bie.edu ; or faxed to (602) 265-0293 Attention: Jennifer Davis, DFO; or mailed or hand delivered to the Bureau of Indian Education, Attention: Jennifer Davis, DFO, 2600 N Central Ave. 12th Floor, Suite 250, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodations. Please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting to give the Department of the Interior sufficient time to process your request. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

The purpose of this withdrawal is to maintain the current environmental baseline, subject to valid existing rights, to allow the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Army time to complete land management evaluations. The evaluation of the lands identified as the Highway 95 Addition is for a potential legislative withdrawal for support of the Yuma Proving Ground, pending processing of the Army's application (87 FR 19526) for withdrawal of public lands for defense purposes under the Engle Act.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public lands are hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the public land laws, including location and entry under the United States mining laws, and from leasing under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, to maintain current environmental baseline conditions.