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 Ethiopia to allow the importation of leaves and stems of rosemary ( Rosmarinus officinalis ) and leaves and stems of tarragon ( Artemesia dracunculus ) from Ethiopia into the continental United States. As part of our evaluation of Ethiopia's request, we have prepared pest risk assessments to identify the pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of the importation of rosemary and tarragon into the continental United States from Ethiopia. Based on the pest risk assessments, risk management documents (RMDs) were prepared to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the rosemary and tarragon to mitigate the pest risk.

Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing the availability of our pest risk assessments and RMDs for public review and comment. Those documents, as well as a description of the economic considerations associated with the importation of rosemary and tarragon from Ethiopia, 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 assessments and RMDs 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 rosemary and tarragon from Ethiopia 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 rosemary and tarragon from Ethiopia into the continental United States subject to the requirements specified in the RMDs. Depending on the comments received, we may authorize the importation of all, some, or none of the commodities from Ethiopia specified in this notice.

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.

Title: Voluntary Recalls of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products.

OMB Number: 0583-0144.

Type of Request: Renewal of an approved information collection.

Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53), as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq. ), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031, et seq. ). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled.

FSIS is requesting renewal of an approved information collection regarding voluntary recalls from commerce of meat, poultry, and egg products. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on September 30, 2024.

FSIS may request that a firm that has produced or imported meat, poultry, or egg products that are adulterated or misbranded and has distributed such products in commerce recall the products in question. When there is a recall, FSIS asks that the recalling firm ( e.g., a manufacturer, distributor, or importer of record) provide the Agency with basic information, including the identity of the recalled product, the reason for the recall, and information about the distributors and retail consignees to whom the product was shipped. Under the FMIA, firms are required to keep such records that fully and correctly disclose all transactions in their business (21 U.S.C. 642). Under the PPIA, firms are required to keep such records as are properly necessary for the effective enforcement of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 460(b)).

Industry representatives use the FSIS Form 5020-3 FSIS Preliminary Inquiry Worksheet to provide contact information and specific details regarding adulterated or misbranded product in commerce, including product identifiers, product amounts and supplemental information. Recalling firms and distributors then use the FSIS Form 5020-4 FSIS Recall Distribution Information Template to provide the location and contact information of consignees who received recalled product.

When a firm voluntarily recalls a product, FSIS conducts recall effectiveness checks. In conducting recall effectiveness checks, if the recall is to the retail or consumer level, the Agency contacts the distributors and retail consignees to ensure that they were notified of the recall, to verify the amount of product they received, and to confirm that they are removing the product from commerce and returning it to the recalling firm or otherwise disposing of the product.

FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment.

Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates that it will take respondents an average of approximately 1.08 hours to collect and make this information available to FSIS.

Respondents: Official establishments, importers of record, and retail consignees.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,090.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 6,600 hours.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; 202-720-5046.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20253.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register .

FSIS will also announce and provide a link to this Federal Register publication through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS can provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe . Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, or staff office; the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY); or the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at https://www.usda.gov/forms/electronic-forms, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410;

(2) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: program.intake@usda.gov .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

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

Title: Evaluating the Interview Requirement for SNAP Certification Study.

Form Number: N/A.

OMB Number: 0584-NEW.

Expiration Date: Not yet determined.

Type of Request: New collection.

Abstract: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the foundation of the nation's nutrition assistance safety net and is a core source of support to millions of Americans, particularly during economic downturns. To help States handle increased need and participation amid the health risks of the pandemic, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) offered States a range of flexibilities which provided support to States administering the program and clients in the application process, including the option to waive the certification and recertification interview requirement. This allowed States to continue administering SNAP during the public health emergency with minimal client contact. FNS required States that waived the interview requirement to document their experiences processing cases without the interview. However, more rigorous evidence is needed to confidently understand the effects of waiving the interview requirement.

The Evaluating the Interview Requirement for SNAP Certification study will collect information in five States to assess how eliminating interviews affects outcomes, including administrative efficiency, costs, benefit accuracy, and client access. The project will include a randomized control trial (RCT) to analyze the impacts of outcomes between those clients assigned to receive an interview (the regular interview process group) and those assigned to not receive an interview (the no-interview group). The project will also include collection of administrative and quality control data, as well as qualitative information. The qualitative data collection will include virtual site visits and observations, a workflow analysis, and a time-use study. During the site visits, the team will conduct interviews with staff involved with all stages of certification and recertification processes. Site visitors will observe verification calls between eligibility workers and no-interview SNAP applicants to collect information about whether staff carry out policies and procedures as intended. The workflow analysis will involve small group interviews with State and local staff and will support the assessment of the changes required when implementing the no-interview demonstration and the possible challenges. Finally, the study will include a staff time-use survey to determine whether application processing requires more or less time for workers when there is an interview compared to when there is not.

Affected public. Members of the public affected by the data collection include State and local government workers from SNAP agencies in five States, as well as staff at not-for-profit organizations, and individuals who apply for or participate in SNAP. Respondent groups identified include (1) State SNAP directors, (2) State SNAP policy directors, (3) State SNAP field operations managers, (4) State data systems staff, (5) State quality control (QC) staff, (6) local SNAP directors, (7) local SNAP office supervisors, (8) eligibility workers, (9) customer service staff, (10) community based organizations (CBOs) and advocates, and (11) SNAP applicants and participants.

Estimated number of respondents. The total estimated number of unique respondents—which includes everyone contacted for data collection regardless of whether they participate—is 494. This includes up to 65 individuals/households, 409 State and local government staff, and 20 community based organization staff or advocates. The study team will contact 65 individuals/households, out of which 50 SNAP applicants or participants will participate in an observation and 15 SNAP applicants or participants will be considered nonrespondents. The study team will contact 63 State SNAP agency staff, which includes SNAP directors, SNAP policy directors, State SNAP field operations managers, State data systems staff, and State QC staff. The study team will contact 67 local agency directors/supervisors, out of which 20 will be considered nonrespondents. The study team will contact 279 local agency direct service staff, out of which 80 will be considered nonrespondents. Fifteen of the State directors will provide administrative data. The study team will contact 20 community based organizations or advocates for virtual interviews.

Respondents will participate in multiple activities as follows:

The 15 State QC staff will participate in the interviews. Before the start of data collection in one non-study State, we will pretest the semi-structured interview guide with one State SNAP director, one State SNAP policy director, one State data system staff, one Local SNAP director, one eligibility worker, and one customer service staff member. We also will pretest the time-use survey with one eligibility worker, one customer service staff, and one Local SNAP office supervisor.

Estimated number of responses per respondent. Across all 494 unique respondents (379 respondents and 115 non-respondents) and 3,159 annual responses, the average number of responses is 6.39.

Estimated total annual responses. 3,159.

Estimated time per response. The time per all respondent/non-respondent group was used to determine the annual frequency estimates. The estimated time per response varies from 0.0835 hours for activities related to reading email reminders for the time-use survey to 24 hours for State data systems staff to provide administrative data. The response time will vary depending on the respondent group, with an average estimated time of 105 minutes (1.75 hours).

Estimated total annual burden on respondents. The total estimated annual burden on respondents is 108,300 minutes (1,805 hours).

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

Title: Assessment of Administrative Costs of Electronic Healthy Incentives Projects (eHIP).

Form Number: Not Applicable.

OMB Number: 0584-NEW.

Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.

Type of Request: New Collection.

Abstract: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), distributes benefits to eligible low-income households through Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card technology. In fiscal year 2023 FNS awarded grants to three States, Colorado, Louisianna, and Washington for implementing Electronic Healthy Incentives Projects (eHIP) to leverage EBT integration to deliver financial incentives at point of purchase to SNAP households when they purchase qualifying foods ( e.g., fruits and vegetables). The aim of this study is to calculate the costs of eHIP in the three States to determine the startup and ongoing costs of administering incentives to SNAP households through EBT integration and to estimate the cost of administering eHIP at scale. The study will quantify startup and ongoing administrative costs to State grantees, retailers, and other eHIP stakeholders. It will also compare administrative costs to the amount of funding distributed as incentives.

Data will be collected from the three project States and multiple entities working with these States, including retailers, EBT processors, third-party processors (TPPs). These data will include both cost data, collected through cost data templates submitted to the States/entities, as well as interviews with State and other project representatives to contextualize the cost data. In addition, existing national data (such as SNAP caseloads and SNAP-authorized retailers) and State data from non-project States (such as State wage rates) will be examined in order to estimate the cost of nationwide expansion of eHIP. Lastly, data from select Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) grantees—that do not use EBT integration for delivering incentives to SNAP households for purchasing fruits and vegetables will be examined to estimate the costs and return on investment (ROI) of GusNIP and compare these to the eHIP costs and ROI, in order to provide information on how these two incentive delivery modalities differ in costs and economic impact.

Data collection is expected to occur beginning in March 2025 with an approximate end date of May 2026. Data collection activities will be designed to address the three main objectives for the study:

1. Quantify, to the extent possible, the cost of administering eHIP;

2. Estimate the cost of nationwide expansion of eHIP; and

3. Compare the cost of administering eHIP with other incentive programs for SNAP households that do not use EBT integration.

Design consists of building and populating a central cost model for estimating the costs of implementing and administering eHIP. This model will then be expanded, through the use of publicly available State and national data, to estimate the nationwide costs of implementation and administration. Finally, existing data on GusNIP programs will be used to compare costs between eHIP and GusNIP.

Affected Public: State respondents are eHIP project staff. For-profit and not-for-profit business respondents are eHIP-participating EBT vendor staff, TPP staff, and retailer staff.

Estimated Number of Respondents: The estimated number of respondents is 38. Within each State, the study expects responses from 4 State staff (4 staff × 3 States = 12 State staff). In addition, the study expects to have responses from 6 retailer staff for each eHIP State (6 staff × 3 States = 18 retailer staff), as well as 2 TPP staff for each eHIP State (2 staff × 3 States = 6 TPP staff). Finally, the study expects responses from 2 EBT processor staff, 1 each from the two EBT processor firms working with the three eHIP States.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: Across all respondents, the average number of responses is 7.3 (277 responses across 38 respondent). The number of responses will vary by respondent group and the specific data collection activity.

For the State SNAP agency staff:

One staffer within each State will be asked to respond once to the pre-test of the cost templates and three times to the cost data templates data collection.

Two staffers in each State will be asked to respond twice to the phone interview data collection. Staff will receive an electronic letter ( i.e., email) for inviting them to participate and for scheduling the interview. They will also receive an email reminder for the interview, as well as a thank you email.

For the EBT processors, one staff from each of the two EBT processors will be asked to respond two times to phone interview data collection (including invitation to schedule, reminder, interview, and thank you note). For the retailer staff, 6 retailer staff from each State will be asked to respond two times to phone interview data collection (including invitation to schedule, reminder, interview, and thank you note). For the TPP staff, two staff from each State will be asked to respond two times to phone interview data collection (including invitation to schedule, reminder, interview, and thank you note).

We expect a 100 percent response rate from all categories of respondents.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: The estimated number of total annual responses is 277 (38 respondents and no nonrespondents).

Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time of response varies from 0.083 hours to 7 hours depending on the instrument, as shown in the table below. The average estimated time per response is 0.644 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: The estimated total annual burden on respondents 178.315 hours. See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

The administrative procedures at 36 CFR parts 218 and 219 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR parts 218 and 219. In general, the notices will identify: the decision or project by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or appeals/objections. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment, appeal, or objection period. The newspapers to be used are as follows:

Decisions of the Alaska Regional Forester: Juneau Empire, published daily except Saturday and official holidays in Juneau, Alaska; and the Anchorage Daily News, published daily in Anchorage, Alaska.

Decisions of the Chugach Forest Supervisor and the Glacier and Seward District Rangers: Anchorage Daily News, published daily in Anchorage, Alaska.

Decisions of the Cordova District Ranger: Cordova Times, published weekly in Cordova, Alaska.

Decisions of the Tongass Forest Supervisor and the Craig, Ketchikan/Misty Fjords, and Thorne Bay District Rangers: Ketchikan Daily News, published daily except Sundays and official holidays in Ketchikan, Alaska.

Decisions of the Admiralty Island National Monument, the Juneau District Ranger, the Hoonah District Ranger, and the Yakutat District Ranger: Juneau Empire, published daily except Saturday and official holidays in Juneau, Alaska.

Decisions of the Petersburg District Ranger: Petersburg Pilot, published weekly in Petersburg, Alaska.

Decisions of the Sitka District Ranger: Daily Sitka Sentinel, published daily except Saturday, Sunday, and official holidays in Sitka, Alaska.

Decisions of the Wrangell District Ranger: Wrangell Sentinel, published weekly in Wrangell, Alaska.

Supplemental notices may be published in any newspaper, but the timeframes for filing objections will be calculated based upon the date that legal notices are published in the newspapers of record listed in this notice.

The administrative procedures at 36 CFR 214, 218, and 219 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR 214, 218, and 219. In general, the notices will identify: the decision or project by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or appeals/objections. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment or appeal/objection period.

The newspapers to be used are as follows:

Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Oregon: The Oregonian.

Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Washington: The Seattle Times.

Regional Forester decisions that affect all National Forests and Grasslands in the Pacific Northwest Region: The Oregonian and The Seattle Times.

Columbia River Gorge Area Manager/Forest Supervisor decisions: Columbia Gorge News.

Colville Forest Supervisor decisions: Statesman-Examiner.

Three Rivers District Ranger decisions: Statesman-Examiner.

Tonasket District Ranger decisions: The Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle.

Sullivan Lake District Ranger decisions: The Newport Miner.

Republic District Ranger decisions: Ferry County View.

Deschutes Forest Supervisor, District Ranger, and Redmond Air Center Manager decisions: The Bulletin.

Fremont-Winema Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: Herald and News.

Gifford Pinchot Forest Supervisor and Mount Saint Helens National Volcanic Monument decisions: The Columbian.

Cowlitz Valley District Ranger decisions: The Chronicle.

Malheur Forest Supervisor, Blue Mountain District Ranger, and Prairie City District Ranger decisions: Blue Mountain Eagle.

Emigrant Creek District Ranger decisions: Burns Times Herald.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Supervisor, Darrington District Ranger, and Skykomish District Ranger decisions: Everett Herald.

Mt. Baker District Ranger decisions that encompass the southern half of the district: Skagit Valley Herald.

Mt. Baker District Ranger decisions that encompass the northern half of the district: Bellingham Herald.

Snoqualmie District Ranger decisions that encompass the northern half of the district: Snoqualmie Valley Record.

Snoqualmie District Ranger decisions that encompass the southern half of the district: Enumclaw Courier Herald.

Mt. Hood Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: The Oregonian.

Ochoco Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: The Bulletin.

Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest Supervisor, Chelan District Ranger, Entiat, and Wenatchee River District Ranger decisions: The Wenatchee World.

Naches District Ranger decisions: Yakima Herald.

Methow Valley District Ranger decisions: Methow Valley News.

Cle-Elum District Ranger decisions: Ellensburg Daily Record.

Olympic Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: The Olympian.

Rogue River-Siskiyou Forest Supervisor, High Cascades District Ranger, J. Herbert Stone Nursery Manager, and Siskiyou Mountains District Ranger decisions: Rogue Valley Times.

Wild Rivers District Ranger decisions: Grants Pass Daily Courier.

Powers District Ranger decisions: The World.

Siuslaw Forest Supervisor decisions: Corvallis Gazette-Times.

Central Coast Ranger District Ranger and Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area District Ranger decisions: The Register-Guard.

Hebo District Ranger decisions: Tillamook Headlight Herald.

Umatilla Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: East Oregonian.

Umpqua Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: The News-Review.

Wallowa-Whitman Forest Supervisor and Whitman District Ranger decisions: Baker City Herald.

La Grande District Ranger decisions: The Observer.

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Manager, Eagle Cap District Ranger, and Wallowa Valley District Ranger decisions: Wallowa County Chieftain.

Willamette Forest Supervisor, Middle Fork District Ranger, McKenzie River District Ranger, and Sweet Home District Ranger decisions: The Register-Guard.

Detroit District Ranger decisions: Statesman Journal.

Federal Awarding Agency Name: Rural Business-Cooperative Service.

Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Cooperative Development Grant.

Announcement Type: Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Funding Opportunity Number: RBCS-RCDG-2024.

Assistance Listing Number: 10.771.

Dates: Completed applications must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. ET on, June 3, 2024, through www.grants.gov, to be eligible for grant funding. Late or incomplete applications are not eligible for funding under this notice and will not be evaluated.

Rural Development Key Priorities: The Agency encourages applicants to consider Projects that will advance the following key priorities (more details available at www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points ):

• Creating More and Better Market Opportunities; Assisting Rural communities recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure;

• Advancing Racial Justice, Place-Based Equity, and Opportunity; Ensuring all Rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects; and

• Addressing Climate Change and Environmental Justice; Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to Rural communities.

1. Purpose of the Program. The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic condition of Rural Areas by helping individuals and businesses start, expand, or improve Rural cooperatives and Mutually Owned Businesses through Cooperative Development Centers.

2. Statutory and Regulatory Authority. The RCDG program is authorized under Section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)), as amended by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334, title VI, secs. 6412-15, 6601(a)(1)(B), 6701(c), (d)(1)), and implemented by 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, (Pub. L. 118-42, Division B, title VII, sec. 736, has designated funding for Projects in Persistent Poverty Counties. Persistent poverty counties are defined in section 736 as “any county that has had 20 percent or more of its population living in poverty over the past 30 years, as measured by the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses, and 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year average, or any territory or possession of the United States.” The eligible population in persistent poverty counties includes any county seat of any persistent poverty county that has a population that does not exceed the authorized population limit by more than 10 percent. This provision expanded the current 50,000 population limit to 55,000 for only county seats located in persistent poverty counties.

3. Definitions. The following definition, in addition to the ones published at 7 CFR 4284.3 and 4284.504, is applicable to this notice. In addition, the terms “Rural” and “Rural Area,” as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13), will be used for this program instead of the definition of “Rural and Rural Area” currently published at 7 CFR 4284.3. The first letter of each word in a defined term is capitalized from this point forward in the notice for easy identification.

Mutually Owned Business —An organization owned and governed by members who are its consumers, producers, employees, or suppliers.

4. Application of Awards. The Agency will review, evaluate, and score applications received in response to this notice based on the provisions found in 7 CFR 4284.511, .512, .513, and as indicated in this notice. Awards under the RCDG program will be made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR 4284.513.

Type of Award: Grant.

Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2024.

Available Funds: $5.8 million will be available for FY 2024. RBCS may at its discretion, increase the total level of funding available in this funding round from any available source provided the awards meet the requirements of the statute which made the funding available to the Agency.

Award Amounts: Maximum amount $200,000.

Anticipated Award Date: September 30, 2024.

Performance Period: The grant performance period should begin no earlier than October 1, 2024, and no later than January 1, 2025. The application must include no more than a one-year grant performance period, or it will not be considered for funding. Applications that request funds for a period beginning after January 1, 2025, will not be considered for funding. Projects must be completed within a one-year timeframe. Prior written approval is needed from the Agency if the applicant is awarded a grant and desires the grant performance period to begin earlier or later than previously approved.

Renewal or Supplemental Awards: None.

Type of Assistance Instrument: Financial Assistance Agreement.

1. Eligible Applicants. Eligible applicants must meet the eligibility requirements of 7 CFR 4284.507. You must be a nonprofit corporation or an institution of higher education to apply for this program. Public bodies and individuals are not eligible to apply for this program. Applicants must be aware of the following:

(a) At the time of application, each applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR 25.200. To register in SAM, entities will be required to obtain a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at sam.gov/content/entity-registration. Further information regarding SAM registration and the UEI can be found in this notice.

(b) Each applicant must certify that it has not been debarred or suspended or is otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension. The Agency will check the Do Not Pay (DNP) system at the time of application and prior to funding any grant award to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended. Applicants are responsible for resolving any issues that are reported in the DNP system and if issues are not resolved by deadlines found in this notice, the Agency may proceed to award funds to other eligible applicants. In addition, an applicant must be eligible in accordance with 7 CFR 4284.6 and will be required to certify as part of the application that it does not have an outstanding judgment against it.

(c) The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, Division B, title VII, sections 744 and 745 provide that any corporation that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by this Act, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching. A match of at least 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) of the total project cost is required for the application as provided in 7 CFR 4284.513(f). When calculating the Matching Funds requirement, round up or down to whole dollars as appropriate.

An example of how to calculate Matching Funds is as follows:

(a) Take the amount of grant funds requested and divide it by .75. This will provide the total project cost.

(b) Subtract the amount of grant funds requested from the total project cost. This will provide the Matching Funds requirement.

(c) A quick way to confirm the correct amount of Matching Funds is to take the total project cost and multiply it by .25.

The applicant must verify that all Matching Funds are available during the grant performance period and provide documentation with the application in accordance with requirements identified in section D.2(b)(8) of this notice. If awarded a grant, additional verification documentation may be required to confirm the availability of Matching Funds.

Other rules for Matching Funds that applicants must follow are listed below.

(a) They must be spent on eligible expenses during the grant period.

(b) They must be from eligible sources.

(c) They must be spent in advance or as a pro-rata portion of grant funds being spent.

(d) They must be provided by either the applicant or a third party in the form of cash or an in-kind contribution.

(e) They cannot include board/advisory council member's time.

(f) They cannot include other Federal grants unless provided by authorizing legislation.

(g) They cannot include cash or in-kind contributions donated outside of the grant period.

(h) They cannot include over-valued, in-kind contributions.

(i) They cannot include any project costs that are ineligible under the RCDG program.

(j) They cannot include any project costs that are restricted or unallowable under 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (CFR title 48) (for-profits) or successor regulation.

(k) They can include loan funds from a Federal source.

(l) They can include travel and incidentals for board/advisory council members if the organization has established written policies explaining how these costs are normally reimbursed, including rates. The applicant must include an explanation of this policy in the application, or the contributions will not be considered as eligible Matching Funds.

(m) The applicant must be able to document and verify the number of hours worked and the value associated with any in-kind contribution being used to meet a Matching Funds requirement.

(n) In-kind contributions provided by individuals, businesses, or cooperatives which are being assisted by the applicant cannot be provided for the direct benefit of their own projects as RD considers this to be a Conflict of Interest or the appearance of a Conflict of Interest.

3. Other Eligibility Requirements.

(a) Purpose eligibility. Applications must propose the establishment or continuation of a Cooperative Development Center. Applicants must use project funds, including grant and Matching Funds, for eligible purposes only (see 7 CFR 4284.508). In addition, project funds may also be used for programs providing for the coordination of services and sharing of information among the Centers as stated in 7 U.S.C. 1932(e)(4)(C)(vi).

(b) Project eligibility. All Project activities must be for the benefit of a Rural Area.

(c) Multiple applications deemed ineligible. Only one application can be submitted per applicant. If two applications are submitted (regardless of the applicant's name) that include the same Executive Director and/or advisory boards or committees of an existing Center, both applications will be determined ineligible for funding.

(d) Satisfactory performance. Applicants must be performing satisfactorily on any outstanding RCDG award to be considered eligible for a new award. Satisfactory performance includes being up to date on all financial and performance reports as prescribed in the grant award, and current on all tasks and timeframes for utilizing grant and Matching Funds as approved in the work plan and budget. If applicants have any unspent grant funds on RCDG awards prior to FY 2023, the application will not be considered for funding. If an applicant has prior award(s) with unspent funds of 50 percent or more than what the approved work plan and budget projected at the time a FY 2024 application is being evaluated, the application will not be considered for funding. The Agency will verify the performance status of the applicant's prior awards and make a determination after the FY 2024 application period closes.

(e) Duplication of current services. Applications must demonstrate that the applicant is providing services to new customers or new services to current customers. If the work plan and budget are duplicative of the applicant's existing award, the application will not be considered for funding. If the workplan and budget are duplicative of a previous or existing RCDG and/or Socially Disadvantaged Groups Grant award, the application will not be considered for funding. The Agency will make this determination at its sole discretion. Please note that the Agency only allows one active RCDG award to a grantee to ensure that there is no duplication of services.

(f) Indirect costs. Negotiated indirect cost rate approval does not need to be included in the application but will need to be provided if a grant is awarded. Approval for indirect costs that are requested in an application without an approved indirect cost rate agreement is at the discretion of the Agency. Applicants considering a de minimis rate or in need of establishing an indirect cost rate should discuss these options with the Agency.

1. Address to Request Application Package. The RCDG program application template, copies of necessary forms and samples are available at www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program. The RCDG program regulations are available at 7 CFR part 4284 subparts A and F. For further information, contact the USDA State Office where the Project will be located at www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission. An application must contain all the required elements outlined in 7 CFR 4284.510 and this notice. Each application must address the applicable scoring criteria presented in 7 CFR 4284.513 and this notice for the type of funding being requested.

Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to utilize the application template found at www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program. The application template provides specific, detailed instructions for each item of a complete application. The Agency emphasizes the importance of including every item and strongly encourages applicants to follow the instructions carefully, using the examples and illustrations in the application template.

Incomplete applications will be ineligible to compete for funds. Applications lacking sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be considered ineligible. Information submitted after the application deadline will not be accepted.

(a) Clarifications on Forms.

(1) Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” This form must include the applicant's Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number in item 8c on the form. The UEI is assigned automatically to all active SAM.gov registered entities If an applicant does not include the UEI number in the application, it will not be considered for funding.

(2) Form SF 424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs. This form is no longer required as a part of the application. This information is now collected through the applicant's registration or annual recertification in SAM.gov through the Financial Assistance General Representations and Certifications.

(b) Clarifications on Proposal Elements. Requirements below are provided in addition to the requirements provided in 7 CFR 4284.510(c).

(1) Title Page. Must include the title of the Project as well as any other relevant identifying information.

(2) Table of Contents. This must include page numbers for each component of the application.

(3) Executive Summary. In addition to the items in 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(3), this must discuss the percentage of work that will be performed among organizational staff, consultants, or other contractors. The summary must not exceed two pages.

(4) Eligibility. This discussion must also include Matching Funds and other eligibility requirements. This discussion must not exceed two pages.

(5) Proposal Narrative. Must not exceed 40 pages using at least 11-point font and should describe the essential aspects of the Project. The Executive Summary and Eligibility discussion are not included within the 40-page limit of the proposal narrative.

(i) Information Sheet. If evaluation criteria are listed on the Table of Contents and then specifically and individually addressed in narrative form, it is not necessary to include an information sheet. Otherwise, it is required as described at 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(5)(ii).

(ii) Goals of the Project.

(A) Applicant must include a statement providing information outlined in 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(5)(iii)(A), (B), (C) and (D).

(B) Expected economic impacts should be tied to tasks included in the work plan and budget.

(iii) Performance Evaluation Criteria. The Agency has established annual performance evaluation measures to evaluate the RCDG program and the applicant must provide estimates on the following:

(A) Number of groups assisted who are not legal entities.

(B) Number of businesses assisted that are not cooperatives.

(C) Number of cooperatives assisted.

(D) Number of businesses incorporated that are not cooperatives.

(E) Number of cooperatives incorporated.

(F) Total number of jobs created as a result of assistance.

(G) Total number of jobs saved as a result of assistance.

(H) Number of jobs created for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

(I) Number of jobs saved for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

It is permissible to have a zero in a performance element. When calculating jobs created, estimates should be based upon actual jobs to be created by the organization because of the RCDG funding or actual jobs to be created by cooperative businesses or other businesses as a result of assistance from the organization. When calculating jobs saved, estimates should be based only on actual jobs that would have been lost if the organization did not receive RCDG funding or actual jobs that would have been lost without assistance from the organization.

Additional performance elements may be included. In instances where job creation or job retention may not be a relevant indicator, applicants should provide relevant, specific and measurable performance elements that could be included in an award document. For example, applicants may consider the following as it relates to their specific work: housing cooperatives (number of units created or preserved); worker cooperatives (number of jobs created, number of employee-owned positions created); consumer cooperatives (number of people with access to groceries, renewable energy services); shared services cooperatives (number of businesses with access to affordable products or services, joint marketing, distribution channels); real estate cooperatives (number of community members invested in their community, number of real estate properties created or saved).

(iv) Undertakings. The applicant must expressly undertake to do the following:

(A) Take all practicable steps to develop continuing sources of financial support for the Center, particularly from sources in the private sector;

(B) Make arrangements for the activities by the Nonprofit Institution operating the Center to be monitored and evaluated; and

(C) Provide an accounting for the money received by the grantee under this subpart.

(v) Work Plan. Work plan and budget proposal elements should be addressed under proposal narrative criterion in 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(5)(iv), utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1(h) of this notice.

(vi) Delivery of Cooperative Development Assistance. The applicant must describe its previous accomplishments and outcomes in Cooperative Development activities and/or its potential for effective delivery of Cooperative Development services to Rural Areas. The description(s) should be addressed under proposal narrative criterion in 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(5)(vii) utilizing the specific requirements of technical assistance and other services in Section E.1(b) of this notice.

(vii) Qualifications of Personnel. Applicants must describe the qualifications of personnel expected to perform key Center tasks, and whether these personnel are to be full/part-time Center employees or contract personnel. All requirements of 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(5)(viii) should be addressed under the proposal narrative criterion, utilizing the specific requirements of qualifications of those performing the tasks in Section E.1(i) of this notice.

(viii) S upport and Commitments and Future Support. Applicants must describe the level of support and commitment in the community for the proposed Center and the services it would provide under 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(5)(ix) and the future support and funding under 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(5)(x) utilizing the requirements of commitment in section E.1(f) and local and future support in section E.1(j) of this notice.

(ix) Proposal Evaluation Criteria. Applications will not be considered for funding if they do not address all of the proposal evaluation criteria. See application review information in Section E.1. of this notice for a description of the proposal evaluation criteria.

(x) Relevant Information. Only appendices A-C will be considered when evaluating applications. Do not include resumes of staff or consultants in the application.

(6) No Current Outstanding Federal Judgments Certification. Each applicant must certify that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgement against its property, is not delinquent on the payment of federal income taxes or any other federal debt and will not use grant funds to pay judgments obtained by the United States. Applicants should make this certification within their application with this statement in the application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property, is not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt, and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature relating to this certification is not required.

(7) Certification. Applicants must certify that they have obtained Matching Funds as required by 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(7). Applicants should make this certification within their certification, with this statement: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that Matching Funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of Matching Funds shall be pro-rated or spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, at least 25 cents (5 cents for 1994 Institutions) of Matching Funds will be expended.” A separate signature relating to this certification is not required.

(8) Verification of Matching Funds. Applicants must verify all Matching Funds. The documentation must be included in Appendix A of the application and will not count towards the 40-page limitation. The Agency recommends making this verification with a template letter, but the template is not required. Template letters are available for each type of Matching Funds contribution at: www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program.

(i) Matching Funds provided in cash. The following requirements must be met:

(A) Provided by the Applicant. The application must include a statement verifying: (1) the amount of the cash and (2) the source of the cash. Applicants may also provide a bank statement dated 30 days or less from the application deadline date to verify a cash match.

(B) Provided by a Third-Party. The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying: (1) how much cash will be donated and (2) that it will be available corresponding to the proposed time frame or donated on a specific date within the grant performance period.

(ii) Matching Funds provided by an in-kind donation. The following requirements must be met:

(A) Provided by the Applicant. The application must include a signed letter from the applicant or the authorized representative verifying: (1) the nature of the goods and/or services to be donated and how they will be used, (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated ( i.e., corresponding to the proposed grant performance period or to specific dates within the specified time frame), and (3) the value of the goods and/or services. Please note that most applicant contributions for the RCDG program are considered applicant cash match in accordance with this notice. Applicants needing clarification for verification of Matching Funds should contact the RD State Office. Identifying Matching Funds improperly can affect application scoring.

(B) Provided by a Third-Party. The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying: (1) the nature of the goods and/or services to be donated and how they will be used, (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated ( i.e., corresponding to the proposed grant performance period or to specific dates within the grant performance period), and (3) the value of the goods and/or services.

(iii) Identification and Verification of Matching Funds. To ensure applicants are identifying and verifying Matching Funds appropriately, please note the following:

(A) If applicants are paying for goods and/or services as part of the Matching Funds requirement, the expenditure is considered a cash match, and must verify it as such. Universities must verify the goods and services they are providing to the Project as a cash match and the verification must be approved by the appropriate approval official ( i.e., sponsored programs office or equivalent).

(B) If applicants have already received cash from a third party ( e.g., a foundation) before the start of the proposed grant performance period, the applicant must verify this as its own cash match and not as a third-party cash match. If applicants are receiving cash from a third party during the grant performance period, then the applicant must verify the cash as a third-party cash match.

(C) Board resolutions for a cash match must be approved at the time of application.

(D) Applicants can only consider goods or services for which no expenditure is made as an in-kind contribution.

(E) If a non-profit or another organization contributes the services of affiliated volunteers, they must follow the third-party, in-kind donation verification requirement for each individual volunteer.

(F) Expected program income may not be used to fulfill the applicant Matching Funds requirement at the time of the application submission. If the applicant has a contract to provide services in place at the time of application submission, then they must submit the contract with the application, and applicants can verify the amount of the contract as a cash match.

(G) The valuation processes used for in-kind contributions do not need to be included in the application, but applicants must be able to demonstrate how the valuation was derived if a grant is awarded. The grant award may be withdrawn, or the amount of the grant reduced if applicant cannot demonstrate how the valuation was derived.

Successful applicants must comply with requirements identified in this notice in Section F, Federal Award Administration Information.

(c) Completeness. An application will not be considered for funding if it fails to meet all eligibility criteria by the application deadline or does not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring. Applicants must include, in one submission to the Agency, all the forms and proposal elements as discussed in the program regulation and as clarified further in this notice. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed by the Agency.

3. System for Award Management and Unique Entity Identifier.

(a) At the time of application, each applicant must have an active registration in the SAM before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. To register in SAM, entities will be required to obtain a UEI. Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at sam.gov/content/entity-registration.

(b) Each applicant must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

(c) Each applicant must ensure that it completes the Financial Assistance General Representations and Certifications in SAM.

(d) Each applicant must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110.

(e) The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

4. Submission Dates and Times.

(a) Application Technical Assistance. Prior to official submission of applications, applicants may request technical assistance or other application guidance from the Agency, if such requests are made prior to May 6, 2024. Agency contact information can be found in Section G of this notice.

(b) Application Deadline Date. Completed applications must be submitted electronically through www.grants.gov and r eceived no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on June 3, 2024, to be eligible for grant funding. Please review the Grants.gov website at www.grants.gov/register for instructions on the process of registering an organization as soon as possible to ensure that all electronic application deadlines are met. Grants.gov will not accept applications submitted after the deadline.

The Agency will not solicit or consider new scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. RBCS also reserves the right to ask applicants for clarifying information and additional verification of assertions in the application.

5. Intergovernmental Review. Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of States that maintain a SPOC, please see the White House website: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/office-federal-financial-management/. If the applicant's State has a SPOC, then a copy of the application must be submitted for review. Any comments obtained through the SPOC must be provided to the applicant's State Office for consideration as part of the application. If the applicant's State has not established a SPOC, applications may be submitted directly to the Agency. Applications from federally recognized Indian Tribes are not subject to this requirement.

6. Funding Restrictions.

(a) The use of grant funds is outlined at 7 CFR 4284.508. Grant funds may be used to pay for up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for Rural Cooperative Development. Grant funds may be used to pay for 95 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for Rural Cooperative Development when the applicant is a college identified as a “1994 Institution” for purposes of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, as defined by 7 U.S.C. 301 note; Public Law 103-382, as amended.

(b) As required by 7 U.S.C. Chapter 38, Subchapter VII and 7 CFR part 990, no assistance or funding can be provided to a hemp producer unless they have a valid license issued from an approved State, Tribal or Federal plan as defined by 7 U.S.C. 1639 o. Verification of valid hemp licenses will occur at the time of award. The purpose of the RCDG program is to provide technical assistance, so funding to produce hemp or marketing hemp production is not eligible.

(c) Project funds, including grant and Matching Funds, cannot be used for ineligible grant purposes as provided in 7 CFR 4284.10. Also, applicants shall not use Project funds for the following:

(1) To purchase, rent, or install laboratory equipment or processing machinery;

(2) To pay for the operating costs of any entity receiving assistance from the Center;

(3) To pay costs of the Project where a Conflict of Interest exists;

(4) To fund any activities prohibited by 2 CFR part 200; or

(5) To fund any activities considered unallowable by 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, Cost Principles, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation or successor regulations.

(d) In addition, an application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:

(1) Focuses assistance on only one cooperative or Mutually Owned Business;

(2) Requests more than the maximum grant amount; or

(3) Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of total project costs. The ineligible costs will NOT be removed at this stage to proceed with application processing. For purposes of this determination, the grant amount requested plus the Matching Funds amount constitutes the total project costs.

(e) We will consider applications for funding that include ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total project costs if the remaining costs are determined eligible. If the application is successful, ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency makes the grant award, or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If the Agency cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs due to lack of detail, the application will not be considered for funding.

7. Other Submission Requirements. Applications must be submitted electronically. Note that we cannot accept applications submitted through mail or courier delivery, in-person delivery, email, or fax. For electronic applications, applicants must follow the instruction for this funding announcement at www.grants.gov. Applicants can locate the Grants.gov downloadable application package for this program by using a keyword, the program name, Assistance Listing Number or the Funding Opportunity Number for this program.

Users of Grants.gov must already have a UEI number and must also be registered and maintain registration in SAM in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. The UEI number must be associated with the correct tax identification number of the RCDG applicant. We strongly recommend that applicants do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov .

All application documents must be submitted through Grants.gov . Applications must include electronic signatures. Original signatures may be required if funds are awarded. After electronically applying through Grants.gov , applicants will receive an automated acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number.

1. Criteria. Scoring criteria will follow statutory criteria in 7 U.S.C. 1932(e), the criteria published in the program regulations at 7 CFR 4284.513, and criteria in this notice. Applicants should also include Content and Form of Application Submission information as described in Section D.2 of this notice. if addressing these items under the scoring criteria. Evaluators will base scores only on the responses within each individual scoring criteria. Applicant may cross-reference another section to avoid duplication of narrative. The maximum number of points available is 110. Newly established or proposed Centers that do not yet have a track record on which to evaluate the criteria should refer to the expertise and track records of staff or consultants expected to perform tasks related to the respective criteria. Proposed or newly established Centers must be organized well enough at the time of application to address their capabilities for meeting these criteria.

The clarifications provided below are in addition to, and do not replace the guidance provided in 7 CFR 4284.513.

(a) Administrative Capabilities. Maximum score of ten (10) points. At a minimum, applicants must discuss the administrative capabilities provided in 7 CFR 4284.513(a) and expertise in administering Federal grant funding within the last five years, including but not limited to past RCDG awards. Please list the name of the Federal grant program(s), the amount(s), and the date(s) of funding received.

Applicants will score higher on this criterion by demonstrating that the Center has independent governance. Applicants that are universities or parent organizations should demonstrate that there is a separate board of directors for the Center.

(b) Technical Assistance and Other Services. Maximum score of ten (10) points. Each application will be evaluated based on its demonstrate expertise within the last five years in providing technical assistance and accomplishing effective outcomes in Rural Areas to promote and assist the development of cooperatively and Mutually Owned Businesses. At a minimum, applicants must discuss:

(1) Potential for delivering effective technical assistance;

(2) The types of assistance provided;

(3) The expected effects of that assistance;

(4) The sustainability of organizations receiving the assistance; and

(5) The transferability of the applicant's Cooperative Development strategies and focus to other areas of the United States.

A chart or table showing the outcomes of the demonstrated expertise based upon the performance elements listed in Section D.2(b)(5)(iii) of this notice or as identified in the award document on previous RCDG awards is recommended. At a minimum, please provide information for FY 2019 to FY 2023 awards. Applicants may also include any performance outcomes from a FY 2023 RCDG award. It is preferred that one chart or table for each award year be provided. The intention is for the applicant to provide actual performance numbers based upon award years (fiscal year) even though the grant performance period for the award was implemented during the next calendar or fiscal year. If applicants have not previously received an RCDG award, provide a narrative of explanation.

Applicants will score higher on this criterion by providing evidence of outcomes for more than three fiscal year awards and demonstrating that any organizations assisted within the last five years are sustainable. Please describe specific Project(s) when addressing items 1-5 of paragraph (b) of this section. To reduce duplication, descriptions of specific Projects and their impacts, outcomes, and roles can be discussed once under criterion (b) or (c) of this section. Applicants must cross-reference the information under the other criterion.

(c) Economic Development. Maximum score of ten (10) points. Applicant's demonstrated ability to assist in the development of the items listed in 7 CFR 4284.513(c) or Mutually Owned Businesses will be evaluated. Examples of facilitating development of new cooperative approaches are organizing cooperatives among underserved individuals or communities; an innovative market approach; a type of cooperative currently not in the applicant's service area; a new cooperative structure; novel ways to raise member equity or community capitalization; conversion of an existing business to cooperative ownership.

Applicants will score higher on the Economic Development criteria by providing quantifiable economic measurements showing the impacts of past development projects within the last five years, and details of the applicant's role in Economic Development outcomes.

(d) Past performance in Establishing Legal Business Entities. Maximum score of ten (10) points. Applicants demonstrating past performance in establishing legal cooperative business entities and other legal business entities since October 1, 2019, will be evaluated. Provide the name of the organization(s) established, the date(s) of formation, and the applicant's role(s) in assisting with the incorporation(s) under this criterion. Documentation verifying the establishment of legal business entities must be included in Appendix C of the application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative. The documentation must include proof that organizational documents were filed with the Secretary of State's Office ( i.e., Certificate of Incorporation or information from the State's official website naming the entity established and the date of establishment); or if the business entity is not required to register with the Secretary of State, or a certification from the business entity that a legal business entity has been established and when. Please note that applicants are not required to submit articles of incorporation to receive points under this criterion. Applicants that are an established legal cooperative business will score higher on this criterion. If the applicant's State does not incorporate cooperative business entities, please describe how the established business entity operates like a cooperative. Examples may include, but are not limited to, principles and practices of shared ownership, democratic control, and distribution of net income based on use of the business rather than equity contributed.

(e) Networking and Regional Focus. Maximum score of ten (10) points. A panel of USDA employees will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated commitment to:

(1) Networking with other Cooperative Development Centers, and other organizations involved in Rural Economic Development efforts, and

(2) Developing multi-organizational and multi-State approaches to addressing the Economic Development and cooperative needs of Rural Areas.

Applicants will score higher on this criterion by demonstrating the outcomes of multi-organizational and multi-State approaches. Please describe the Project(s), partners and the outcome(s) that resulted from the approach.

(f) Commitment. Maximum score of ten (10) points. See 7 CFR 4284.513(e). Applicants will score higher on this criterion by defining and describing the underserved and economically distressed areas within the service area, provide economic statistics, and identify past or current Projects within or affecting these areas, as appropriate. Persistent poverty counties provisions are included in the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act, therefore Projects identified in the work plan and budget that are located in persistent poverty counties, will score higher on this criterion.

(g) Matching Funds. Maximum score of ten (10) points. Each applicant's Matching Funds requirements will be evaluated on requirements listed in 7 CFR 4284.513(f). A chart or table should be provided to describe all Matching Funds being committed to the Project. Formal documentation to verify all the Matching Funds must be included in Appendix A of the application. Applicants will be scored on the total amount and type of Matching Funds (cash vs. in-kind). You will be scored on the total amount and how you identify your Matching Funds.

(1) If you meet the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) Matching Funds requirement, points will be assigned as follows:

(i) In-kind only—one (1) point;

(ii) Mix of in-kind and cash—Three (3) to four (4) points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent or more); or

(iii) Cash only—five (5) points.

(2) If you exceed the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) Matching Funds requirement, points will be assigned as follows:

(i) In-kind only—two (2) points;

(ii) Mix of in-kind and cash—six (6) to seven (7) points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent or more); or

(iii) Cash only—up to ten (10) points.

(h) Work Plan/Budget. Maximum score of ten (10) points. Applicant's work plan will be evaluated for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. The budget must present a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with cooperative and business development activities as well as the operation of the Center and allocate these costs to each of the tasks to be undertaken. Matching Funds as well as grant funds must be accounted for separately in the budget. At a minimum, the following should be discussed.

(1) Specific tasks (whether it be by type of service or specific project) to be completed using grant and Matching Funds;

(2) How customers will be identified;

(3) Key personnel; and

(4) The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall objectives of Center operations. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example, evaluation methods should go beyond quantitative measurements of completing surveys or number of evaluations.

Applicants will score higher on this criterion by presenting a clear, logical, realistic, and efficient work plan and budget.

(i) Qualifications of those Performing the Tasks. Maximum score of ten (10) points. The application will be evaluated to determine if the requirements of 7 CFR 4284.513(i) have been met. The application must indicate whether the personnel expected to perform the tasks are full/part-time employees of the organization or are contract personnel. Applicants will score higher on this criterion by demonstrating commitment and availability of qualified personnel expected to perform the tasks.

(j) Local and Future Support. Maximum score of ten (10) points. A panel of USDA employees will evaluate each application for local and future support. Support should be discussed directly when responding to this criterion.

(1) Discussion of local support should include previous and/or expected local support and plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area, or with State and local government institutions. Applicants will score higher by demonstrating strong support from potential beneficiaries and formal evidence of intent to coordinate with other developmental organizations. Applicants may also submit a maximum of ten letters of support or intent to coordinate with the applicant to verify discussion of local support. These letters should be included in Appendix B of the application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative. Documentation to verify local support will be required before an award is made.

(2) Discussion of future support is required in the applicant's vision for funding operations in future years. Applicants should document:

(i) New and existing funding sources that support applicant goals;

(ii) Alternative funding sources that reduce reliance on Federal, State, and local grants; and

(iii) The use of in-house personnel for providing services versus contracting out for expertise. Please discuss the strategy for building in-house technical assistance capacity.

Applicants will score higher by demonstrating that future support will result in long-term sustainability of the Center, including the fostering of in-house personnel development in order to provide services.

(k) Administrator Discretionary Points. Maximum score of ten (10) points. The Administrator may choose to award up to 10 points to an eligible non-profit corporation or institution of higher education that has never previously been awarded an RCDG grant or whose application seeks to advance the key priorities addressed in the Supplemental Section of this notice and detailed below. Points will be assigned as follows:

(1) Applicant has never received a RCDG award—five (5) points;

(2) Applicant seeks to advance one or more of the following key priorities—five (5) points:

(i) Assisting Rural communities recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure. Applicant would receive priority points if the Project is located in or serving a Rural community whose economic well-being ranks in the most distressed tier (distress score of 80 or higher) of the Distressed Communities Index using the Distressed Communities Look-Up Map available at www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

(ii) Ensuring all Rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects. Using the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) Look-Up Map (available at www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points ), an applicant would receive priority points if the Project is: Located in or serving a community with a score 0.75 or above on the SVI;

• Is a federally recognized Tribe, including Tribal instrumentalities and entities that are wholly owned by Tribes; or

• Is a Project where at least 50 percent of the Project beneficiaries are members of federally Recognized Tribes and non-Tribal applicants include a Tribal Resolution of Consent from the Tribe or Tribes that the applicant is proposing to serve.

(iii) Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to Rural communities. Using the Disadvantaged Community and Energy Community Look-Up Map (available at www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points ), applicants will receive priority in three ways:

• If the Project is located in or serves a Disadvantaged Community as defined by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), from the White House Council on Environmental Quality;

• If the Project is located in or serves an Energy Community as defined by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA); and

• If applicants can demonstrate through a written narrative how the proposed climate-impact Projects will improve the livelihoods of community residents and meet pollution mitigation or clean energy goals.

2. Review and Selection Process. The USDA RD State Office will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, applications will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in section E.1 of this notice. The Administrator may choose to award up to ten (10) Administrator priority points based on criteria (k) in section E.1. of this notice. These points will be added to the cumulative score for a total possible score of 110. Applications will be funded in highest ranking order until the appropriations funding limitation for the RCDG program has been reached. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion. The Agency reserves the right to offer the applicant less than the full amount of grant funding requested. Applications evaluated, but not funded, will not be carried forward into the competition for any subsequent fiscal year program funding. Successful applicants must comply with requirements identified in Section F of this notice.

1. Federal Award Notices. If an application is selected for funding, the applicant will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal or electronic mail from the USDA RD State Office where the applicant is located containing instructions and requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and notice requirements before the grant award will be funded.

Applicants not selected for funding will be notified in writing via postal or electronic mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. See 7 CFR part 11 for USDA National Appeals Division (NAD) procedures. Note that rejected applicants that are successful in their NAD appeals will not receive funding if all FY 2024 RCDG program funding has already been awarded and obligated to other applicants.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements. Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F; the Grants and Agreements regulations applicable to the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 200, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR part 31, and successor regulations to these parts.

In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first tier subawards and executive compensation in accordance with 2 CFR part 170. Applicants will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)).

The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for awards within this program:

(a) Execution of Form RD 4280-2, Rural Business Cooperative Service Financial Assistance Agreement;

(b) Acceptance of a written Letter of Conditions; and submission of the following Agency forms:

(1) Form RD 1940-1, Request for Obligation of Funds.

(2) Form RD 1942-46, Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.

(3) SF LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, if applicable.

3. Reporting. After grant approval and through grant completion, applicants will be required to provide an SF-425, Federal Financial Report, and a Project performance report on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after the end of the semiannual period). The Project performance reports shall include the following:

(a) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;

(b) Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;

(c) Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall Project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and

(d) The grantee must provide a final Project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant performance period with a summary of the Project performance reports and final deliverables to close out a grant in accordance with 2 CFR 200.344.

For general questions about this announcement, please contact the USDA RD State Office provided in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

1. Paperwork Reduction Act. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the information collection requirements associated with the program, as covered in this notice, have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0006.

2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). All recipients under this notice are subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1970. However, awards for technical assistance and training under this notice are classified as a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to 7 CFR 1970.53(b), and usually do not require any additional documentation. RBCS will review each grant application to determine its compliance with 7 CFR part 1970. The applicant may be asked to provide additional information or documentation to assist RBCS with this determination. A review for NEPA compliance is required prior to the award of grant funds.

3. Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. All applicants, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, must be registered in SAM and have a UEI number as stated in Section D.3 of this notice. All recipients of Federal funding are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive total compensation in accordance with 2 CFR part 170.

4. Civil Rights Act. All grants made under this notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, title IX, Executive Order 13166 (Limited English Proficiency), Executive Order 11246, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974).

5. Nondiscrimination Statement. In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, Agency, or staff office; or the 711 Relay Service.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ad-3027.pdf, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

(a) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or

(b) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or

(c) Email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

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

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

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

Background

On September 25, 2023, Commerce published the Preliminary Results for this review in the Federal Register and invited interested parties to comment on those results. 1 From October 26 to November 1, 2023, interested parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs. 2 For a complete description of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise subject to the Order is forged steel fittings from the Republic of Korea. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding the Preliminary Results, we made certain changes to the preliminary weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Samyoung. For a detailed discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Samyoung reported the entered value of its U.S. sales such that we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Samyoung for which the company did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate of 17.08 percent  6 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific cash deposit rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 17.08 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 7 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

The following items included in the tentative agenda will be discussed:

The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on April 23, 2024, at 9 a.m. AST, and will end on April 24, 2024, at 4:30 p.m. AST. Other than the start time on the first day of the meeting, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated in the agenda, at the discretion of the Chair.

For any additional information on this public virtual meeting, please contact Diana Martino, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 226-8849.

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

The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss and further develop interim management measures, or a management framework, intended to address the response of Klamath River fall Chinook to the dynamic nature of the Klamath River environment and the available habitat immediately following dam removal, and post dam removal until the natural environment is stabilized and the salmon population is more predictable. Additional discussions may include, but are not limited to, the work of the Sacramento River Fall Chinook Workgroup, future meetings, workload planning, and upcoming Council agenda items etc. may also occur. The Workgroup will provide their recommendations to the Council at their March 5-11 meeting in Fresno, CA.

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

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

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

Agenda Wednesday, April 24, 2024

This session will review the anticipated climate change impacts to the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska, followed by a discussion of the challenges involved in planning for climate change effects that are likely to become more frequent and impactful. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3042 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

This session will explore the meaning of “climate readiness” through recent work including the Council's Climate Readiness Synthesis Report, and community climate adaptation planning efforts, followed by a discussion of different perspectives on climate readiness. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3042 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

This session will provide an introduction to climate scenario planning and the scenarios that will be discussed at the NPFMC Climate Scenarios Workshop. This information will also be provided as briefing material and discussed at the workshop. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3042 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3042 .

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3042 .

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

Habitat and Ecosystem Advisory Panel

The Habitat and Ecosystem AP will review progress on the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-Year Review, review progress on integrating wind energy into the Council's Energy Policy, prepare an annual habitat activities report, review website progress, and receive an update on the Council's Citizen Science program. The AP will also discuss wind farm removal, Indian River Lagoon concerns, and the potential implications of Sackett vs Environmental Protection Agency. The AP will provide recommendations to the Council on other topics as needed.

The Shrimp and Deepwater Shrimp APs will receive an update on the Council's Citizen Science program and an update on Coral Amendment 10 addressing the shrimp fishery access area along the eastern boundary of the Oculina Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern. AP members will provide a fishery performance report for shrimp and discuss economic issues within the South Atlantic shrimp industry. The APs will review the Giant Manta Ray Biological Opinion from NOAA Fisheries and receive presentations from the Southern Shrimp Collaborative and the Shrimp Futures Project. The APs will provide input to the Council on other topics as needed.

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

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

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

Title of Collection: Reaffirmation Agreement.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0133.

Type of Review: An extension without change of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households; Private Sector; State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 8,594.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,032.

Abstract: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), established the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program under Title IV, Parts B and D respectively. The HEA provides for a maximum loan amount that a borrower can receive per year and in total. If a borrower receives more than the maximum amount, the borrower becomes ineligible for further Title IV aid (including Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Federal Work-Study, and Teacher Education Assistance for Higher Education (TEACH) Grants, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants) unless the borrower repays the excess amount or agrees to repay the excess amount according to the terms and conditions of the promissory note that the borrower signed. Agreeing to repay the excess amount according to the terms and conditions of the promissory note that the borrower signed is called reaffirmation, which is the subject of this collection. This renewal without change of the information collection is necessary for the Department of Education (the Department), as a holder of some FFEL Program loans and all Direct Loans, and all FFEL Program lenders to capture the borrowers formal agreement to repay any excess amount of FFEL or Direct Loan program loans that the borrower received according to the terms and conditions of the promissory note the borrower signed. The form has not been changed since its last update.

Purpose of Program: The Hawkins Program, authorized under part B of title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), is designed to support comprehensive, high-quality State-accredited teacher preparation programs by creating centers of excellence at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); Tribal Colleges or Universities (TCUs); or Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), such as Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). The Hawkins Program will help increase the number of, and retain, well-prepared teachers from diverse backgrounds, resulting in a more diverse teacher workforce prepared to teach in our Nation's most underserved elementary and secondary schools and close student opportunity and achievement gaps. This program focuses on the various aspects of the teacher preparation pipeline, including the recruitment, preparation, support, placement, retention, and retraining of teachers for and in under-resourced schools to support underserved students. Through this program, the Secretary seeks to fund applicants that propose to incorporate evidence-based practices into their teacher preparation program.

Background:

The Hawkins Program is critical in enabling the Department to meet its goal of supporting a diverse teacher workforce to improve student opportunities, achievement, and outcomes, and address the educator shortage, by providing expanded access to comprehensive, high-quality, and affordable educator preparation programs.

There is significant inequity in students' access to well-prepared, experienced, and effective teachers, 1 particularly for students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, children or students with disabilities, and English learners (ELs). 2 Providing all students with consistent access to well-prepared, effective, and diverse educators who provide high-quality instruction and support is essential to closing opportunity and achievement gaps. Teachers who entered the profession through the least comprehensive teacher preparation pathway are two to three times more likely to leave their school or the profession compared to those who entered through a comprehensive pathway. 3 Research demonstrates that high rates of turnover harm student achievement, 4 and that the quality of a school's leadership is among the most important predictors of teacher turnover, with more effective principals being more likely to retain their best teachers. 5

Extensive, high-quality, and evidence-based clinical experience is one of three “aspects of preparation that have the highest potential for effects on outcomes for students.”  6 There are several ways educator preparation programs can partner with school districts and schools to provide these kinds of clinical experiences. For example, a number of school districts are partnering with teacher preparation programs to provide clinical experiences that are mutually beneficial for teacher candidates and teachers of record, and their students. Teacher candidates, in addition to completing the required elements of an evidence-based clinical experience, may serve in schools in roles that support students and teachers as their academic schedules allow and as they complete their other requirements for teacher certification. Teacher residencies and Grow Your Own  7 programs, which may be supported through registered teacher apprenticeship programs, can support teacher candidates serving in these roles and cover the costs associated with extensive clinical experience. Other examples of educator preparation programs supporting high need schools in this way can be found here: www.ed.gov/coronavirus/factsheets/teacher-shortage.

While the majority of U.S public school students are children of color, 8 only 20 percent of teachers are people of color. Further, 40 percent of the Nation's public schools do not employ a single teacher of color on record. 9 Research shows that teachers of color benefit all students and can have a significant positive impact on students of color. 10 These benefits can include higher levels of achievement, 11 greater encouragement, increased students' aspirations ( e.g., through role modeling), more recommendations from teachers ( e.g., to gifted and talented programs), and increased access to rigorous course-taking. 12 Research also demonstrates that teachers of color can be positive role models for all students in breaking down negative stereotypes and preparing students to live and work in a multiracial society. 13 A more diverse teacher workforce also increases the likelihood that students of color will have access to culturally and linguistically relevant teaching and learning and positive relationships. 14 Thus, supporting teachers of color can be a critical strategy for advancing educational equity for students of color and addressing one of the root causes of institutional barriers to equity in the academic environment. 15

In addition to the need for more teachers of color, a parallel challenge in the Nation's public schools lies in the shortage of multilingual teachers prepared to teach a growing population of English Learners (ELs). ELs are the fastest growing student demographic, with more than 10 percent of students identified as ELs currently. 16 Additionally, about one-quarter of all students speak a language other than English at home, whereas only 1 in 8 teachers do. 17 Despite that, more than half of the States nationwide are experiencing bilingual and multilingual teacher shortages and a quarter of the States do not require certification or endorsements for teachers who teach ELs. 18

Research demonstrates that ELs who are taught in bilingual settings, such as dual-language immersion programs, by well-prepared bilingual teachers have stronger academic outcomes and better English-language acquisition trajectories than ELs who are taught in English only settings, which underscores the need to close the multilingual teacher shortage gap. 19 Additionally, ELs who learn in bilingual settings in which they can maintain their native languages while learning English have stronger social and emotional development, cross-cultural skills, and problem-solving skills. 20 Bilingual and multilingual learning environments can also mitigate linguistic barriers that limit family engagement, as bilingual and multilingual teachers are more likely to communicate with linguistically diverse families and ensure they have equitable access to information about their students' education. 21 Bilingual and multilingual teachers' assets are critical to creating inclusive school and family partnerships where linguistically diverse families can meaningfully participate in their child's education. 22

Through the priorities in this competition, the Department seeks to encourage HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs to propose projects that are designed to increase and retain the number of well-prepared teachers from diverse backgrounds; increase evidence-based, comprehensive pre-service clinical experiences through teacher preparation programs; and increase the number of bilingual and/or multilingual teachers with full certification.

Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities and two competitive preference priorities. The absolute priorities and Competitive Preference Priority 1 are from the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register (2024 NFP), and Competitive Preference Priority 2 is from the Secretary's Final Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13640) (Administrative Priorities).

Absolute Priorities: For the FY 2024 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet both priorities.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1: Projects that are Designed to Increase and Retain the Number of Well-Prepared Teachers from Diverse Backgrounds.

To meet this priority, an eligible applicant must propose projects that are designed to increase the number of well-prepared teachers and the diversity of the teacher workforce with a focus on increasing and retaining a diverse teacher workforce, and improving the preparation, recruitment, retention, and placement of such teachers.

Applicants addressing this priority must describe—

(a) How their project will integrate multiple services or initiatives across academic and student affairs, such as academic advising, counseling, stipends, child-care, structured/guided pathways from teacher candidates' first year in the preparation program through successful employment placement, career services, or student financial aid, such as scholarships, with the goal of increasing program completion and credential attainment;

(b) Their plan for identifying and supporting teacher candidates from backgrounds that are underrepresented in the profession, including teacher candidates of color. This plan must span the beginning of the preparation program through graduation, and include a plan to improve program entry rates, as applicable, graduation rates, passage rates for certification and licensure exams, and rates of successful employment placement between teacher candidate subgroups and an institution's overall teacher candidate population; and

(c) Their proposed initiatives to promote the retention of teachers from backgrounds that are underrepresented in the profession, including teachers of color, prepared through the program, which may include induction programs, such as teacher or school leader induction programs, or mentorship programs that provide school and district leaders with the support they need to persist in their professions.

Absolute Priority 2: I ncrease Evidence-Based, Comprehensive Pre-service Clinical Experiences Through Teacher Preparation Programs.

To meet this priority, an eligible applicant must propose projects that are evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) comprehensive teacher preparation programs that provide extensive clinical experience. Applicants with existing programs must describe their record in graduating highly skilled, well-prepared, and diverse teachers and describe how the proposed project will refine or enhance existing programs. Applicants proposing new programs must describe how their new program is evidence-based and designed to achieve the intended outcomes of the Hawkins Program. Applicants must also address how they will—

(a) Examine the sources of inequity and inadequacy in resources and opportunity and implement pedagogical practices in teacher preparation programs that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, gender, and disability status and that prepare teachers to create inclusive, supportive, equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for their students;

(b) Prepare teacher candidates to integrate rigorous academic content, including through the effective use of technology, and instructional techniques and strategies consistent with universal design for learning principles;

(c) Prepare teacher candidates to design and deliver instruction in ways that are engaging and provide their students with opportunities to think critically and solve complex problems, apply learning in authentic and real-world settings, communicate and collaborate effectively, and develop growth mindsets. Teacher candidate pedagogy should include how to incorporate project-based, work-based, or other experiential learning opportunities in curriculum development;

(d) Prepare teacher candidates to build meaningful and trusting relationships with students and their families to support in-home, community-based, and in-school learning; and

(e) Provide sustained and high-quality pre-service clinical experiences, including teaching assistant initiatives, that facilitate the pathway to the teaching credential for those with paraprofessional experience or high-quality school leader pre-service training, induction, and support in the first three years of school leadership for principals and other school leaders. In designing such experiences, applicants must consider opportunities to provide pre-service clinical experience earlier in the teacher preparation program, as is practicable, and in ways that benefit students and teachers. These clinical experiences must be designed to—

(1) Integrate pedagogy and classroom practice and promote effective teaching skills in academic content areas;

(2) Be tightly aligned with course work with clear, relevant, and strong links between theory and practice;

(3) Group teacher candidates in cohorts to facilitate reflection of practice and professional collaboration;

(4) Closely supervise interaction between teacher candidates and faculty, experienced teachers, principals, and other administrators in high-need schools or hard-to-staff schools; and

(5) Provide high-quality-teacher mentoring.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For the FY 2024 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105 (c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 5 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 1; and we award an additional 5 points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Increasing the Number of Bilingual and/or Multilingual Teachers with Full Certification. (up to 5 points)

To meet this priority, an eligible applicant must propose projects that are designed to prepare effective and experienced bilingual and/or multilingual teachers for high-need schools by increasing the number of teachers across elementary and secondary schools who are fully certified to provide academic language instruction in a language other than English, including for English Learners (ELs). These projects must prepare teacher candidates to lead students toward linguistic fluency and academic achievement in more than one language. Applicants must describe—

(a) How their project will integrate multiple services or initiatives across academic and student affairs, such as academic advising, counseling, stipends, child-care, structured/guided pathways from teacher candidates' first year in the preparation program through successful employment placement, career services, or student financial aid, such as scholarships, and provide the necessary knowledge and skills so that teacher candidates can serve students from many different language backgrounds; and

(b) Their plan for recruiting, supporting, and retaining bilingual and/or multilingual teacher candidates, including those who may have a teaching credential but have not been teaching in bilingual and/or multilingual education settings; aspiring teachers; and teaching assistants who are interested in becoming bilingual and/or multilingual teachers.

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Applications From New Potential Grantees (5 points)

(a) To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that it does not, as of the deadline date for submission of applications, have an active grant, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, under the Hawkins Program.

(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or contractor's authority to obligate funds.

Definitions: The definitions below apply to this competition and are from 34 CFR part 77.1, 20 U.S.C. 1033, and the 2024 NFP.

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation ( e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:

(1) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(2) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable ( e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(3) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case ( e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project ( i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Note: In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Regional Educational Laboratory Program's (REL Pacific) Education Logic Model Application, available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/elm.asp. Other sources include: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014025.pdf, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014007.pdf, and https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2015057.pdf.

Pre-service means the period of training for a person who does not have a prior teaching certification or license and who is enrolled in a State-approved teacher education program at an institution of higher education, prior to becoming the teacher of record.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components ( e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(1) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(2) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(3) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—

(i) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias ( e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and

(ii) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive ( i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation ( e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Scientifically based reading research—

(1) Means research that applies rigorous, systemic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties; and

(2) Includes research that-

(i) Employs systemic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;

(ii) Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;

(iii) Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations; and

(iv) Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the standards and procedures set forth in The WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference, see § 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with Reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.

Note: The WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 4.1), as well as the more recent WWC Handbook released in August 2022 (Version 5.0), are available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.

Application Requirements: The following application requirements for FY 2024 are from section 242(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1033a(b)).

Grants provided by the Secretary must be used to ensure that current and future teachers meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), by carrying out one or more of the following activities:

(1) Implementing reforms within teacher preparation programs to ensure that such programs are preparing teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA, are able to understand scientifically valid research, and are able to use advanced technology effectively in the classroom, including use of instructional techniques to improve student academic achievement, by—

(i) Retraining or recruiting faculty; and

(ii) Designing (or redesigning) teacher preparation programs that—

(A) Prepare teachers to serve in low-performing schools and close student achievement gaps, and that are based on rigorous academic content, scientifically valid research (including scientifically based reading research and mathematics research, as it becomes available), and challenging State academic content standards and student academic achievement standards; and

(B) Promote strong teaching skills.

(2) Providing sustained and high-quality preservice clinical experience, including the mentoring of prospective teachers by exemplary teachers, substantially increasing interaction between faculty at IHEs and new and experienced teachers, principals, and other administrators at elementary schools or secondary schools, and providing support, including preparation time, for such interaction.

(3) Developing and implementing initiatives to promote retention of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA, and highly qualified principals, including minority teachers and principals, including programs that provide—

(i) Teacher or principal mentoring from exemplary teachers or principals, respectively; or

(ii) Induction and support for teachers and principals during their first 3 years of employment as teachers or principals, respectively.

(4) Awarding scholarships based on financial need to help students pay the costs of tuition, room, board, and other expenses of completing a teacher preparation program, not to exceed the cost of attendance.

(5) Disseminating information on effective practices for teacher preparation and successful teacher certification and licensure assessment preparation strategies.

(6) Activities authorized under section 202 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1022a).

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1033-1033a.

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

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The 2024 NFP. (e) The Administrative Priorities.

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

Type of Award: Discretionary grant.

Estimated Available Funds: $15,000,000.

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

Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 to $650,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $550,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: Up to 27.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: Eligible institutions (as articulated under section 241(1) of the HEA) under the Hawkins Program include—

(i) An IHE that has a qualified teacher preparation program that is—

(A) A part B institution (as defined in section 322 of the HEA);

(B) A Hispanic-serving institution (as defined in section 502 of the HEA);

(C) A Tribal College or University (as defined in section 316 of the HEA);

(D) An Alaska Native-serving institution (as defined in section 317(b) of the HEA);

(E) A Native Hawaiian-serving institution (as defined in section 317(b) of the HEA);

(F) A Predominantly Black Institution (as defined in section 318 of the HEA);

(G) An Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution (as defined in section 320(b) of the HEA); or

(H) A Native American-serving, nontribal institution (as defined in section 319 of the HEA);

(ii) A consortium of institutions described in paragraph (i); or

(iii) An institution described in paragraph (i), or a consortium described in paragraph (ii), in partnership with any other IHE, but only if the center of excellence established is located at an institution described in paragraph (i).

Note: A consortium of institutions under this competition must follow the procedures under 34 CFR 75.127-75.129 in developing a group application. This includes developing an agreement that details the activities that each member of the group plans to perform and binds each member of the group to every statement and assurance made by the applicant in the application. This agreement must be submitted with the application.

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

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: Grant funds must be used so that they supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the funds that would otherwise be available for the activities to be carried out under this grant. (2024 NFP)

c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: A grantee's indirect cost reimbursement is limited to 8 percent of a modified total direct cost base. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html. (2024 NFP)

d. Administrative Cost Limitation: In accordance with section 242(e) of the HEA, an eligible institution that receives a grant under this program may use not more than 2 percent of the funds provided to administer the grant. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

4. Draft Written Agreement with Clinical Practice Partner(s): An applicant must provide a Draft Written Agreement (DWA) that identifies the partnership between: (1) at least one eligible IHE with a State accredited teacher preparation program, and (2) a high-need local educational agency (LEA) or consortium of high-need LEAs, or with a high-need school or consortium of high-need schools. The agreement with partners is intended to ensure that the parties joining the project are committed to fulfilling the purpose of the clinical practice by either creating new partnerships or expanding existing partnerships, and that teacher candidates will not become the teacher of record prior to completing the certification program, including pre-service clinical experience, and, for any candidates who entered the program without a bachelor's degree, obtaining a bachelor's. Grantees will finalize the DWA into a Final Written Agreement (FWA) within 120 days of grant award notification. (2024 NFP)

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

2. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

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

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the following standards:

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

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

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

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all the application narrative.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria and up to 10 additional points under the competitive preference priorities, for a total score of up to 110 points. All applications will be evaluated based on the selection criteria as follows:

(a) Quality of the Project Design. (Maximum 50 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students. (up to 10 points)

(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (up to 5 points)

(3) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (up to 5 points)

(4) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (up to 10 points)

(5) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice). (up to 10 points)

(6) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project. (up to 10 points)

(b) Significance. (Maximum 20 points)

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement. (up to 10 points)

(2) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies. (up to 10 points)

(c) Quality of the Project Services. (Maximum 15 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project:

(1) The Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (up to 5 points)

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

(i) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services. (up to 5 points)

(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services. (up to 5 points)

(d) Quality of the Management Plan. (Maximum 5 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. (Maximum 10 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings. (up to 3 points)

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (up to 3 points)

(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce promising evidence (as defined in this notice ) about the project's effectiveness. (up to 4 points)

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

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

The Secretary will select applications for funding in rank order, according to the average score received from the peer review and from the competitive preference priorities addressed by the applicant. If the Secretary has insufficient funding to award multiple applications with the same score, consistent with section 873(d)(2)(A) and (B) of the HEA, in making a selection, the first tiebreaker will be to prioritize applicants from categories of eligible institutions that have been underfunded in this program. If a tie still exists after applying the first tiebreaker, the Secretary will prioritize under-resourced institutions, such as selecting the applications from institutions with the lowest endowment per FTE. If a third tiebreaker is required, the Secretary will select the applicant with the highest score in the quality of project services selection criterion. Finally, if a fourth tiebreaker is required, the Secretary will select the applicant with the highest score in the quality of project design selection criterion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case, the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department will use the following performance measures to evaluate the success of the Hawkins Program grants:

(a) The number and percentage of teacher candidates, served by the funded program, who complete the teacher preparation program, disaggregated by race.

(b) The number and percentage of teacher candidates, served by the funded program, disaggregated by race, who become fully certified and are placed as teachers of record in high-need schools or hard-to-staff schools.

(c) The number and percentage of bilingual and/or multilingual teacher candidates, served by the funded program, who complete the teacher preparation program.

(d) The number and percentage of bilingual and/or multilingual teacher candidates, served by the funded program, who become fully certified and are placed as teachers of record in high-need schools or hard-to-staff schools.

(e) The number and percentage of program completers who were employed for the first time as teachers of record in the preceding year by the partner high-need schools or hard-to-staff schools and were retained for the current school year.

(f) The number and percentage of program completers who were employed by the partner high-need school or hard-to-staff school for three consecutive years after initial employment.

(g) The number and percentage of program completers who are employed by the partner high-need school or hard-to-staff school teaching in mathematics, science, bilingual education, special education, career and technical education, or any other field of expertise where the State education agency determines that there is a shortage of qualified teachers.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format.

The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

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

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

Purpose of Program: The purposes of the TQP program are to improve student achievement; improve the quality of prospective and new teachers by improving the preparation of prospective teachers and enhancing professional development activities for new teachers; hold teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education (IHEs) accountable for preparing teachers who meet applicable State certification and licensure requirements; and recruit highly qualified individuals, including individuals of color and individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force.

Background: The Department is committed to recruiting, preparing, and retaining racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse educators to the teaching workforce. This commitment includes promoting educator diversity and ensuring that education is a profession that people from all backgrounds can pursue by supporting comprehensive, high-quality and affordable pathways into the profession. The Department thinks preparing, developing and supporting a diverse educator workforce is critical to strengthening student success. Additionally, addressing high-need shortage areas helps to ensure all students have access to a high-quality, well-rounded education. Through Raise the Bar: Lead the World, 1 the Department is working in partnership with States, Tribes, local educational agencies (LEAs), and educator preparation programs, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), and other Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), to eliminate educator shortages in our nation's schools and to strengthen and diversify the education profession. The priorities used in this FY 2024 TQP competition both highlight and advance the goals of Raise the Bar to ultimately improve student achievement by placing highly qualified, diverse educators in classrooms across the country. The TQP program supports “eligible partnerships” that pair a high-need LEA, a high-need school served by the LEA, or a high-need early childhood education (ECE) program with a partner institution that includes a school, department, or program of education within such partner institution, and a school or department of arts and sciences within such partner institution. Such partnerships also may include certain other entities described below. Under section 202(d) and (e) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), these partnerships must implement either (a) teacher preparation programs at the pre baccalaureate or “fifth-year” level that include specific reforms in IHEs' existing teacher preparation programs; or (b) teacher residency programs for individuals who are recent graduates with strong academic backgrounds or are mid-career professionals from outside the field of education.

In this FY 2024 TQP competition, through Absolute Priorities 1 and 2, we support pre-baccalaureate and teacher residency models that would emphasize the creation or expansion of high-quality, comprehensive pathways into the classroom. Through Absolute Priorities 3 and 4, we add a focus on school leadership. Absolute Priority 3 supports the development of school leader programs in conjunction with the preparation of a new pre-baccalaureate model for teachers under Absolute Priority 1. Absolute Priority 4 supports the development of school leader programs in conjunction with a new effective teacher residency model under Absolute Priority 2. Research on the TQP program shows that high-quality residency models can expand the pool of well-prepared applicants entering the teaching profession, promoting diversity of the workforce and bringing a wide range of experiences into the classroom to support students. In addition, the close partnership between school districts and IHEs required by the TQP program ensures that preparation programs are closely aligned with practice. A 2014 implementation study published by the Institute of Education Sciences shows that residents are more likely than nonresidents to report feeling prepared to enter the classroom, and that after program completion, more than 90 percent of residents stayed in their school district for three years. 2 High-quality residency programs are a critical part of ensuring that all students have access to well-prepared and qualified educators.

The Department also recognizes that school leaders are an important school-based factor that affects student learning. As described further below, school leaders play a critically important role in students' academic success, especially in underserved schools. School leaders serve as instructional leaders, shaping the schoolwide vision of academic success and creating the learning conditions that support strong teaching and learning, including providing feedback and coaching, creating opportunities for teacher collaboration, and connecting teachers with aligned professional development opportunities. By creating positive working conditions and cultivating enhanced teacher leadership opportunities, school leaders also play a pivotal role in recruiting and retaining highly effective teachers.

A 2021 report entitled “How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research” details how strong principals affect students' educational and social outcomes as well as other outcomes, including teacher retention. 3 The report found principals' contributions to student achievement were nearly as large as the average effects of teachers identified in similar studies—but larger in scope because they were distributed over an entire school rather than a single classroom. The report notes that its findings on the importance of principals' effects suggest the need for renewed attention to strategies for cultivating, selecting, preparing, and supporting a high-quality principal workforce.

This competition includes four competitive preference priorities. Competitive Preference Priority 1 is from the Final Priorities—Effective Educator Development (EED) Division, published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2021 (86 FR 36217) (EED NFP), and focuses on projects that propose to increase educator diversity. Under Competitive Preference Priority 1, projects must be designed to diversify the teacher pipeline by addressing identified teacher shortage areas in partnership with HBCUs, TCCUs, HSIs, and other MSIs. Teachers of color benefit all students and can have a particularly strong positive impact on students of color. 4 Today, more than half of K-12 public school students are students of color. The Department recognizes that diverse educators play a critical role in promoting equity in our education system. 5

Competitive Preference Priorities 2, 3, and 4 are all from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities). Competitive Preference Priority 2 focuses on projects that propose to support a diverse educator workforce that is prepared with the necessary certification and credentialing to teach in shortage areas and high-need schools. Competitive Preference Priority 2 focuses on strengthening teacher recruitment, selection, preparation, support, development, and effectiveness in ways that are consistent with the Department's policy goals of supporting teachers as professionals and improving outcomes for all students, by ensuring that underserved students have equal access to fully qualified, experienced, diverse, and effective educators. There is significant inequity in students' access to fully qualified, experienced, and effective teachers, particularly for students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, and children or students with disabilities. 6 Teacher candidates deserve access to high-quality comprehensive preparation programs that are aligned with research-based practices, including providing extensive clinical experience, high standards and the necessary supports for successful completion. Additionally, it is crucial to support and retain educators through practices such as mentoring; creating or enhancing opportunities for professional growth, including leadership opportunities; providing competitive compensation; and creating conditions for successful teaching and learning. Finally, Competitive Preference Priority 2 emphasizes the need to increase the number of teachers with certification or dual certification in shortage areas, as well as advanced certifications from nationally recognized professional organizations.

Competitive Preference Priorities 3 and 4 focus on projects that propose to meet students' social, emotional, and academic needs and support projects that propose to promote equity in student access to educational resources and opportunities. These competitive preference priorities recognize the social, emotional, and academic needs of teacher candidates, as well as the importance of preparing those teachers to create inclusive, supportive, equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for their students.

Research has demonstrated that, in elementary and secondary schools, children learn, grow, and achieve at higher levels in safe and supportive environments and in the care of responsive adults they can trust. 7 It is critical, then, to prioritize support for students' social, emotional, and academic needs, not only to benefit students' social and emotional wellness, but also to support their academic success. Mounting evidence suggests that supporting social and emotional learning can contribute to overall student development. 8 Therefore, educators need to develop skills to effectively incorporate social and emotional learning into their instructional practice.

Lastly, this competition includes two invitational priorities for (1) applicants that propose evidence-based Grow Your Own (GYO) projects that encourage members of the community to pursue teaching careers, including through registered apprenticeship programs for teachers; and (2) applicants that promote professional development opportunities for teachers of students in grades K-3.

GYO projects can help address teacher shortages by increasing retention rates while also enhancing educator diversity. The Biden Administration is committed to strengthening and diversifying teacher preparation, including by supporting evidence-based residency and GYO programs, which may be provided through a high-quality registered apprenticeship programs for teachers, to strengthen teacher pipelines and address shortages, increase the number of teachers of color, and support the growth of teachers. 9 GYO programs encourage partnerships between LEAs and educator preparation programs to recruit and develop teachers from the communities the school or district serves. The effort to recruit and retain diverse educators, including through GYO programs, starts with such a collaboration. By fostering a shared reliance on the teacher preparation work that both the districts and IHEs provide, GYO models promote the preparation of local residents who will then be retained in that community and help to build capacity. A report from New America that reviewed GYO programs in all 50 states  10 suggests that homegrown teachers have higher rates of retention and GYO programs remove barriers that have kept some individuals from being able to access and persist in an educator preparation program. The Department believes GYO warrants investments through the TQP program for further learning and continued evidence-building, replication, and dissemination. GYO programs may include high school dual-enrollment or early college programs and may be provided through registered apprenticeship programs for teachers.

Registered apprenticeships can be an effective, high-quality “earn and learn” model that allows candidates to earn their teaching credential while earning pay by combining coursework with structured, paid on-the-job learning experiences with a mentor teacher, combined with coursework and other components of an evidence-based program. 11 Registered apprenticeship programs for K-12 teachers can be used to establish, scale, and build on existing high-quality pathways into teaching that emphasize classroom-based experience, such as GYO and teacher residency programs. By reducing the cost of earning a license and offering flexible scheduling, registered apprenticeship programs are designed to open the doors to the profession to those who may otherwise face barriers, including people of color, people from low-income backgrounds, and individuals such as paraprofessionals who may already have decades of experience in the classroom but previously could not afford to become a teacher. Once registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or their State apprenticeship agency (requirements vary by State), these programs can access Federal workforce funding, such as Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins V) funding, in addition to other Federal, State, and local education and workforce funds, bringing additional resources to help address educator shortages.

In August of 2022, Secretary Cardona and then-Labor Secretary Marty Walsh issued a joint Dear Colleague Letter  12 calling on all States to establish registered apprenticeship programs for K-12 teachers to help eliminate educator shortages and outlining how States and other interested parties can learn more about this approach.

Applicants are encouraged to explore resources on registered apprenticeship programs for teachers on the Department's Raise the Bar web page on eliminating educator shortages;  13 at the Department of Labor's apprenticeship website focused on the education industry;  14 and through the resources of the Pathways Alliance, including National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards for K-12 Teacher Apprenticeships, approved by the Department of Labor and previously highlighted by the Department, to support high-quality programs. 15

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: U.S. Department of Education Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) Data Collection.

OMB Control Number: 1894-NEW.

Type of Review: A new ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments, Private Sector—Not-for-Profit Institutions.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 470.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,700.

Abstract: In accordance with section 70914 of the Build America Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58 70901-70953) (BABAA), grantees funded under Department of Education (the Department) programs that allow funds to be used for infrastructure projects (infrastructure programs), i.e., construction and broadband infrastructure, may not use their grant funds for these infrastructure projects or activities unless they comply with the following BABAA sourcing requirements:

1. All iron and steel used in the infrastructure project or activity are produced in the United States.

2. All manufactured products used in the infrastructure project or activity are produced in the United States.

3. All construction materials are manufactured in the United States.

The Department may, in accordance with sections 70914(b) and (d), 70921(b), 70935, and 70937 of BABAA, and the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M 24-02, Implementation Guidance on Application of Buy America Preference in Federal Financial Assistance Programs for Infrastructure, approve waivers to BABAA sourcing requirements under programs it has identified as infrastructure programs when it determines that exceptions to these requirements apply. The Department may approve these waivers, subject to notice and comment requirements and the Office of Management and Budget Made in America Office (MIAO) review.

The information submitted by grantees using the BABAA Data Collection Form will be used by the Department to track the type of waivers ( i.e., agency level waivers or approved grantee waivers) implemented by grantees. The data may also be used for reporting purposes.

This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES ).

Under the 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 requires Federal agencies to publish a 60-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.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension without change of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Application for Enrollment in Medicare Part A Internet Claim (iClaim) Application Screen Modernized Claims System and Consolidated Claim Experience Screens; Use: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form “Application for Hospital Insurance” supports sections 1818 and 1818A of the Social Security Act (the Act) and corresponding regulations at 42 CFR 406.6 and 406.7.

The CMS-18-F5 is used to establish entitlement to Part A and enrollment in Part B for claimants who must file an application. The application follows the questions and requirements used by SSA on the electronic application. This is done not only for consistency purposes but because certain requirements under titles II and XVIII of the act must be met in order to qualify for Part A and Part B; including insured status, relationship and residency. The form is owned by CMS but is not utilized by CMS staff. SSA uses the form to collect information and make Part A and Part B entitlement determinations on behalf of CMS. Form Number: CMS-18F5 (OMB control number: 0938-0251); Frequency: Once; Affected Public: Individuals and Households; Number of Respondents: 1,042,263; Total Annual Responses: 1,042,263; Total Annual Hours: 260,566. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Carla Patterson at 410-786-8911 or Carla.Patterson@cms.hhs.gov ).

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: CAHPS Hospice Survey; Use: CMS launched the development of the CAHPS Hospice Survey in 2012. Public reporting of the results on Hospice Compare started in 2018. The goal of the survey is to measure the experiences of patients and their caregivers with hospice care. The survey was developed to:

• Provide a source of information from which selected measures could be publicly reported to beneficiaries and their family members as a decision aid for selection of a hospice program;

• Aid hospices with their internal quality improvement efforts and external benchmarking with other facilities; and

• Provide CMS with information for monitoring the care provided.

Surveys focusing on patients' experience of care with their health care providers are an important part of the NQS. In addition to publicly reporting clinical quality measures, CMS is currently reporting measures from patient experience of care surveys in a variety of settings, including in-center hemodialysis (ICH) centers, hospitals, home health agencies, and hospices on the Medicare Care Compare website. ( https://www.medicare.gov/care-compare ). Form Number: CMS-10537 (OMB control number: 0938-1257); Frequency: Once; Affected Public: Individuals and Households; Number of Respondents: 1,159,420; Total Annual Responses: 1,159,420; Total Annual Hours: 168,115.90. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Lauren Fuentes at 410-786-2290 or 443-618-2123).

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry titled, “New Dietary Ingredient Notification Master Files for Dietary Supplements.” We are issuing the draft guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

The draft guidance, when finalized, will provide recommendations to industry on Master Files for new dietary ingredient notifications (NDINs). For purposes of the guidance, a new dietary ingredient notification Master File (NDIN Master File or Master File) is a file containing identity, manufacturing, and/or safety information relating to a new dietary ingredient (NDI) that the Master File owner submits to FDA for use in evaluating a potential future NDIN by the Master File owner or by another person designated by the Master File owner ( e.g., business partner, supplement manufacturer). An NDIN Master File contains information about an NDI, a dietary supplement containing an NDI, or both. The Master File owner may refer to the Master File in an NDIN or may grant written authorization to other parties to incorporate information from the Master File by reference in NDINs. A written authorization granting a right of reference to a Master File in an NDIN does not include the right to see or copy the Master File.

The recommendations in this draft guidance expand upon and replace the recommendations related to Master Files in FDA's revised draft guidance, “Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues,” dated August 2016. The purpose of this draft guidance, when finalized, will be to help industry comply more easily with the NDIN requirement in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by providing recommendations for the submission and use of NDIN Master Files (see section 413(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)(2))). The draft guidance contains information on establishing an NDIN Master File, updating or closing an NDIN Master File, the use of data from an NDIN Master File by the Master File owner and other parties authorized by the Master File owner, and FDA's role in reviewing and administering NDIN Master Files. Master Files benefit NDIN submitters with a right of reference by allowing them to refer to data already on file with FDA, instead of having to develop the data themselves and resubmit it in each NDIN for the same ingredient.

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 collection of information in 21 CFR 190.6 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0330, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 111 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0606.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 117-286, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10). The Committee was established by section 601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018, (Pub. L. 115-282, 132 Stat. 4190) and is codified in 46 U.S.C. 70112(a). The Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 46 U.S.C. 15109. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee provides advice, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to national maritime security.

(1) Call to Order.

(2) Introduction.

(3) Designated Federal Officer Remarks.

(4) Roll call of Committee Members and Determination of Quorum.

(5) Remarks from Committee Leadership.

(6) Presentation of Task T-2024-1: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System.

(7) Public Comment Period.

(8) Meeting Adjournment.

A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/NMSAC no later than May 3, 2024. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Ryan Owens as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. There will be a public comment period at the end of meetings. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments. Please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above to register as a speaker.

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0238, and must be received by June 3, 2024.

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

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

Title: Alteration of Unreasonable Obstructive Bridges.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0073.

Summary: The collection of information is a request to determine if the bridge is unreasonably obstructive.

Need: 33 U.S.C. 494, 502, 511, 513, 514, 515 516, 517, 521, 522, 523 and 524 authorize the Coast Guard to require the removal or alteration of bridges and causeways over the navigable waters of the United States and that the Coast Guard deems to be unreasonably obstructive.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Public and private owners of bridges over navigable waters of the United States.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 160 hours a year.

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

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0239, and must be received by June 3, 2024.

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

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1985 (50 FR 21832), the interest rate paid on applicable overpayments or underpayments of customs duties must be in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code rate established under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and 6622. Section 6621 provides different interest rates applicable to overpayments: one for corporations and one for non-corporations.

The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.

In Revenue Ruling 2024-6, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2024, and ending on June 30, 2024. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (5%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of eight percent (8%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (5%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of eight percent (8%). For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (5%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of seven percent (7%). These interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties remain the same from the previous quarter. These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2024, and ending on September 30, 2024.

For the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.

In the Federal Register of February 8, 2024, FR Doc. 2024-02596, on page 8708, in the second column, correct the answer to the question “When will you put the rate adjustments into effect?” to read:

We will put the rate adjustments into effect for CY 2025.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all information collections require approval under the PRA. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of response.

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

Abstract: Interior is authorized by the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378 et seq. ), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (U.S.C. 661 et seq., as amended by John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, Title 25 U.S.C. 3701, et seq. sec. 7001(b)(2), Pub. L. 116-9) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1701, et seq., to collect this information. Interior is requesting approval to collect information from boaters entering or exiting water areas managed by various bureaus under Interior. The data will help document the presence and evaluate any risks associated with the unintentional introduction of quagga/zebra mussels and other aquatic invasive species in waters managed by the various bureaus under Interior. Collection of this information is required for all watercrafts entering and exiting waters managed by the various bureaus under Interior that have an active watercraft inspection and decontamination program.

The Regional Watercraft Inspection Decontamination Data Sharing System (Regional Database) was developed by the State of Colorado and is currently being utilized by numerous entities within the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species (WRP). The National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Land Management are part of the WRP and the regional network of state and federal agencies working to prevent the spread of quagga/zebra mussels and other aquatic invasive species (AIS) in the western U.S. The success of this multi-agency effort relies in part upon timely availability of accurate information related to trailered boats at watercraft inspection/decontamination (WID) stations. The Regional Database makes this information available to staff at WID stations, allowing them to assess risk associated with quagga/zebra mussels and other AIS on trailered boats. States have asked Federal partner agencies to use the Regional Database at their sites with WID programs.

Using the Regional Database requires that WID personnel ask boaters four questions and enter the responses via an app on a smartphone or tablet. Two of the four questions vary depending on whether a boater is entering or exiting the waterbody; the other two questions are the same for entering or exiting boaters:

Upon Entering:

1. Has the boat been out of the state in the last 30 days?

2. Where will the boat be launched next?

Upon Entering or Exiting:

1. What compartments or containers on the boat, including ballast tanks, hold water?

2. Does the boater have any live aquatic bait?

We would like to revise the information collection to include watercraft owner or boat hauler/transporter zip code. We are also changing the response time from 4 minutes to 3 minutes.

Title of Collection: Watercraft Inspection Decontamination Regional Data-Sharing for Trailered Boats.

OMB Control Number: 1090-0013.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Revision of already approved information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 416,376.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 416,376.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 3 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20,816 hours.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. (Upon entry, exit, or both).

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

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

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

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all information collections require approval under the PRA. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of response.

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

Abstract: The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) (Pub. L. 103-62) requires agencies to “improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.” To fulfill this responsibility, Department of the Interior (DOI, Interior) bureaus and offices must collect data from their respective user groups to better understand the needs and desires of the public and to respond accordingly. Executive Order 12862 “Setting Customer Service Standards” also requires all executive departments to “survey customers to determine . . . their level of satisfaction with existing services.” We use customer satisfaction surveys to help us fulfill our responsibilities to provide excellence in government by proactively consulting with those we serve. This programmatic clearance provides an expedited approval process for DOI bureaus and offices to conduct customer research through external surveys such as questionnaires and comment cards.

The proposed renewal covers all of the organizational units and bureaus in DOI. Information obtained from customers by bureaus and offices will be provided voluntarily. No one survey will cover all the topic areas; rather, these topic areas serve as a guide within which the bureaus and offices will develop questions. Questions may be asked in languages other than English ( e.g., Spanish) where appropriate. Topic areas include:

(1) Delivery, quality, and value of products, information, and services. Respondents may be asked for feedback regarding the following attributes of the information, service, and products provided:

(a) Timeliness.

(b) Consistency.

(c) Accuracy.

(d) Ease of Use and Usefulness.

(e) Ease of Information Access.

(f) Helpfulness.

(g) Quality.

(h) Value for fee paid for information/product/service.

(2) Management practices. This area covers questions relating to how well customers are aware of or satisfied with DOI management practices and processes, what improvements they might make to specific processes, and whether or not they feel specific issues were addressed and reconciled in a timely, courteous, and responsive manner.

(3) Mission management. We will ask customers to provide information of their existing knowledge, agreement, or satisfaction related to DOI's ability to protect, conserve, provide access to, provide scientific data about, and preserve natural, cultural, and recreational resources that we manage, and how well we are carrying out our trust responsibilities to American Indians.

(4) Rules, regulations, policies. This area focuses on obtaining feedback from customers regarding fairness, adequacy, and consistency in enforcing rules, regulations, and policies for which DOI is responsible. It will also help us understand public awareness of rules and regulations and whether or not they are explained in a clear and understandable manner.

(5) Interactions with DOI Personnel and Contractors. Questions will range from timeliness and quality of interactions to skill level of staff providing the assistance, as well as their courtesy and responsiveness during the interaction.

(6) General demographics. Some general demographics may be gathered to augment satisfaction questions so that we can better understand the customer and improve how we serve that customer. We may ask customers how many times they have used a service, visitation logistics including timing, distance traveled, and costs, as well as general characteristics ( e.g., race, age, residency, etc.) about themselves and their group.

(7) Experience and perceptions. This topic focuses on gathering specific details about the DOI experiences including logistics and planning, motivation for participating, and activities, as well as perceptions about the values, interactions, and activities. Similar to demographics, this information may augment satisfaction questions so that we can better understand the customer and improve how we serve that customer.

All requests to collect information under the auspices of this proposed renewal will be carefully evaluated to ensure consistency with the intent, requirements, and boundaries of this programmatic clearance. Interior's Office of Policy Analysis will conduct an administrative and technical review of each specific request in order to ensure statistical validity and soundness. All information collections are required to be designed and deployed based upon acceptable statistical practices and sampling methodologies, and procedures that account for and minimize non-response bias, in order to obtain consistent, valid data and statistics that are representative of the target populations.

Title of Collection: DOI Programmatic Clearance for Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 1040-0001.

Form Number: DI-4010.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: DOI customers, stakeholders, and partners. We define customers as anyone who uses, or could potentially use, DOI resources, products, or services. This includes past, current, and potential customers ( e.g., the American public, representatives of the private sector, academia, and other government agencies). We define stakeholders to mean groups or individuals who have an expressed interest in and who seek to influence the present and future state of DOI's resources, products, and services. We define partners as those groups, individuals, and agencies who are formally engaged in helping DOI accomplish its mission.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 65,000.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 65,000.

Average Completion Time per Response: 10 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,833.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

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

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

Topics for the RAC meeting are as follows: On May 8, 2024, the RAC will tour the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument to view a variety of resources, visitor uses, and management activities. To attend the field tour, please RSVP by Friday, May 3, to the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this notice. On May 9, 2024, the RAC will be briefed on the management of the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument and identify opportunities to engage in the Monument planning process. The RAC will also receive presentations and make recommendations on fee proposals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service for multiple sites located in the Los Padres National Forest, the Sierra National Forest, and the Tahoe National Forest. In addition, the RAC will schedule additional meeting dates for 2024-2025.

The meeting and field tour are open to the public. The formal RAC meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak and the time available, the amount of time for oral comments may be limited. Written public comments may be sent to the BLM Central California District Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. All comments received will be provided to the RAC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Members of the public wishing to participate in the field tour must provide their own transportation and meals.

Meeting Accessibility/Special Accommodations: For sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodations, please contact the BLM (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least seven business days before the meeting to ensure there is sufficient time to process the request. The Department of the Interior manages accommodation requests on a case-by-case basis.

Detailed minutes for the RAC meetings will be maintained in the BLM Central California District Office. Minutes will also be posted to the BLM Central California RAC web page.

As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the BLM will issue an appealable decision to Beaver Kwit'chin Corporation. The decision approves conveyance of the surface estate in certain lands pursuant to ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq. ), as amended. As provided by ANCSA, the subsurface estate in the same lands will be conveyed to Doyon, Limited, when the surface estate is conveyed to Beaver Kwit'chin Corporation. The lands are located in the vicinity of Beaver, Alaska, and are described as:

The decision addresses public access easements, if any, to be reserved to the United States pursuant to sec. 17(b) of ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1616(b)), in the lands described above.

The BLM will also publish notice of the decision once a week for four consecutive weeks in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner newspaper.

Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:

1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until May 6, 2024 to file an appeal.

2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.

Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by facsimile will not be accepted as timely filed.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on February 27, 2024, Sterling Wisconsin, LLC, W130N10497 Washington Drive, Germantown, Wisconsin 53022-4448, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for commercial sale to its customers. In reference to drug codes 7350 (Marihuana Extract), 7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on February 28, 2024, Patheon Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2110 East Galbraith Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45237-1625, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to manufacture the above listed controlled substance as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient that will be further synthesized into Food and Drug Administration-approved dosage forms. No other activities for this drug code are authorized for this registration.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 4, 2024, Lonza Tampa, LLC., 4901 West Grace Street, Tampa, Florida 33607-3805, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to import drug code 7437 (Psilocybin) as finished dosage units for clinical trials, research, and analytical purposes. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on February 27, 2024, Benuvia Operations, LLC, 3950 North Mays Street, Round Rock, Texas 78665, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substance for dosage formulation development. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

On October 28, 2016, the Department published PTE 2016-11 in the Federal Register . 1 PTE 2016-11 is a temporary administrative exemption that permits certain entities (the Northern Trust Qualified Professional Asset Managers (QPAMs)) with specified relationships to Northern Trust Fiduciary Services (Guernsey) ltd. (NTFS) to continue to rely upon the relief provided by the Department's QPAM Exemption  2 for a one-year period, notwithstanding a judgment of conviction against NTFS for aiding and abetting tax fraud. 3