The Economic Development Administration (EDA) leads the Federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. Guided by the basic principle that sustainable economic development should be locally-driven, EDA works directly with communities and regions to help them build the capacity for economic development based on local business conditions and needs. The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA) (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ) is EDA's organic authority and is the primary legal authority under which EDA awards financial assistance. Under PWEDA, EDA provides financial assistance to both rural and urban distressed communities by fostering entrepreneurship, innovation, and productivity through investments in infrastructure development, capacity building, and business development to attract private capital investments and new and better jobs to regions experiencing economic distress. Further information on EDA programs and financial assistance opportunities can be found at www.eda.gov.

To effectively administer and monitor its economic development assistance programs, EDA collects certain information from applicants for, and recipients of, EDA investment assistance. The purpose of this notice is to seek comments from the public and other Federal agencies on a request for an extension of this information collection where a recipient must submit a written request to EDA to amend an investment award and provide such information and documentation as EDA deems necessary to determine the merit of altering the terms of an award (see 13 CFR 302.7(a)). Additionally, EDA may require a recipient to submit a project service map and information from which to determine whether services are provided to all segments of the region being assisted (see 13 CFR 302.16(c)). This information collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2025.

Amendments and project service maps are collected via both paper or electronic submissions, including email. A recipient must submit a written request to EDA to amend an investment award and provide such information and documentation as EDA deems necessary to determine the merit of altering the terms of an award (see 13 CFR 302.7(a)). EDA may require a recipient to submit a project service map and information from which to determine whether services are provided to all segments of the region being assisted (see CFR 302.16(c)). EDA is not proposing any changes to the current information collection request.

OMB Control Number: 0610-0102.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission; Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Current recipients of EDA awards, including: (1) cities or other political subdivisions of a State, including a special purpose unit of State or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; (2) States; (3) institutions of higher education; (4) public or private non-profit organizations or associations; (5) District Organizations; (6) Indian Tribes; and (7) (for training, research, and technical assistance awards only) individuals and for-profit businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 632 (600 requests for amendments to construction awards, 30 requests for amendments to non-construction awards, 2 project service maps).

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours for an amendment to a construction award, 1 hour for an amendment to a non-construction award, 6 hours for a project service map.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,242 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $85,201 (cost assumes application of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics September 2024 hourly employer costs for employee compensation for professional and related occupations of $68.60).

Legal Authority: The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ).

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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 may 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.

Background: The Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. ) (Act) established the FirstNet Authority as an independent authority within NTIA. The Act directs the FirstNet Authority to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. The FirstNet Authority Board is responsible for making strategic decisions regarding the operations of the FirstNet Authority.

Matters to be Considered: The FirstNet Authority will post a detailed agenda for the Combined Board and Board Committees Meeting on FirstNet.gov prior to the meeting. The agenda topics are subject to change. Please note that the subjects discussed by the Board and Board Committees may involve commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, or other legal matters affecting the FirstNet Authority. As such, the Board may, by majority vote, close the meeting only for the time necessary to preserve the confidentiality of such information, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 1424(e)(2).

Other Information: The public Combined Board and Board Committees Meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Jennifer Watts at (571) 665-6178 or email: Jennifer.Watts@FirstNet.gov before the meeting.

Records: The FirstNet Authority maintains records of all Board proceedings. Minutes of the Combined Board and Board Committees Meeting will be available on FirstNet.gov .

On May 23, 2024, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited comments from interested parties. 1 On June 21, 2024, Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. (Toyo Kohan), the sole mandatory respondent, submitted its case brief. On June 27, 2024, Thomas Steel Strip Corporation (the petitioner) submitted its rebuttal brief. On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days. 2 On August 27, 2024, Commerce extended the deadline for these final results until November 26, 2024. 3 For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4 Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products subject to the Order are nickel-plated steel products. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs 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 our Preliminary Results, we made certain changes to the weighted-average dumping margin calculations for Toyo Kohan. 6

For these final results, we determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for Toyo Kohan in connection with these final results to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , 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.

For Toyo Kohan, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 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 ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), 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 Toyo Kohan for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to an 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 established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of 45.42 percent ad valorem, 7 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of 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 that is 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 rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 45.42 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 8 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 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.

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping duty (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation.

All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review (POR). We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. Commerce invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

In general, Commerce finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating AD rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of a review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this AD proceeding ( i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review, or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to a review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to: (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed; and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete a Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of a proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. 1 Section 773(e) of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial Section D responses.

Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of December 2024, 2 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in December for the following periods:

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on July 17, 2024. 1 On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days. 2 On September 6, 2024, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until November 25, 2024. 3

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary 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 Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by this investigation are brake drums from Türkiye. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, ( i.e., scope). 6 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Commerce intends to issue its preliminary decision regarding comments concerning the scope of the antidumping (AD) and CVD investigations in the preliminary determinations of the companion AD investigations. We will incorporate the scope decisions from the AD investigations into the scope of the final CVD determination for this investigation after considering any relevant comments submitted in scope case and rebuttal briefs. 7

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 8 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminarily determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce notes that, in making its findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more entities did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 9 For further information, see the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the concurrent AD investigation of brake drums from Türkiye based on a request made by the petitioner. 10 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than April 8, 2025 unless postponed. 11

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for companies not individually investigated, Commerce will determine an “all-others” rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. If the rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under facts available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate. 12

In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily calculated an individual countervailable subsidy rate for EKU Fren ve Dok. San. A.S. (EKU) that is de minimis. Further, Commerce has preliminarily determined Akkus Dokum San.Ve Tic.Ltd.Sti's, Buyuk Eker Bijon Sanayi Ve Ticaret's, and Genk Otomotiv San.Dis Tic.Ltd.Sti.'s rates entirely under facts available with an adverse inference pursuant to section 776 of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we are preliminarily applying a simple average of the subsidy rates calculated for Akkus Dokum San.Ve Tic.Ltd.Sti, Buyuk Eker Bijon Sanayi Ve Ticaret, Genk Otomotiv San.Dis Tic.Ltd.Sti., and EKU as the all-others rate. 13

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.

With the exception of entries from EKU, in accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in Appendix I entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above. Because we preliminarily determine that the CVD rate in this investigation for EKU is de minimis, we will not direct CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of the subject merchandise from Türikye produced and exported by EKU.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

All interested parties will have the opportunity to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs on the preliminary decision regarding the scope of the AD and CVD investigations. The deadlines to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs will be provided in the preliminary scope decision memorandum. For all scope case and rebuttal briefs, parties must file identical documents simultaneously on the records of the ongoing AD and CVD brake drums investigations. No new factual information or business proprietary information may be included in either scope case or rebuttal briefs.

Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 14 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 15

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 16 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 17

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of brake drums from Türkiye are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3), we are notifying the public of the following scope ruling applications related to AD and CVD orders and findings filed in or around the month of October 2024. This notification includes, for each scope application: (1) identification of the AD and/or CVD orders at issue (19 CFR 351.225(c)(1)); (2) concise public descriptions of the products at issue, including the physical characteristics (including chemical, dimensional and technical characteristics) of the products (19 CFR 351.225(c)(2)(ii)); (3) the countries where the products are produced and the countries from where the products are exported (19 CFR 351.225(c)(2)(i)(B)); (4) the full names of the applicants; and (5) the dates that the scope applications were filed with Commerce and the name of the ACCESS scope segment where the scope applications can be found. 1 This notice does not include applications which have been rejected and not properly resubmitted. The scope ruling applications listed below are available on Commerce's online e-filing and document management system, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Electronic Service System (ACCESS), at https://access.trade.gov.

Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China) (A-570-967/C-570-968); Heat sinks;  2 produced in and exported from China; submitted by IPG Photonics Corporation (IPG Photonics); October 4, 2024; ACCESS scope segment “IPG Photonics Heat Sink.”

Hand Trucks from China (A-570-891); Flatbed utility carts;  3 produced in and exported from China; submitted by Utility Transportation Carts, Inc. (UTC); October 17, 2024; ACCESS scope segment “UTC Flatbed Utility Cart.”

Large Diameter Welded Carbon and Alloy Steel Line Pipe from India (A-533-881/C-533-882); large diameter welded pipe with 18 inch outside diameter, 0.688 inches or greater wall thickness;  4 produced in and exported from India; submitted by Shawcor Pipe Protection Acquisition Corp.; October 21, 2024; ACCESS scope segment “Shawcor Pipe.”

Aluminum Extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968); Flatbed utility cart;  5 produced in and exported from China; submitted by UTC; October 22, 2024; ACCESS scope segment “UTC Flatbed Utility Cart.”

This list of scope ruling applications is not an identification of scope inquiries that have been initiated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(1), if Commerce has not rejected a scope ruling application nor initiated the scope inquiry within 30 days after the filing of the application, the application will be deemed accepted and a scope inquiry will be deemed initiated the following day—day 31. 6 Commerce's practice generally dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend, Federal holiday, or other non-business day, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. 7 Accordingly, if the 30th day after the filing of the application falls on a non-business day, the next business day will be considered the “updated” 30th day, and if the application is not rejected or a scope inquiry initiated by or on that particular business day, the application will be deemed accepted and a scope inquiry will be deemed initiated on the next business day which follows the “updated” 30th day. 8

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(m)(2), if there are companion AD and CVD orders covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin, the scope inquiry will be conducted on the record of the AD proceeding. Further, please note that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(m)(1), Commerce may either apply a scope ruling to all products from the same country with the same relevant physical characteristics, (including chemical, dimensional, and technical characteristics) as the product at issue, on a country-wide basis, regardless of the producer, exporter, or importer of those products, or on a company-specific basis.

For further information on procedures for filing information with Commerce through ACCESS and participating in scope inquiries, please refer to the Filing Instructions section of the Scope Ruling Application Guide, at https://access.trade.gov/help/Scope_Ruling_Guidance.pdf. Interested parties, apart from the scope ruling applicant, who wish to participate in a scope inquiry and be added to the public service list for that segment of the proceeding must file an entry of appearance in accordance with 19 CFR 351.103(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.225(n)(4). Interested parties are advised to refer to the case segment in ACCESS as well as 19 CFR 351.225(f) for further information on the scope inquiry procedures, including the timelines for the submission of comments.

Please note that this notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings may be published before any potential initiation, or after the initiation, of a given scope inquiry based on a scope ruling application identified in this notice. Therefore, please refer to the case segment on ACCESS to determine whether a scope ruling application has been accepted or rejected and whether a scope inquiry has been initiated.

Interested parties who wish to be served scope ruling applications for a particular AD or CVD order may file a request to be included on the annual inquiry service list during the anniversary month of the publication of the AD or CVD order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(n) and Commerce's procedures. 9

Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this monthly list of scope ruling applications received by Commerce. Any comments should be submitted to Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to CommerceCLU@trade.gov.

This notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3).

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on July 17, 2024. 1 On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days. 2 On September 6, 2024, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination until November 25, 2024. 3

For a complete description of events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary 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 Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by this investigation are brake drums from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 6 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Commerce intends to issue its preliminary decision regarding comments concerning the scope of the antidumping (AD) and CVD investigations in the preliminary determination of the companion AD investigations. We will incorporate the scope decisions from the AD investigations into the scope of the final CVD determination for this investigation after considering any relevant comments submitted in scope case and rebuttal briefs. 7

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 8 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available, and, because it finds that certain companies that failed to timely respond to Commerce's quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire, as well as the Government of China, did not act to the best of their abilities to respond to Commerce's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 9 For further information, see the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the concurrent AD investigation of brake drums from China, based on a request made by the petitioner. 10 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than April 8, 2025, unless postponed. 11

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that, in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily calculated total net subsidy rates for CAIEC Trailer Master Co., Ltd. (CAIEC Trailer) and Shandong ConMet Mechanical, Ltd. (Shandong ConMet) that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on the facts otherwise available. Because Commerce calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for CAIEC Trailer and Shandong ConMet that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on the facts otherwise available, we have preliminarily calculated the all-others rate using a weighted-average of the individual estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents using each company's publicly-ranged sales values. 12

Thirteen potential exporters and/or producers of brake drums from China did not timely respond to Commerce's Q&V questionnaire. 13 We find that, by not timely responding to the Q&V questionnaire, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded this proceeding. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we are basing the subsidy rate for the non-responsive companies on facts otherwise available.

We further preliminarily determine that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to submit responses to Commerce's Q&V questionnaire, the non-responsive companies did not cooperate to the best of their abilities in this investigation. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that an adverse inference is warranted to ensure that the non-responsive companies will not obtain a more favorable result than had they fully complied with our request for information. For more information on the application of adverse facts available to the non-responsive companies, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Determination Memorandum.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

All interested parties will have the opportunity to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs on the preliminary decision regarding the scope of the AD and CVD investigations. The deadlines to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs will be provided in the preliminary scope decision memorandum. For all scope case and rebuttal briefs, parties must file identical documents simultaneously on the records of the ongoing AD and CVD brake drums investigations. No new factual information or business proprietary information may be included in either scope case or rebuttal briefs.

Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 16 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 17

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 18 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 19

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing. 20 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of brake drums from China are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 703(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

Title: Notification Requirements for Coal and Wood Burning Appliances.

OMB Number: 3041-0040.

Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of coal and wood burning appliances.

Estimated Number of Respondents: We estimate five responses annually.

Estimated Time per Response: We estimate three hours per submission and 30 minutes for collecting and mailing the information to the CPSC.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: The total estimated annual burden is 17.5 hours (5 submissions × 3.5 hours).

Total Estimated Annual Cost to Respondents: The total estimated annualized respondent cost is approximately $795, based on an average total hourly employee compensation rate of $45.41 for private industry workers in goods producing industries (17.5 hours × $45.41 = $794.68) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 4, June 2024, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09102024.pdf. )

General Description of Collection: In 16 CFR part 1406, Coal and Wood Burning Appliances—Notification of Performance and Technical Data, issued under Section 27(e) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2076(e), CPSC requires that certain performance and technical data be supplied on labeling attached to or accompanying each model of coal and wood burning stoves, freestanding fireplaces, similar appliances, and in instruction manuals provided with the appliances so consumers will be aware of important safety information concerning the installation, operation, and maintenance of these appliances. In addition, catalogs and other point-of-sale literature are required to contain appropriate clearances and other information.

The rule also contains a requirement that manufacturers provide to the Commission copies of the notice (label) and the directions (instruction manual). Manufacturers must also provide the Commission with a statement of the reasons supporting the manufacturer's conclusion that clearance distances stated in the notice to consumers are appropriate for preventing fires, for each stove model manufactured. This information must also be supplied when there is any change in the required data or when a new model is introduced.

All known manufacturers have already complied with the requirements for providing information in labels, manuals, catalogs, and point-of-sale literature and have met the requirements for submitting all labels and owner's manuals. For the known manufacturers, there should be no additional burden associated with the requirements of 16 CFR part 1406, except when existing models are changed, or new models are introduced. We anticipate that there will be no more than five submissions annually as a result of new stove models coming into the market or new firms entering the market.

Request for Comments:

The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

• whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;

• whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;

• whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and

• whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the SPDG program is to assist State educational agencies (SEAs) in reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation and professional development in early intervention, educational, and transition services to improve results for children with disabilities.

Assistance Listing Number: 84.323A.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.

Background: “Raise the Bar: Lead the World” (RTB) is the Department's call to action to transform prekindergarten through postsecondary learning and unite around what truly works by promoting academic excellence, boldly improving learning conditions, and preparing our Nation's students for global competitiveness ( www.ed.gov/raisethebar/ ). A well-prepared and supported and sustainable educator workforce available to educate and support all children and youth, including children and youth with disabilities, is essential to this call to action. This competition is designed to support the Department's RTB goals. Specifically, the priorities for this competition are designed to support projects that—

• Mitigate the barriers to improved educational opportunities and outcomes and functional results for children with disabilities by increasing the number of well-qualified, fully certified special education teachers, including paraprofessionals;

• Increase collaborative and effective instruction and services for children with disabilities;

• Expand the ability of principals to serve as instructional leaders who create an equity-based, cooperative, and inclusive environment; and

• Provide pre-service and in-service personnel with the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspiration to engage effectively with families.

The SPDG program, as a pre-service and in-service professional development program, is uniquely positioned to support the Department's RTB goals by helping to ensure that children with disabilities have access to well-qualified educators and by growing the number of teachers and administrators who can use data to develop and implement standards-based individualized education programs (IEPs) and provide effective instruction in inclusive environments. The priorities specified in this notice are designed to support pathways and professional development for personnel to improve outcomes for children with disabilities. For more on the Department's work to eliminate educator shortages, see www.ed.gov/raisethebar/educators.

This competition also includes four competitive preference priorities, detailed later in this notice. Applicants may address up to two. We note that Competitive Preference Priority 1 encourages applications that provide pathways for becoming fully certified special education teachers that are affordable and provide for robust preservice classroom experience. By reducing the cost of earning a license and offering flexible scheduling, teacher residency, Grow Your Own (GYO), and registered teacher apprenticeships programs are designed to bring more people into the profession. These programs may open doors to the profession for those who may otherwise face barriers to entrance, including multilingual, racially, and ethnically diverse individuals, individuals who have disabilities, and paraprofessionals who may already have decades of classroom experience, but for numerous reasons, including cost, could not pursue a teaching degree or a high-quality pathway into the profession that includes significant clinical experience.

Research shows that high-quality residency models can expand the pool of well-prepared applicants entering the teaching profession, increase the diversity of the workforce and bring a wide range of experiences into the classroom to support students. 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 (Silva et al., 2014).

When aligned to high-quality, evidence-based practices for education preparation, such as those drafted by the Pathways Alliance ( www.thepathwaysalliance.org/reports ) and approved by the Department of Labor, registered teacher apprenticeship programs have the potential to be an effective, high-quality “earn and learn” model that allow candidates to earn their teaching credential while earning a salary by combining coursework with structured, paid on-the-job learning experiences with a mentor teacher (Pathways Alliance, 2023). Registered teacher 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 teacher residencies and GYO.

GYO is an approach to developing a pipeline of educator candidates to meet specific workforce needs that seeks to eliminate any barriers that may prevent local candidates from entering or remaining in the field. GYO programs are distinguished from other pipelines by whom they target, focusing on recruitment of high school students, career changers, paraprofessionals, non-teaching-school faculty, and community members (Espinoza et al., 2018). Offering financial aid ( e.g., loan forgiveness, grants, and scholarships) to candidates completing GYO programs, targeting communication to specific populations, and establishing systems for candidates to receive continuous coaching and mentoring from entrance into the GYO program through early service can all aid in the success of these programs (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Professional Educator Standards Board, 2018; Texas Comprehensive Center, 2018). GYO programs can help address shortages in high-need areas and subjects, such as in rural schools and in special education (Jessen et al., 2020); it can also result in improved recruitment and retention of teachers of color (Gist et al., 2019).

Priorities: This notice contains three absolute priorities and four competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(1), Absolute Priority 1 is from the notice of final priorities and definitions (NFP) published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2012 (77 FR 45944) (2012 NFP); and Absolute Priority 3 and the four competitive preference priorities are from the NFP published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2024 (89 FR 56211) (2024 NFP). In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), Absolute Priority 2 is from sections 651 through 655 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2025 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 Absolute Priorities 1, 2, and 3 ( i.e., an applicant must address all three absolute priorities in their application).

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of Professional Development.

The Department establishes a priority to assist SEAs in reforming and improving their systems for personnel (as that term is defined in section 651(b) of IDEA) preparation and professional development of individuals providing early intervention, educational, and transition services in order to improve results for children with disabilities.

In order to meet this priority an applicant must demonstrate in the SPDG State Plan it submits as part of its application under section 653(a)(2) of IDEA that its proposed project will—

(1) Use evidence-based (as defined in this notice) professional development practices that will increase implementation of evidence-based practices and result in improved outcomes for children with disabilities;

(2) Provide ongoing assistance to personnel receiving SPDG-supported professional development that supports the implementation of evidence-based practices with fidelity (as defined in this notice); and

(3) Use technology to more efficiently and effectively provide ongoing professional development to personnel, including to personnel in rural areas and to other populations, such as personnel in urban or high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) (as defined in this notice).

Absolute Priority 2: State Personnel Development Grants.

Statutory Requirements. To meet this priority, an applicant must meet the following statutory requirements:

1. State Personnel Development Plan.

An applicant must submit a State Personnel Development Plan that identifies and addresses the State and local needs for the personnel preparation and professional development of personnel, as well as individuals who provide direct supplementary aids and services to children with disabilities, and that—

(a) Is designed to enable the State to meet the requirements of section 612(a)(14) of IDEA, as amended by the ESSA, and section 635(a)(8) and (9) of IDEA;

(b) Is based on an assessment of State and local needs that identifies critical aspects and areas in need of improvement related to the preparation, ongoing training, and professional development of personnel who serve infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and children with disabilities within the State, including—

(1) Current and anticipated personnel vacancies and shortages; and

(2) The number of preservice and in-service programs;

(c) Is integrated and aligned, to the maximum extent possible, with State plans and activities under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; and the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA);

(d) Describes a partnership agreement that is in effect for the period of the grant, which agreement must specify—

(1) The nature and extent of the partnership described in section 652(b) of IDEA and the respective roles of each member of the partnership, including, if applicable, an individual, entity, or agency other than the SEA that has the responsibility under State law for teacher preparation and certification; and

(2) How the SEA will work with other persons and organizations involved in, and concerned with, the education of children with disabilities, including the respective roles of each of the persons and organizations;

(e) Describes how the strategies and activities the SEA uses to address identified professional development and personnel needs will be coordinated with activities supported with other public resources (including funds provided under Part B and Part C of IDEA and retained for use at the State level for personnel and professional development purposes) and private resources;

(f) Describes how the SEA will align its personnel development plan with the plan and application submitted under sections 1111 and 2101(d), respectively, of the ESEA;

(g) Describes strategies the SEA will use to address the identified professional development and personnel needs and how such strategies will be implemented, including—

(1) A description of the programs and activities that will provide personnel with the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of, and improve the performance and achievement of, infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and children with disabilities; and

(2) How such strategies will be integrated, to the maximum extent possible, with other activities supported by grants funded under section 662 of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1462);

(h) Provides an assurance that the SEA will provide TA to LEAs to improve the quality of professional development available to meet the needs of personnel who serve children with disabilities;

(i) Provides an assurance that the SEA will provide TA to entities that provide services to infants and toddlers with disabilities to improve the quality of professional development available to meet the needs of personnel serving such children;

(j) Describes how the SEA will recruit and retain teachers who meet the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), and other qualified personnel in geographic areas of greatest need;

(k) Describes the steps the SEA will take to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates by teachers who do not meet the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C))); and

(l) Describes how the SEA will assess, on a regular basis, the extent to which the strategies implemented have been effective in meeting the performance goals described in section 612(a)(15) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(15)).

2. Partnerships.

(a) Required Partners.

Applicants must establish a partnership with LEAs and other State agencies involved in, or concerned with, the education of children with disabilities, including—

(1) Not less than one institution of higher education (IHE);

(2) The State agencies responsible for administering Part C of IDEA, early education, childcare, and vocational rehabilitation programs; and

(3) In accordance with section 652(b)(3) of IDEA, if State law assigns responsibility for teacher preparation and certification to an individual, entity, or agency other than the SEA, such individual, entity, or agency. The SEA must ensure that any activities it carries out under this program that are within such partner's jurisdiction (which may include activities described in section 654(b) of IDEA) are carried out by that partner.

(b) Other Partners.

An SEA must work in partnership with other persons and organizations involved in, and concerned with, the education of children with disabilities, which may include—

(1) The Governor;

(2) Parents of children with disabilities ages birth through 26;

(3) Parents of nondisabled children ages birth through 26;

(4) Individuals with disabilities;

(5) Parent training and information centers or community parent resource centers funded under sections 671 and 672 of IDEA, respectively;

(6) Community based and other nonprofit organizations involved in the education and employment of individuals with disabilities;

(7) Personnel as defined in section 651(b) of IDEA;

(8) The State advisory panel established under Part B of IDEA;

(9) The State interagency coordinating council established under Part C of IDEA;

(10) Individuals knowledgeable about vocational education;

(11) The State agency for higher education;

(12) Public agencies with jurisdiction in the areas of health, mental health, social services, and juvenile justice;

(13) Other providers of professional development that work with infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and children with disabilities; and

(14) Other individuals.

3. Use of Funds.

(a) Professional Development Activities—Each SEA that receives a grant under this program must use the grant funds to support activities in accordance with the State's Personnel Development Plan, including one or more of the following:

(1) Carrying out programs that provide support to both special education and regular education teachers of children with disabilities and principals, such as programs that—

(i) Provide teacher mentoring, team teaching, reduced class schedules and caseloads, and intensive professional development;

(ii) Use standards or assessments for guiding beginning teachers that are consistent with challenging State academic achievement standards and with the requirements for professional development, as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA; and

(iii) Encourage collaborative and consultative models of providing early intervention, special education, and related services.

(2) Encouraging and supporting the training of special education and regular education teachers and administrators to effectively use and integrate technology—

(i) Into curricula and instruction, including training to improve the ability to collect, manage, and analyze data to improve teaching, decision making, school improvement efforts, and accountability;

(ii) To enhance learning by children with disabilities; and

(iii) To effectively communicate with parents.

(3) Providing professional development activities that—

(i) Improve the knowledge of special education and regular education teachers concerning—

(A) The academic and developmental or functional needs of students with disabilities; or

(B) Effective instructional strategies, methods, and skills, and the use of State academic content standards and student academic achievement and functional standards, and State assessments, to improve teaching practices and student academic achievement;

(ii) Improve the knowledge of special education and regular education teachers and principals and, in appropriate cases, paraprofessionals, concerning effective instructional practices, and that—

(A) Provide training in how to teach and address the needs of children with different learning styles and children who are limited English proficient;

(B) Involve collaborative groups of teachers, administrators, and, in appropriate cases, related services personnel;

(C) Provide training in methods of—

(1) Positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve student behavior in the classroom;

(2) Scientifically based reading instruction, including early literacy instruction;

(3) Early and appropriate interventions to identify and help children with disabilities;

(4) Effective instruction for children with low-incidence disabilities;

(5) Successful transitioning to postsecondary opportunities; and

(6) Using classroom-based techniques to assist children prior to referral for special education;

(D) Provide training to enable personnel to work with and involve parents in their child's education, including parents of low income and limited English proficient children with disabilities;

(E) Provide training for special education personnel and regular education personnel in planning, developing, and implementing effective and appropriate individualized education programs (IEPs); and

(F) Provide training to meet the needs of students with significant health, mobility, or behavioral needs prior to serving those students;

(iii) Train administrators, principals, and other relevant school personnel in conducting effective IEP meetings; and

(iv) Train early intervention, preschool, and related services providers, and other relevant school personnel in conducting effective individualized family service plan (IFSP) meetings.

(4) Developing and implementing initiatives to promote the recruitment and retention of special education teachers who meet the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of IDEA, as amended by the ESSA, particularly initiatives that have proven effective in recruiting and retaining teachers, including programs that provide—

(i) Teacher mentoring from exemplary special education teachers, principals, or superintendents;

(ii) Induction and support for special education teachers during their first three years of employment as teachers; or

(iii) Incentives, including financial incentives, to retain special education teachers who have a record of success in helping students with disabilities.

(5) Carrying out programs and activities that are designed to improve the quality of personnel who serve children with disabilities, such as—

(i) Innovative professional development programs (which may be provided through partnerships that include IHEs), including programs that train teachers and principals to integrate technology into curricula and instruction to improve teaching, learning, and technology literacy, which must be consistent with the definition of professional development in section 8101 of the ESEA; and

(ii) The development and use of proven, cost-effective strategies for the implementation of professional development activities, such as through the use of technology and distance learning.

(6) Carrying out programs and activities that are designed to improve the quality of early intervention personnel, including paraprofessionals and primary referral sources, such as—

(i) Professional development programs to improve the delivery of early intervention services;

(ii) Initiatives to promote the recruitment and retention of early intervention personnel; and

(iii) Interagency activities to ensure that early intervention personnel are adequately prepared and trained.

(b) Other Activities—Each SEA that receives a grant under this program must use the grant funds to support activities in accordance with the State's Personnel Development Plan, including one or more of the following:

(1) Reforming special education and regular education teacher certification (including recertification) or licensing requirements to ensure that—

(i) Special education and regular education teachers have—

(A) The training and information necessary to address the full range of needs of children with disabilities across disability categories; and

(B) The necessary subject matter knowledge and teaching skills in the academic subjects that the teachers teach;

(ii) Special education and regular education teacher certification (including recertification) or licensing requirements are aligned with challenging State academic content standards; and

(iii) Special education and regular education teachers have the subject matter knowledge and teaching skills, including technology literacy, necessary to help students with disabilities meet challenging State student academic achievement and functional standards.

(2) Programs that establish, expand, or improve alternative routes for State certification of special education teachers for individuals with a baccalaureate or master's degree who meet the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)) including mid-career professionals from other occupations, paraprofessionals, and recent college or university graduates with records of academic distinction who demonstrate the potential to become highly effective special education teachers.

(3) Teacher advancement initiatives for special education teachers that promote professional growth and emphasize multiple career paths (such as paths to becoming a career teacher, mentor teacher, or exemplary teacher) and pay differentiation.

(4) Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist LEAs and schools in effectively recruiting and retaining special education teachers who meet the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)).

(5) Reforming tenure systems, implementing teacher testing for subject matter knowledge, and implementing teacher testing for State certification or licensure, consistent with title II of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq. ).

(6) Funding projects to promote reciprocity of teacher certification or licensing between or among States for special education teachers, except that no reciprocity agreement developed under this absolute priority or developed using funds awarded under the SPDG competition may lead to the weakening of any State teacher certification or licensing requirement.

(7) Assisting LEAs to serve children with disabilities through the development and use of proven, innovative strategies to deliver intensive professional development programs that are both cost effective and easily accessible, such as strategies that involve delivery through the use of technology, peer networks, and distance learning.

(8) Developing, or assisting LEAs in developing, merit-based performance systems and strategies that provide differential and bonus pay for special education teachers.

(9) Supporting activities that ensure that teachers are able to use challenging State academic content standards and student academic achievement and functional standards, and State assessments for all children with disabilities, to improve instructional practices and improve the academic achievement of children with disabilities.

(10) When applicable, coordinating with, and expanding centers established under section 2113(c)(18) of the ESEA, as amended by No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, to benefit special education teachers.

(c) Contracts and Subgrants—An SEA that receives a grant under this program—

(1) Must award contracts or subgrants to LEAs, IHEs, parent training and information centers, or community parent resource centers, as appropriate, to carry out the State Personnel Development Plan; and

(2) May award contracts and subgrants to other public and private entities, including the State lead agency (LA) (as defined in this notice) under Part C of IDEA, to carry out the State Personnel Development Plan.

(d) Use of Funds for Professional Development—An SEA that receives a grant under this program must use—

(1) Not less than 90 percent of the funds the SEA receives under the grant for any fiscal year for the Professional Development Activities described in paragraph (a); and

(2) Not more than 10 percent of the funds the SEA receives under the grant for any fiscal year for the Other Activities described in paragraph (b).

Absolute Priority 3: Improving Engagement between Schools and Families.

Projects designed to develop the capacity of administrators and educators to develop systems and use strategies that build trust and engagement with families, while further strengthening the role families play in their child's development and learning. Projects must—

(a) Provide training and coaching to assist administrators to—

(1) Develop and implement policies and programs that recognize families' funds of knowledge, connect family engagement to student learning, and create welcoming, inviting cultures; and

(2) Create systems that support staff and families in meaningful engagement ( i.e., Leading by Convening and the Dual-Capacity Framework. For more information visit www.dualcapcity.org and www.ncsi.wested.org/resources/leading-by-convening );

(b) Provide training and coaching to assist educators and early intervention providers to—

(1) Build their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, and behaviors about effective strategies to engage families in their child's learning;

(2) Work with families to make collaborative, data-based decisions in the development and implementation of the child's IEP; and

(3) Provide information and resources to families that enable them to support their children's learning and behavior at home; and

(c) Provide training and coaching to families so they can—

(1) Meaningfully participate in the development and implementation of their child's IEP;

(2) Participate in data-based decision making related to their child's education; and

(3) Further their child's learning at home.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these four priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award additional points to an application that meets up to two of these competitive preference priorities. An applicant is not required to address any of the competitive preference priorities. If an applicant addresses the competitive preference priorities, the applicant must indicate which one or two competitive preference priorities they are responding to in the application. We award up to an additional 5 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 1. For Competitive Preference Priorities 2, 3, and 4, we award up to an additional 2 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets the competitive preference priority.

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Providing Career Pathways for Those Interested in Becoming Fully Certified Special Education Teachers, Including Paraprofessionals, Through Residency, Grow Your Own (GYO), and Registered Apprenticeships Programs (up to 5 points).

Projects designed to increase the number of fully certified special education teachers by establishing a new, or enhancing an existing, teacher residency, GYO, or registered teacher apprenticeship program that minimizes or eliminates the cost of certification for special education teacher candidates and provides opportunities for candidates to be paid, including being provided with a stipend (which, for programs that include paid experience for the duration of the certification program, can be met through paragraph (i), below), to cover the time spent gaining classroom experience during their certification program.

A project implementing a new or enhanced teacher residency, GYO, or registered teacher apprenticeship program must—

(a) Use data-driven strategies and evidence-based approaches to increase recruitment, successful completion, and retention of the special education teachers supported by the project;

(b) Provide standards for participants to enter into and complete the program;

(c) Be aligned to evidence-based practices for effective educator preparation;

(d) Have little to no financial burden for program participants, or provide for loan forgiveness, grants, or scholarship programs;

(e) Provide opportunities for candidates to be paid, including being provided with a stipend, to cover time spent in clinical experience during their certification program;

(f) Develop a plan to monitor program quality;

(g) Require completion of a bachelor's degree either before entering or as a result of the teacher residency, GYO, or teacher apprenticeship program;

(h) Result in the satisfaction of all requirements for full State teacher licensure or certification, excluding emergency, temporary, provisional, or other sub-standard licensure or certification;

(i) Provide increasing levels of responsibility for the resident/GYO participant/apprentice during at least one year of paid on-the-job learning/clinical experience, during which a mentor teacher is the teacher of record; and

(j) Develop a plan to ensure the program has funding after the end of the project period.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must address the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Supporting Emergency Certified Special Education Teachers to Become Fully Certified (up to 2 points).

Projects designed to increase the number of fully certified special education teachers by implementing plans that address the emergency certification needs of personnel who work with children with disabilities. The plans must—

(a) Identify the barriers and challenges to full certification that are experienced by special education personnel on emergency certifications;

(b) Include evidence-based strategies to address those barriers and challenges and assist special education personnel on emergency certifications to obtain full certification, consistent with State-approved or State-recognized requirements, within three years;

(c) Include training and coaching on, at a minimum—

(1) The skills needed to collaboratively develop, implement, and monitor standards-based IEPs;

(2) High-leverage and evidence-based instructional and classroom management practices; and

(3) The provision of wrap-around services ( e.g., social, emotional, and mental health supports), special education services, and other supports for children with disabilities; and

(d) Provide participating special education personnel on emergency certifications with opportunities to apply the evidence-based skills and practices described in paragraph (c) in the classroom.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

Competitive Preference Priority 3: Person-Centered IEPs that Support Instructional Progress (up to 2 points).

Projects designed to provide pre-service and in-service training to school and district personnel, including IEP team members ( e.g., special education and general education teachers, related service personnel who work with children with disabilities) and administrators, to improve their skills in developing and implementing person-centered IEPs that support instructional progress and improve functional outcomes  1 for children with disabilities. Projects must—

(a) Provide training and coaching to administrators and IEP team members to increase their ability to develop, implement, and monitor person-centered IEPs that support instructional progress so that they can—

(1) Use appropriate data to determine the child's instructional and functional strengths and needs;

(2) Increase the child's learning time and opportunities with general education peers, as appropriate, based on research;

(3) Choose and use evidence-based practices for core instruction; and

(4) Supplement core instruction with special education services.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

Competitive Preference Priority 4: Principals as Instructional Leaders Who Support Collaborative Service Provision (up to 2 points).

Projects designed to provide professional development to improve the instructional leadership provided by principals and other school leaders, district leaders, and teacher leaders to promote educational equity for children with disabilities. Projects must provide training and coaching to assist administrators to—

(a) Create and support equitable school schedules and other operations that enable collaborative services from general and special education staff;

(b) Support schoolwide inclusionary practices within a multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) framework;

(c) Support evidence-based professional development for their staff related to—

(1) Effective content instruction;

(2) Data for decision-making and continuous progress monitoring;

(3) IEP development and implementation; and

(4) Wrap-around services;

(d) Actively engage families and school communities to identify and address concerns regarding, and barriers to, accessibility, equity, and inclusiveness, using frameworks such as universal design; and

(e) Provide administrators structured learning opportunities, such as through a cohort model, mentoring, one-on-one coaching, networking to build a professional community, and applied learning opportunities, such as problem-solving related to the needs of individual children.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

Common Requirements:

In addition to the requirements contained in these priorities, to be considered for funding, applicants must meet the following application and administrative requirements:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Align with and integrate other State initiatives and programs, as well as district and local improvement plans, to leverage existing professional development and data systems;

(2) Develop and implement plans to sustain the grant program after the grant funding has ended; and

(3) Integrate family engagement into all project efforts by supporting capacity building for personnel and families.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

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

(i) Develop the knowledge and ability of personnel to be culturally responsive and engage children and families with a strengths-based approach;

(ii) Engage students, families, and community members to assess the appropriateness and impact of the intervention, program, or strategies; and

(iii) Review program procedures and resources to ensure a diversity of perspectives are brought into the project; and

(2) Achieve the project's goals and objectives. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Either a logic model or theory of action (to be provided in appendix A), which demonstrates how the proposed project will achieve intended measurable outcomes;

(ii) A description of proposed in-State and national partners that the project will work with to achieve the goals and objectives of the grant and how the impact of these partnerships will be measured; and

(iii) A description of how the project will be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(A) The current research base for the chosen interventions;

(B) The evidence-based model or practices to be used in the project's professional development activities; and

(C) How implementation science will be used to support full and sustained use of evidence-based practices and result in sustained systems of implementation support.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building,” include an evaluation plan for the project developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party  2 evaluator. The evaluation plan must—

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model or theory of action required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of these requirements;

(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;

(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed logic model or theory of action and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate that the data will be available annually for the annual performance report to the Department; and

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources,” how—

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

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

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

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits and funds will be spent in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how the proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Provide an assurance that any project website will include relevant information and documents in a form that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility;

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

(i) An annual one and one-half day SPDG National Meeting in the Washington, DC area during each year of the project period; and

(ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period, provided that, if the conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period; and

(4) Budget $6,000 annually for support of the SPDG program network and website currently administered by the University of Oregon ( www.signetwork.org ).

Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive carryover balances, a failure to make substantial progress, or has not maintained financial and administrative management systems that meet requirements in 2 CFR 200.302, Financial management, and 200.303, Internal controls. The Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue funding accordingly.

References:

Definitions: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following definitions apply to this competition. We provide the source of the definitions in parentheses.

Demonstrates a rationale means that there is a key project component included in the project's logic model that is supported by citations of high-quality research or evaluation findings that suggest that the project component is likely to significantly improve relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1)

Evidence-based means, for purposes of Absolute Priority 1, practices for which there is strong evidence or moderate evidence of effectiveness (2012 NFP); and for purposes of the competitive preference priorities, the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale (34 CFR 77.1).

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:

(i) 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).

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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. (34 CFR 77.1)

Fidelity means the delivery of instruction in the way in which it was designed to be delivered. (2012 NFP)

High-need LEA means, in accordance with section 2102(3) of the ESEA, an LEA—

(a) That serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line (as that term is defined in section 8101(41) of the ESEA), or for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line; and

(b) For which there is (1) a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic subjects or grade levels that the teachers were trained to teach, or (2) a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensing. (2012 NFP)

Lead agency means the agency designated by the State's Governor under section 635(a)(10) of IDEA and 34 CFR 303.120 that receives funds under section 643 of IDEA to administer the State's responsibilities under part C of IDEA. (34 CFR 303.22)

Local educational agency (LEA) means a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for such combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools. (Section 602(19) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1401(19)))

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. (34 CFR 77.1)

Moderate evidence means evidence of effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “strong evidence” or “moderate evidence” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “Tier 1 strong evidence” of effectiveness or “Tier 2 moderate evidence” of effectiveness or a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a sample including at least 20 students or other individuals from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, local educational agency (LEA), school, or postsecondary campus), or a “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a sample including at least 350 students or other individuals from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, LEA, school, or postsecondary campus), with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC most recently using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 5.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—

(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

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

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, LEA, school, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A) through (C) of this definition may together satisfy the requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D). (34 CFR 77.1)

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). (34 CFR 77.1)

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

(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting “strong evidence,” “moderate evidence,” or “promising evidence” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting “Tier 1 strong evidence” of effectiveness, or “Tier 2 moderate evidence” of effectiveness, or “Tier 3 promising evidence” of effectiveness, or 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

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

(A) 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);

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

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report. (34 CFR 77.1)

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. (34 CFR 77.1)

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. (34 CFR 77.1)

State educational agency means the State board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools, or, if there is no such officer or agency, an officer or agency designated by the Governor or by State law. (Section 602(32) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1401(32)))

Strong evidence means evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “strong evidence” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “Tier 1 strong evidence” of effectiveness or a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a sample including at least 350 students or other individuals across more than one site (such as a State, county, city, local educational agency (LEA), school, or postsecondary campus), with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC most recently using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 5.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—

(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

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

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, LEA, school, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet the requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A) through (C) of this definition may together satisfy the requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D). (34 CFR 77.1)

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 5.0, or in the WWC Standards Handbook, Version 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures Handbook, Version 4.0 or 4.1, 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. (34 CFR 77.1)

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.

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, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The 2012 NFP. (e) The 2024 NFP.

Note: As of October 1, 2024, grant applicants must follow the provisions stated in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (89 FR 30046, April 22, 2024) when preparing an application. For more information about these regulations please visit: www.cfo.gov/resources-coffa/uniform-guidance/.

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

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $3,767,623.

The Administration requested $38,630,000 for the State Personnel Development Grants program for FY 2025, of which we intend to use an estimated $3,767,623 for this competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2026 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000-$2,100,000 (for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). States may not receive less than $500,000 in each year of the grant and must submit a budget in their application for not less than $500,000 in each year of the grant. In the case of outlying areas (United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), awards will be not less than $80,000.

Note: We will set the amount of each award after considering—

(1) The amount of funds available for making the grants;

(2) The relative population of the State or outlying area;

(3) The types of activities proposed by the State or outlying area;

(4) The alignment of proposed activities with section 612(a)(14) of IDEA, as amended by the ESSA;

(5) The alignment of proposed activities with State plans and applications submitted under sections 1111 and 2101(d), respectively, of the ESEA; and

(6) The use, as appropriate, of scientifically based research and activities.

Using the same considerations, the Secretary funded these selected applications for FY 2024 at the following levels:

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,000,000 excluding the outlying areas.

Estimated Number of Awards: 4.

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

Project Period: Not less than one year and not more than five years.

1. Eligible Applicants: An SEA of one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or an outlying area (United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

Note: Public Law 95-134, which permits the consolidation of grants to the outlying areas, does not apply to funds received under this competition.

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

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division.

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

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition must award contracts and subgrants as described in Absolute Priority 2 (paragraph (3)(c) under Statutory Requirements, Use of Funds). See section 654(c) of IDEA.

4. Other General Requirements:

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

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

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

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition 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 competition.

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

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

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

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

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

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

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

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

(a) Significance (20 points).

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

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

(i) The extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.

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

(iii) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in systemic change that supports continuous, sustainable, and measurable improvement.

(b) Quality of the project design (25 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

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

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.

(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project demonstrates meaningful community engagement and input to ensure that the project is appropriate to successfully address the needs of the target population or other identified needs and will be used to inform continuous improvement strategies.

(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners, including those from underserved populations, to maximize the effectiveness of project services.

(iv) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects the most recent and relevant knowledge and practices from research and effective practice.

(v) The extent to which the proposed project will include coordination with other Federal investments, as well as appropriate agencies and organizations providing similar services to the target population.

(c) Quality of the project personnel (10 points).

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

(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has project personnel or a plan for hiring of personnel who are members of groups that have historically encountered barriers, or who have professional or personal experiences with barriers, based on one or more of the following: economic disadvantage; gender; race; ethnicity; color; national origin; disability; age; language; migration; living in a rural location; experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity; involvement with the justice system; pregnancy, parenting, or caregiver status; and sexual orientation.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of the target population.

(d) Adequacy of resources and management plan (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources and management plan for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

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

(ii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

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

(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives, including those from underserved populations, are brought to bear in the design, implementation, operation, evaluation, and improvement of the proposed project, including those of parents, educators, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.

(v) The level of initial matching funds or other commitment from partners, indicating the likelihood for potential continued support of the project after Federal funding ends.

(e) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building (25 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

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).

In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the scores under selection criterion (b) Quality of the project design will be used as a tiebreaker. If the scores remain tied, then the scores under selection criterion (d) Adequacy of resources and management plan will be used to break the tie.

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

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

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

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

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 also may notify you informally.

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

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

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

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

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. See the standards in 2 CFR 170.105 to determine whether you are covered by 2 CFR part 170.

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

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the SPDG program. These measures assess the extent to which—

• Projects use professional development practices supported by evidence to support the attainment of identified competencies;

• Participants in SPDG professional development demonstrate improvement in implementation of SPDG-supported practices over time;

• Projects use SPDG professional development funds to provide activities designed to sustain the use of SPDG-supported practices; and

• Projects improve outcomes for children with disabilities.

Each grantee funded under this competition must collect and annually report data related to its performance on these measures in the project's annual and final performance report to the Department in accordance with section 653(d) of IDEA and 34 CFR 75.590. Applicants should discuss in the application narrative how they propose to collect performance data for these measures.

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

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

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

On October 30, 2024, the Department of Education published in the Federal Register an NIA for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the DDRA Fellowship Program. 89 FR 86323. The NIA established a deadline date of January 15, 2025, for the transmittal of applications.

In consideration of upcoming holiday observances and academic year winter breaks at eligible institutions, we are extending the deadline for the transmittal of applications to give eligible institutional and individual applicants more time—until January 29, 2025—to prepare and submit their applications.

Applicants that have already timely submitted applications under the FY 2025 DDRA competition may resubmit applications on or before the extended application deadline of January 29, 2025, but are not required to do so. If a new application is not submitted, the Department will use the application that was submitted by the original deadline. If a new application is submitted, the Department will consider the application that is last submitted and timely received by 11:59:59 p.m., eastern time, on January 29, 2025.

Note: This extension notice only revises the application transmittal date. All applications must comply with the program requirements and the application standards published in the October 30, 2024 notice.

Assistance Listing Number: 84.022A.

Program Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this notice, the NIA, 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 Department documents 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 Department documents 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.

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: Consolidated Annual Report (CAR) for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006

OMB Control Number: 1830-0569.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved ICR.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 54.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 13,122.

Abstract: This information collection is used by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to gather annual performance and financial data from eligible agencies under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. On August 30, 2024, the Department published for public comment, for a period of 60 days, a proposed request to extend this ICR for nine months to enable eligible agencies to meet their annual reporting requirements for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023. On September 11, 2024, the Department published for public comment, for a period of 60 days, a proposed revision of this ICR for which three-year approval was requested so that eligible agencies could meet their reporting requirements for FYs 2024 through 2026. On September 23, 2024, ED corrected an error in the publication of the proposed revised instrument for the CAR and posted the correct version. Due this error, on October 15, 2024, ED extended the public comment period on the CAR for two weeks, to November 26, 2024. The Department is now proposing a consolidated information collection request that incorporates the extension for FY 2023 reporting that was published on August 30, 2024, and the proposed revision for FYs 2024 through 2026 reporting that was published on September 11, 2024.

This information collection would extend current reporting requirements through FY 2025 and make revisions to these requirements for FY 2026. The proposed revisions would provide data specifications for the numerators and denominators used to calculate the performance indicators so that they are measured in a manner that is consistent with the law, collect data on participants in the middle grades to the extent such data are available, and collect data on the education and employment outcomes of CTE concentrators who have exited secondary education or who have completed a postsecondary program that is disaggregated by placement type, to the extent these data available. The proposed ICR also includes narrative questions about different aspects of an eligible agency's implementation of the law.

This security boundary is designated pursuant to section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, and as implemented by DOE's regulations regarding Trespassing on Department of Energy Property which was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 1963 (28 FR 8400). This revised boundary supplements the entry previously contained in the Federal Register notice published on March 1, 2016, at 81 FR 10610 for the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) of the United States Department of Energy.

The following supplement is made:

The U.S. Department of Energy installation known as the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility is located in the Second Civil District of Newport News, Virginia, within the corporate limits of the City of Newport News. The U.S. Department of Energy acquired the property known as the Applied Research Center (ARC), property and associated facilities, located in the Second Civil District of Newport News, Virginia, within the corporate limits of the City of Newport News. The ARC property consists of 9.298 acres located at 12050 Jefferson Avenue, bounded by the west by Jefferson Avenue, by the south approximately 350 feet south of Hofstadter Road, by the north by Tech Center Parkway, by the east by Rutherford Road (as extended northerly).

The entire Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 229 Boundary, consisting of approximately 179 acres, is indicated by a combination of signage at entrances and along the perimeter, and chain link fencing, and other physical features which surround the facility.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on November 20, 2024, by Marla J. Larsen-Williams, Real Estate Contracting Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Title: FERC-519, Application under Federal Power Act Section 203. 1

OMB Control No.: 1902-0082.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-519 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: The Commission requires that public utility officers must seek authorization under amended section 203(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to merge or consolidate, directly or indirectly, its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any part thereof, with the facilities of any other person, or any part thereof, that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission and have a value in excess of $10 million, by any means whatsoever. In addition, as required by the Act, the Commission establishes a requirement to submit a notification filing for mergers or consolidations by a public utility if the facilities to be acquired have a value in excess of $1 million and such public utility is not required to secure Commission authorization under amended section 203(a)(1)(B). The information collected under the FERC-519 enables the Commission to meet its statutory responsibilities regarding public utility disposition, merger, consolidation of facilities, purchase, or acquisition oversight and enforcement in accordance with the FPA as referenced above. Without this information, FERC would be unable to meet these responsibilities. The required information includes descriptions of corporate attributes of the party or parties to the proposed transaction ( e.g., a sale, lease, or other disposition, merger, or consolidation of facilities, or purchase of other acquisition of the securities of a public utility and the facilities or other property involved in the transaction), statements about effect of the transaction, and the applicant's proof that the transaction will be consistent with the public interest. It will enable the Commission to meet its statutory responsibilities regarding its FPA section 203 oversight of public utility dispositions, mergers, or consolidation of facilities, and associated oversight and enforcement responsibilities under the FPA as referenced above. The required information to be collected in the notification filing (established by the addition of 18 CFR part 33.12) for certain transactions includes descriptions of corporate attributes of the party or parties to the transaction and the facilities involved. FPA section 203 requires a filing on the occasion that a public utility proposes to dispose of jurisdictional facilities, merge such facilities, or acquire the securities of another public utility. Public Utilities consist of:

• Corporate;

• Information Technology Management;

• General Accounting;

• Personnel and Payroll;

• Transportation;

• Tariffs and Rates;

• Insurance;

• Operations and Maintenance;

• Plant and Depreciation;

• Purchase and Stores;

• Revenue Accounting and Collection;

• Tax;

• Treasury; and

• Miscellaneous.

Type of Respondents: Public utility officers regulated by the FPA.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   2 The Commission estimates the total annual burden and cost  3 for this information collection as follows:

Title: FERC-520, Application for Authority to Hold Interlocking Directorate Positions.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0083.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-520 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: FERC Form No. 520 is an application requesting FERC authorization for officers and directors of regulated public utilities to simultaneously hold positions of officers and directors of certain other entities. Section 305(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)  6 prohibits the holding of specific interlocking positions unless the Commission has authorized the holding of such interlocks upon a determination that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected.

FERC-520 consists of three information collection activities. A “full application,” in accordance with 18 CFR 45.8, provides detailed information about the positions for which authorization is sought, including a description of duties. Submission of a more streamlined “informational report,” in accordance with 18 CFR 45.9, is a condition for an automatic grant of authorization to hold interlocking directorates. This automatic authorization is available only to certain types of officers and directors. Finally, a “notice of change,” in accordance with 18 CFR 45.5, is required within 60 days after an officer or director resigns or withdraws from Commission-authorized interlocked positions or if the applicant is not re-elected or reappointed to the interlocked position. However, no notice of change is required if the only change is: (1) a resignation or withdrawal from fewer than all position held between or among affiliated public utilities; (2) a reelection or reappointment to a position that was previously authorized; or (3) holding a different or additional interlocking position that would qualify for automatic authorization under 18 CFR 45.9.

Type of Respondents: Officers and directors of public utilities seeking authorization to hold interlocking directorates.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   7 The Commission estimates the total annual burden and cost  8 for this information collection as follows:

Title: FERC-546, Certificated Rate Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0155.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-546 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: The Commission reviews the FERC-546 materials to decide whether to approve rates and tariff changes associated with an application for a certificate under Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 7(c) (15 U.S.C. 717). Additionally, FERC reviews FERC-546 materials in NGA section 4(f) (15 U.S.C. 717), storage applications, to evaluate an applicant's market power and determine whether to grant market-based rate authority to the applicant. The Commission uses the information in FERC-546 to monitor jurisdictional transportation, natural gas storage, and unbundled sales activities of interstate natural gas pipelines and Hinshaw  9 pipelines. In addition to fulfilling the Commission's obligations under the NGA, the FERC-546 enables the Commission to monitor the activities and evaluate transactions of the natural gas industry, ensure competitiveness, and improve efficiency of the industry's operations. In summary, the Commission uses the information to:

• ensure adequate customer protections under NGA section 4(f);

• review rate and tariff changes filed under NGA section 7(c) for certification of natural gas pipeline transportation and storage services;

• provide general industry oversight; and

• supplement documentation during the pipeline audits process.

Failure to collect this information would prevent the Commission from monitoring and evaluating transactions and operations of jurisdictional pipelines and performing its regulatory functions.

Type of Respondents: Jurisdictional pipeline companies and storage operators.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   10 The Commission estimates the burden and cost for this information collection as follows:

Title: FERC Form 580: Interrogatory on Fuel and Energy Purchase Practices Pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0137.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC Form 580 with no substantive changes to the current reporting requirements. Administrative changes to update the form are being made, as described below.

Abstract: The Commission collects FERC Form 580 information every other year as required under Section 205(f)(2) of the FPA, 13 which provides that the Commission must review, “not less frequently than every 2 years,” practices under automatic adjustment clauses (AACs). 14 As required by FPA section 205(f)(2), the Commission uses the information collected through the FERC Form 580 interrogatory to review utility purchase and cost recovery practices under AACs in order to ensure efficient use of resources. 15 The Commission uses the information to evaluate costs in individual rate filings and to supplement periodic utility audits. The public also uses the information in this manner. Without the FERC Form 580 interrogatory, the Commission would not have the requisite information available to conduct the necessary review the FPA mandates.

Type of Respondents: The filing must be submitted by all FERC-jurisdictional utilities owning and/or operating at least one steam-electric generating station of 50 MW or greater capacity or having a majority ownership interest in a jointly-owned steam-electric generating station of at least 50 MW. A jurisdictional utility without a cost-based tariff on file with the Commission is not required to file the form.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual  16 public reporting burden  17 and cost  18 for the information collection as:

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, and to comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-12, “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information”, January 3, 2017, this notice has twelve (12) modified and new routine uses, including two new routine uses that will permit FERC to disclose information as necessary in response to an actual or suspected breach that pertains to a breach of its own records or to assist another agency in its efforts to respond to a breach that was previously published separately at 87 FR 35543 (June 10, 2022).

The following sections have been updated to reflect changes made since the publication of the last notice in the Federal Register : dates; addresses; for further contact information; system location; system manager; purpose of the system; categories of individuals covered by the system; categories of records in the system; routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purpose of such; policies and practices for storage of records; policies and practices for retention and disposal of records; administrative, technical, physical safeguards; records access procedures; contesting records procedures; notification procedures; and history.

This action is directed to the public in general and may be of particular interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, and disposal of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), including construction professionals and individuals completing do-it-yourself (DIY) activities in buildings with ACMs, related industry trade organizations, non-governmental organizations with an interest in human and environmental health, state and local governments, Tribal Nations, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that this action might apply to. If you need help determining applicability, consult the technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires the Agency to conduct risk evaluations on chemical substances and identifies the minimum components EPA must include in all chemical substance risk evaluations. Each risk evaluation must be conducted consistent with the best available science, be based on the weight of scientific evidence, and consider reasonably available information per 15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k). See also the implementing procedural regulations at 40 CFR part 702.

EPA is announcing the availability of the final supplemental risk evaluation for asbestos legacy uses and associated disposals of Asbestos (also referred to as the Asbestos Part 2 Risk Evaluation) (Ref. 1). The purpose of risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or non-risk factors, including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by EPA, under the conditions of use. The Agency has used the best available science to prepare this final risk evaluation and based on the weight of scientific evidence, determined that asbestos poses unreasonable risk to human health. Upon a determination of unreasonable risk, EPA must initiate risk management action as required pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2605(a) to address the unreasonable risk.

When EPA designated asbestos as one of the first 10 existing chemicals to undergo risk evaluation under TSCA (Ref. 1), the risk evaluation focused on chrysotile asbestos, which is the only type of asbestos fiber where manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce for use was known, intended, or reasonably foreseen in the U.S. In Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA, 943 F.3d 397 (9th Cir. 2019) the court held that EPA's Risk Evaluation Procedural Rule (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017 (FRL-9964-38)) should not have excluded “legacy uses” ( i.e., uses without ongoing or prospective manufacturing, processing, or distribution) and “associated disposals” ( i.e., future disposal of legacy uses) from the definition of conditions of use. As a result, the risk evaluation for asbestos was split into two parts.

1. Asbestos (Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos). (Ref. 2) The final risk evaluation for Asbestos (Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos) was released in January 2021 (86 FR 89, January 4, 2021; FRL-10017-43), covering all intended, known, or reasonably foreseen import, processing, and distribution of chrysotile asbestos; uses of chrysotile asbestos that have been imported, processed, and distributed; and disposal of such chrysotile asbestos uses. The final rule to address the unreasonable risk identified in the Asbestos Part 1 Risk Evaluation was issued in March 2024 (89 FR 21970, March 28, 2024; FRL-8332-01-OCSPP).

2. Asbestos Part 2: Supplemental Evaluation Including Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos. (Ref. 3) Legacy uses and associated disposals of chrysotile asbestos, five additional fiber types, conditions of use for asbestos-containing talc that are subject to TSCA, and Libby asbestos are the subject of the Asbestos Part 2 Risk Evaluation, which is scheduled to be finalized on or before December 1, 2024, per the consent decree in the case Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization et al. v. Regan et al., 4:21-cv-03716 (N.D. Cal.).

In the Asbestos Part 2 Risk Evaluation, EPA concludes that asbestos, as a chemical substance and as evaluated in parts 1 and 2 of the risk evaluation process under TSCA, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under its conditions of use. This single unreasonable risk determination for asbestos replaces the previous unreasonable risk determinations made for asbestos by individual conditions of use and supersedes the determination (and withdraws the associated order) of no unreasonable risk for the conditions of use identified in the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order in Section 5.3.1 of the December 2020 Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part I: Chrysotile Asbestos (Ref. 4). This determination does not alter any of the underlying technical or scientific information that informs the risk characterization in part 1, and as such the hazard, exposure, and risk characterization sections of part 1 are not changed by this unreasonable risk determination for asbestos.

The final Asbestos Part 2 Risk Evaluation addresses comments from the public on the draft risk evaluation, as well as from the public comment and letter peer reviewer on the White Paper: Quantitative Human Health Approach to be Applied in the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 2—Supplemental Evaluation Including Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos (Ref. 5). The responses to peer review and public comments (Refs. 8 and 9), along with the final Asbestos Part 2 Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1) and a nontechnical summary document (Ref. 6), are available in the docket.

For more information about the TSCA risk evaluation process for existing chemicals, go to https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca.

EPA has determined that a single risk determination on the chemical substance asbestos is appropriate in order to protect health and the environment, because there are benchmark exceedances for multiple conditions of use (spanning across most aspects of the chemical life cycle, from manufacturing [including import], processing, industrial, commercial and consumer use, and disposal) for human health. Furthermore, the risk of severe health effects—specifically mesothelioma and lung, ovarian, and laryngeal cancers, along with non-cancer effects—is associated with chronic inhalation exposures of asbestos. Because these chemical-specific properties cut across the conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation and a substantial portion of the conditions of use contribute to the unreasonable risk, it is therefore appropriate for the Agency to determine that the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk. For those conditions of use assessed in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos (Ref. 4), EPA does not intend to amend, nor does a single risk determination on the chemical substance require, amending the underlying scientific analysis and the risk characterization.

EPA has determined that asbestos presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health under the conditions of use. The Agency has determined that the unreasonable risk to human health presented by asbestos is due to: (1) Cancer and non-cancer effects in workers, including ONUs and firefighters, from inhalation exposures; (2) Cancer and non-cancer effects in handlers and bystanders from inhalation exposures associated with handling of garments taken home from occupational exposure; (3) Cancer and non-cancer effects in consumers and bystanders from inhalation exposures; and (4) Cancer and non-cancer effects in the general population from inhalation exposures.

Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a), EPA will propose a risk management regulatory action to the extent necessary so that asbestos no longer presents an unreasonable risk to human health. The Agency expects to focus its risk management action on the conditions of use that significantly contribute to the unreasonable risk identified in the Asbestos Part 2 Risk Evaluation (Ref 3). However, it should be noted that under TSCA section 6(a), EPA is not limited to regulating the specific activities found to drive unreasonable risk and may select from among a suite of risk management requirements in TSCA section 6(a) related to manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, commercial use, and disposal as part of its regulatory options to address the unreasonable risk. As a general example, EPA may regulate upstream activities ( e.g., processing, distribution in commerce) to address downstream activities ( e.g., consumer uses) driving unreasonable risk, even if the upstream activities do not drive the unreasonable risk.

TSCA requires EPA to initiate regulatory action to address those risks through risk management measures enumerated in TSCA section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). The Agency is given a range of risk management options under TSCA—including labeling, recordkeeping or notice requirements, actions to reduce human exposure or environmental release, and a ban of the chemical or of certain uses. EPA will not be revisiting the risk management for the unreasonable risk that was identified in the Asbestos Part 1 Risk Evaluation (Ref. 4) and that was addressed in the final rule that was issued in March 2024 (89 FR 21970, March 28, 2024; FRL-8332-01-OCSPP).

Like the prioritization and risk evaluation processes, there is an opportunity for public comment on any proposed risk management actions.

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

EPA is announcing the availability of and soliciting public comment on the draft risk evaluation for 1,3-butadiene. The draft risk evaluation was prepared under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and will be submitted to the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) for peer review. EPA is also announcing that there will be two virtual public meetings of the SACC: On February 4, 2025, a preparatory meeting for the SACC to consider the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions for the peer review; and on February 25 through 28, 2025, the peer review meeting for the SACC to consider the draft risk evaluation and public comments.

This document provides instructions for accessing the materials, submitting written comments, and registering to provide oral comments and attend the public meetings.

EPA established the SACC in 2016 in accordance with TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2625(o), to provide independent advice and expert consultation with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of issues relating to the implementation of TSCA. The SACC operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 10, and supports activities under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., and other applicable statutes.

This action is directed to the public in general and may be of particular interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, and disposal of the subject chemical substances, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA (including members of at-risk communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), federal, state, and local officials). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI or other sensitive information to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. To include information in your comment that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting that information.

2. Tips for preparing comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. See also the instructions in Unit III.C.

You may subscribe to the following listserv for alerts regarding this and other SACC-related activities: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOPPT/subscriber/new?topic_id=USAEPAOPPT_101.

The SACC provides independent advice and recommendations to the EPA on the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures and approaches for chemicals regulated under TSCA. The SACC is composed of experts in toxicology; environmental risk assessment; exposure assessment; and related sciences ( e.g., synthetic biology, pharmacology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, biochemistry, biostatistics, physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, computational toxicology, epidemiology, environmental fate, and environmental engineering and sustainability). When needed, the SACC committee will be assisted by ad hoc reviewers with specific expertise in the topics under consideration.

TSCA requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations on prioritized chemical substances and allows chemical manufacturers to request an EPA-conducted risk evaluation of a chemical substance (or category of chemical substances) using the procedures established in 40 CFR 702.37. TSCA also identifies the minimum components EPA must include in all chemical substance risk evaluations. The purpose of conducting risk evaluations is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment under the Conditions of Use (COUs). These evaluations include assessing unreasonable risks to relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. As part of this process EPA: (1) Integrates hazard and exposure assessments using the best available science that is reasonably available to ensure decisions are based on the weight of the scientific evidence, and (2) Conducts peer review for risk evaluation approaches that have not been previously peer-reviewed.

For more information about the TSCA risk evaluation process for existing chemicals, go to https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca.

In 2020, EPA issued final scope documents for the 20 chemical substances designated in December 2019 as High-Priority Substances for the TSCA risk evaluation process, which included 1,3-butadiene. The final scope documents outline the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations the Agency expected to consider in its risk evaluation for the substances (85 FR 55283, September 4, 2020 (FRL-10013-90)).

1,3-Butadiene (CASRN 106-99-0) is a volatile, colorless gas with a total U.S. production volume between 1 and 5 billion pounds. It is produced in petrochemical processing and extracted and further processed as a building block for several polymers and elastomers that do not readily depolymerize. Air is expected to be the major pathway of exposure for 1,3-butadiene in the environment. Although 1,3-butadiene is moderately soluble in water, monitoring data indicate that it is not detected in water. Environmental release data show that more than 98 percent of 1,3-butadiene facility releases are to air. Once in air, 1,3-butadiene will not deposit to land or adsorb to organic matter due to its chemical properties. Long-range transport in air is not expected, in part, because 1,3-butadiene has a short half-life (<8 hours) and will degrade into formaldehyde and acrolein.

Reduced fetal body weight and hematological effects are indicated as the most sensitive and robust non-cancer human health hazards. EPA has classified 1,3-butadiene as a human carcinogen and epidemiology studies have demonstrated an association between 1,3-butadiene exposure and increased incidence of leukemia in workers.

EPA is submitting the draft risk evaluation of 1,3-butadiene and associated supporting documents to the SACC for peer review, along with the public comments received. The draft risk evaluation includes analyses of physical chemical properties, the fate and transport in the environment, releases to the environment, exposure to workers and the general population, including potentially exposed susceptible subpopulations, environmental risk characterization, and human health hazard and risk characterization for workers and the general population.

EPA is focusing its peer review charge on specific scientific areas and analyses. Many of the methods and analyses used in these evaluations are not novel and have been reviewed in the development of previous TSCA assessments. EPA is requesting feedback on approaches, results and calculations associated with the exposure, human health hazard, and environmental hazard analyses. EPA is releasing the draft risk evaluation for public comment and independent, expert peer review. Once EPA receives comment and input from public comment and peer review, revisions will be made, and the Agency will finalize the 1,3-butadiene risk evaluation.

EPA is requesting a focused panel discussion and feedback on novel approaches, unique exposure analyses and other calculations, and selection of key hazard endpoints for 1,3-butadiene:

• No exposure to aquatic and terrestrial species is expected due to the physical and chemical properties of 1,3-butadiene, which is primarily released to air and does not partition, deposit, or persist in or on water or soil. Monitoring data indicate that 1,3-butadiene is not detected in water. Exposure of terrestrial organisms via ambient air will be brief due to the reactive nature of 1,3-butadiene. EPA is seeking comment on the preliminary determination that quantitative risk assessment for ecological taxa is not needed for 1,3-butadiene.

• Reduced fetal body weight (the basis of the acute Reference Concentration (RfC) in the 2002 IRIS Assessment) is observed in both mice and rats following gestational exposure but is not expected to result from a single dose of 1,3-butadiene. Further, EPA did not identfy effects of teratogenicity or any other relevant endpoint following single exposures at doses relevant to human exposure scenarios. Therefore, EPA did not derive an acute point of departure (POD) or quantify risks from acute exposures. EPA is seeking comment on the preliminary determination that there is no appropriate POD to support acute risk estimates.

• Ovarian atrophy is an adverse effect observed only in mice and can be attributed to a specific 1,3-butadiene metabolite (diepoxybutane) that is less prevalent in rats and humans. EPA has evaluated the relevance of ovarian atrophy for assessing human risk and determined that the ovarian atrophy endpoint is not appropriate for extrapolating to human risk due to differences in species-specific metabolites. EPA is proposing to use decreased fetal body weight as the basis for the intermediate and chronic points of departure for 1,3-butadiene. EPA is seeking comment on these preliminary conclusions to establish intermediate and chronic points of departure based on reduced fetal body weight.

• OPPT revised the inhalation unit risk (IUR) for 1,3-butadiene presented in the IRIS 2002 assessment to incorporate updated epidemiological cohort data. EPA is seeking comment on the mathematical approach and new epidemiological cohort data used in the revised IUR. OPPT also derived bladder cancer risk estimates using the same epidemiological cohort and is seeking comment on the appropriate IUR for evaluating cancer risk.

• EPA has conducted a mutagenic mode of action analysis and evaluating whether the use of an age-dependent adjustment factor (ADAF) for leukemia is appropriate. EPA has preliminarily concluded that a mutagenic mode of action is applicable to 1,3-butadiene and use of an age-dependent adjustment factor (ADAF) for leukemia is appropriate. EPA is seeking comment on this analysis and preliminary conclusion.

• The majority of occupational exposure sampling data points, collected from OSHA, NIOSH, and ACC's report, were not quantifiable values but were identified as being below the limit of detection (LOD). For datasets including exposure data that were reported as below the LOD, EPA estimated exposure concentrations, following EPA's Guidelines for Statistical Analysis of Occupational Exposure Data. Based on these guidelines, EPA used the LOD value as the high-end estimate and half the LOD as central tendency. EPA is seeking comment on this approach and the relevance of this dataset for risk characterization.

• General population exposure to 1,3-butadiene was modeled using the Human Exposure Model (HEM) to estimate ambient air concentrations based on releases reported to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) for years 2016 to 2021. Exposure concentrations were modeled at discrete distances from releasing facilities and surrounding census blocks. EPA is seeking comment on this analysis and preliminary conclusions.

EPA is planning two virtual public meetings: (1) A preparatory public meeting for the SACC to consider and ask questions regarding the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions; and (2) a public peer review meeting for the SACC to consider and peer review the draft risk evaluation. These public meetings are part of the SACC's peer review of the Agency's methods and novel analyses for the draft risk evaluation of 1,3-butadiene. The agenda for these meetings will be posted in the docket and will also be available through the SACC website.

Recommendations from this SACC review and public comments will be considered in the development of the TSCA risk evaluation and may inform other EPA efforts related to the assessment and regulation of the chemical substance. The Agency will be seeking SACC review of its data analyses and methodologies relevant to human health hazard and exposure analyses that have not been previously peer-reviewed.

To participate in these virtual public meetings, you must register online to receive the webcast and streaming service meeting links and audio teleconference information for each meeting. Online registration will be available beginning approximately one month prior to the meeting and will remain open through the end of the meeting. To make oral comments during one of these meetings, follow the instructions in this document.

The draft risk evaluation for 1,3-butadiene and related documents, including background documents, related supporting materials, and draft charge questions, are available in the docket. As additional background materials become available, EPA will include those additional background materials ( e.g., SACC members and consultants participating in this meeting and the meeting agenda) in the docket and through links on the SACC website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.

To ensure proper receipt of comments, it is imperative that you identify docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0425 in the subject line on the first page of your comments and follow the instructions in this document.

1. Written comments. Submit written comments by the deadlines set in the DATES section of this document and as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

2. Oral comments. To request time to present oral comments during one of the virtual public meetings, you must register online by the deadlines set in the DATES section of this document. Oral comments during the virtual public meetings are limited to 5 minutes. In addition, each speaker should submit a written copy of their oral comments and any supporting materials ( e.g., presentation slides) to the DFO prior to the meetings for distribution to the SACC.

After the SACC public meeting, the SACC will prepare the meeting minutes and final report document summarizing its recommendations to the EPA, which will also be available in the docket and through the SACC website. EPA will consider the SACC recommendations and public comments to complete the risk evaluation and unreasonable risk determination under TSCA for this chemical substance. Under TSCA, EPA must then initiate risk management actions to address the unreasonable risk it identified.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625(o); 5 U.S.C. 10.

The Agency is seeking public nominations of scientific and technical experts that EPA can consider for service as ad hoc reviewers assisting the SACC with the peer review of the Agency's technical support documents for the evaluation of the risks from BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP to inform risk management decisions under TSCA. EPA is planning to hold a virtual public meeting in the spring of 2025 for the SACC to consider and review technical support documents. At that time, EPA will solicit comments from the SACC on the critical inputs and novel approaches for a variety of charge questions related to individual, draft chemical risk evaluations and the draft cumulative risk analysis.

To facilitate nominations, this document provides information about the SACC, the intended topic for the planned peer review, the expertise sought for this peer review, instructions for submitting nominations to EPA, and the Agency's plan for selecting the ad hoc reviewers for this peer review.

TSCA section 6(b) requires that EPA conduct risk evaluations on existing chemical substances and identifies the minimum components EPA must include in all chemical substance risk evaluations (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)). The risk evaluation must not consider costs or other non-risk factors (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii)). The specific risk evaluation process is addressed in 40 CFR part 702 and summarized on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluations-existing-chemicals-under-tsca.

The SACC was established by EPA in 2016 in accordance with TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2625(o), to provide independent advice and expert consultation with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of issues relating to the implementation of TSCA. The SACC operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 10, and supports activities under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., and other applicable statutes.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of particular interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, and disposal of chemical substances and mixtures, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA. Members of at-risk communities, non- governmental organizations (NGOs) (particularly those with an interest in protecting health for at-risk communities), and Federal, State and local officials may also be interested. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities to which this action may apply.

You may subscribe to the following listserv for alerts regarding this and other SACC-related activities: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOPPT/subscriber/new?topic_id=USAEPAOPPT_101.

The SACC provides independent advice and recommendations to the EPA on the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures and approaches for chemicals regulated under TSCA. The SACC is comprised of experts in toxicology; environmental risk assessment; exposure assessment; and related sciences ( e.g., synthetic biology, pharmacology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, biochemistry, biostatistics, physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, computational toxicology, epidemiology, environmental fate, environmental engineering and sustainability). The SACC currently consists of 20 members. When needed, the committee will be assisted by ad hoc reviewers with specific expertise in the topics under consideration.

TSCA requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations on high-priority chemical substances and identifies the minimum components EPA must include in all chemical substance risk evaluations. The purpose of conducting risk evaluations is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment under the Conditions of Use (COUs). These evaluations include assessing unreasonable risks to relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. As part of this process, EPA: (1) Integrates hazard and exposure assessments using the best available science that is reasonably available to assure decisions are based on the weight of the scientific evidence, and (2) Conducts peer review for risk evaluation approaches that have not been previously peer reviewed. For more information about the three stages of EPA's process for ensuring the safety of existing chemicals ( i.e., prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management), go to https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/how-epa-evaluates-safety-existing-chemicals.

EPA designated the following chemicals as High-Priority Substances for risk evaluation under TSCA in December 2019: BBP (Butyl Benzyl Phthalate, CASRN 85-68-7), DBP (Dibutyl Phthalate, CASRN 84-74-2), DEHP (Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, CASRN 117-81-7), DIBP (Diisobutyl Phthalate, CASRN 84-69-5), and DCHP (Dicyclohexyl Phthalate, CASRN 84-61-7). For these chemicals, EPA published draft and final scope documents in April and August 2020, respectively and, is currently in the risk evaluation process. The scope documents outlined the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations the Agency expected to consider in its risk evaluations. Although there are some differences in conditions of use and exposures, these chemical substances are primarily used as plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products and in adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, rubbers, and other applications. Because of the significant similarities in exposure and physical chemical properties of these phthalates, EPA is developing these risk evaluations and the cumulative risk assessment in parallel. DIDP and DINP were reviewed previously by the SACC (July 30-August 1, 2024); the draft risk evaluations for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP are incorporating many of the SACC recommendations from this previous peer review.

EPA is soliciting comments from the SACC on a variety of charge questions related to the data, methods, models, approaches for these draft chemical risk evaluations, including the supporting draft cumulative risk assessment analysis. Many of the methods and analyses used in these evaluations are not novel and have been reviewed in the development of the tools used in various agency work products or in previous TSCA assessments. EPA is focusing peer review on the critical inputs and novel approaches.

The draft risk evaluations for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP include analyses of physical chemical properties, fate and transport in the environment, exposure to workers, consumers and general population including potentially exposed susceptible subpopulations, releases to the environment, environmental hazard and risk characterization for terrestrial and aquatic species, and human health hazard and risk characterization for workers, consumers, and the general population. The draft cumulative risk assessment analysis was developed based on the Proposed Approach for Cumulative Risk Assessment under TSCA including recommendations from the May 2023 SACC review. Specifically, the cumulative risk assessment analysis technical support document calculates relative potency factors for phthalate syndrome for each of the six chemical substances based on a pooled dataset for assessing fetal testicular testosterone health endpoint and estimates cumulative non-attributable exposures from NHANES urinary biomonitoring data.

EPA anticipates soliciting peer review from the SACC on the following draft documents:

• Physical and chemical and environmental fate technical support documents for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP.

• Ecological hazard technical support documents for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP.

• Non-cancer human health hazard technical support documents for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP.

• Cancer technical support document (a single document that includes BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP).

• Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure technical support documents for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP.

• Environmental and General Population Exposures to Environmental Releases technical support documents for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP.

• Consumer and Indoor Air Exposure technical support documents for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP.

• Meta-analysis and benchmark dose technical support document developed for the draft cumulative risk assessment.

• Technical support document for the Cumulative Risk Analysis of Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP), Dibutyl Phthalate (DBP), Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (BBP), Diisobutyl Phthalate (DIBP), Dicyclohexyl Phthalate (DCHP), and Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) under TSCA.

• Aspects of the risk evaluation for DCHP, including risk characterization and application of the cumulative risk analysis.

EPA expects to solicit feedback on the following scientific issues:

• Physical-chemical properties and environmental fate technical support documents. EPA expects to solicit feedback on the data and methods used to characterize physical-chemical properties and environmental fate of BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP. Of particular importance are the n-octanol/water partition coefficients (K ow ), organic carbon-water partition coefficients (K oc ), n-octanol/air partition coefficients (K oa ), bioaccumulation factors (BAF), and bioconcentration factors (BCF). For DCHP specifically, EPA expects to solicit specific feedback on the weight of the scientific evidence approach to describe the water solubility range for DCHP and the use of a single value as input to exposure models.

• Ecological hazard technical support documents. EPA expects to solicit feedback on the data and methods used to characterize ecological hazards of BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP.

• Non-cancer human health hazard technical support documents. EPA expects to solicit feedback on multiple scientific areas including the selection of non-cancer points of departure used to characterize non-cancer risks from acute, intermediate, and chronic durations for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP. For DEHP there are additional hazards for which EPA will solicit input; specifically, female reproductive tract, inhalation, and glucose homeostasis/lipid metabolism.

• Cancer hazard technical support document. EPA has developed a single document evaluating cancer hazard potential for these phthalates. EPA expects to solicit feedback on the following: draft cancer classifications for DEHP, BBP, and DBP; tumor triad (liver, pancreatic, and testicular tumors) and PPARα mode of action information relevant to DEHP; and the application of Rethinking Carcinogenicity Assessment for Agrochemicals Project (ReCAAP) weight of evidence framework for DCHP and DIBP.

• Meta-analysis and benchmark dose modeling technical support document and the cumulative risk assessment technical support documents. EPA expects to solicit input on the methods and data used to calculate background exposure levels from the NHANES data set, derive relative potency factors, index chemical selection, and methods and application of background exposures. The draft risk evaluation of DCHP will contain an example of the application of cumulative risk assessment analysis for an individual chemical. EPA anticipates requesting input on the integration of the cumulative approaches within the individual chemical risk characterization.

• Technical support documents for environmental and general population, consumer and indoor air, and occupational exposures. EPA expects to request feedback and guidance on the data and methods used in the draft exposure assessments. Included in this request for input will be issues related to dermal absorption, such as the interpretation of in vitro and in vivo studies and the use of flux-based calculations for occupational exposures. Of specific importance are the data and methods used to calculate dermal absorption and exposures in the occupational exposure and the consumer and indoor air exposure technical support documents.

Given the large volume of material across the five HPS phthalates, EPA will be releasing chemical-specific technical support documents in batches ahead of the draft risk evaluations. The formal 60-day public comment period for each chemical risk evaluation will begin when the Agency publishes a notice of availability in the Federal Register and the chemical's full risk evaluation, including the risk characterization and risk determination, are posted to the chemical specific docket. Most immediately, the Agency anticipates that the DCHP risk evaluation, and its associated supporting documents, is expected to be released to the public at the end of December, and a notice of availability will begin the public comment period for the DCHP draft risk evaluation. Over the next several months, EPA expects to release all the technical support documents for BBP, DBP, DEHP, and DIBP into their respective chemical specific dockets as they are available, and their dockets will be open for submission of comments. Nonetheless, these TSDs will be formally available for a 60-day public comment period with the release of each chemical risk evaluation to follow.

In the first quarter of 2025, OPPT will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register for the draft charge questions and to begin an additional public comment period in this docket (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0551) specifically for the peer review by the SACC. At that time, all of the risk evaluation documents ( e.g., technical support documents, supplemental files, etc.) relevant to peer review will also be made available in this docket for a targeted peer review. EPA anticipates requesting SACC peer review of the questions pertaining to critical inputs and novel approaches contained in these documents to constitute full peer review of the phthalate risk evaluations. The SACC peer review will be focused on the DCHP risk evaluation and associated supporting documents, and the technical support documents that describe the data and analyses of physical chemistry and fate, hazards, exposures, and releases for BBP, DBP, DEHP, and DIBP.

In total, EPA anticipates six opportunities for public comment; five dockets and comment periods associated with each chemical (BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP) and one docket focused on the SACC peer review.

As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates for SACC peer reviews, EPA is asking the public and stakeholders for nominations of scientific and technical experts that EPA can consider as prospective candidates for service as ad hoc reviewers assisting the SACC with the peer reviews. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals for consideration as prospective candidates for this review by following the instructions provided in this document. Individuals may also self-nominate.

Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be invited to attend the public meeting and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at the meeting. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes and final report.

Individuals nominated for this SACC peer review should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: Physical and chemical properties of phthalates including water solubility, bioconcentration and bioaccumulation, analytical chemistry, modeling and field derived data; Ecological hazard identification including general ecological hazard identification and use of read-across and new alternative methods; Environmental releases including methods for modeling and considerations for use of monitoring data; General population exposure including use of screening methods and refinements; Occupational exposure including dermal exposure modeling with consideration of empirical absorption data; Consumer exposure and indoor air exposure including modeling data selection and interpretation and use of monitoring data; Human health toxicology including inhalation hazard, glucose metabolism, liver toxicity, phthalate syndrome, mode of action for cancer and non-cancer, benchmark dose modeling and dose response analysis; Cumulative and mixtures risk assessment for human health including index chemical selection and relative potency factor derivations; Biostatistics including analysis of NHANES biomonitoring data and derivation of occupational exposure limits; Epidemiology related to individual chemicals and phthalate mixtures for use in risk assessments.

Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this review.

Submit your nomination as directed under ADDRESSES by the deadline indicated under DATES . Each nomination should include the following information: Contact information for the person making the nomination; name, affiliation, and contact information for the nominee; and the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee.

Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) or other sensitive information to EPA through email. If your nomination contains any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting that information.

SACC members and ad hoc reviewers are subject to the provisions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635, conflict of interest statutes in Title 18 of the United States Code and related regulations. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on the SACC will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the candidates' financial disclosure forms to assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a loss of impartiality, or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is considered further for service on the SACC. Selected candidates are required to complete an ethics training prior to conducting their reviews.

The selection of scientists to serve as ad hoc reviewers for the SACC is based on the function of the Committee and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the Committee. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a federal department or agency or their employment by a federal department or agency, except EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the prospective candidate to fully participate in the Committee's reviews, ability to be hired as an EPA Special Government Employee (SGE), absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of loss of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of loss of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in non-selection, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on the SACC.

Numerous qualified candidates are often identified for SACC reviews. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing several factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives across reviewers. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc reviewers for the SACC that are received by the deadline listed under DATES . However, the final selection of ad hoc reviewers is a discretionary function of the Agency.

EPA anticipates selecting approximately ten (10) ad hoc reviewers to assist the SACC in their review of the designated topic. EPA plans to make a list of candidates under consideration as prospective ad hoc reviewers for this review available for public comment by the winter of 2025. The list will be available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov (docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0551) and through the SACC website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625(o); 5 U.S.C. 10.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0748.

Title: Section 64.104, 64.1509, 64.1510 Pay-Per-Call and Other Information Services.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,125 respondents; 5,175 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 to 260 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual and on occasion reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority(s) for the information collection is found at 47 U.S.C. 228(c)(7)-(10); Public Law 192-556, 106 Stat. 4181 (1992), codified at 47 U.S.C. 228 (The Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992).

Total Annual Burden: 47,750 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: Regulations at 47 CFR 64.1504 of the Commission's rules incorporate the requirements of sections 228(c)(7)-(10) of the Communications Act restricting the manner in which toll-free numbers may be used to charge telephone subscribers for information services. Common carriers may not charge a calling party for information conveyed on a toll-free number call, unless the calling party: (1) has executed a written agreement that specifies the material terms and conditions under which the information is provided, or (2) pays for the information by means of a prepaid account, credit, debit, charge, or calling card and the information service provider gives the calling party an introductory message disclosing the cost and other terms and conditions for the service. The disclosure requirements are intended to ensure that consumers know when charges will be levied for calls to toll-free numbers and are able to obtain information necessary to make informed choices about whether to purchase toll-free information services. Regulations at 47 CFR 64.1509 of the Commission rules incorporate the requirements of 47 U.S.C. (c)(2) and 228 (d)(2)-(3) of the Communications Act. Common carriers that assign telephone numbers to pay-per-call services must disclose to all interested parties, upon request, a list of all assigned pay-per-call numbers. For each assigned number, carriers must also make available: (1) a description of the pay-per-call services; (2) the total cost per minute or other fees associated with the service; and (3) the service provider's name, business address, and telephone number. In addition, carriers handling pay-per-call services must establish a toll-free number that consumers may call to receive information about pay-per-call services. Finally, the Commission requires carriers to provide statements of pay-per-call rights and responsibilities to new telephone subscribers at the time service is established and, although not required by statute, to all subscribers annually.

Under 47 CFR 64.1510 of the Commission's rules, telephone bills containing charges for interstate pay-per-call and other information services must include information detailing consumers' rights and responsibilities with respect to these charges. Specifically, telephone bills carrying pay-per-call charges must include a consumer notification stating that: (1) the charges are for non-communication services; (2) local and long distance telephone services may not be disconnected for failure to pay per-call charges; (3) pay-per-call (900 number) blocking is available upon request; and (4) access to pay-per-call services may be involuntarily blocked for failure to pay per-call charges. In addition, each call billed must show the type of services, the amount of the charge, and the date, time, and duration of the call. Finally, the bill must display a toll-free number which subscribers may call to obtain information about pay-per-call services. Similar billing disclosure requirements apply to charges for information services either billed to subscribers on a collect basis or accessed by subscribers through a toll-free number. The billing disclosure requirements are intended to ensure that telephone subscribers billed for pay-per-call or other information services can understand the charges levied and are informed of their rights and responsibilities with respect to payment of such charges.

The text of the report follows:

In accordance with section 37(c), 1 the agencies are submitting this joint report, which covers differences among their accounting and capital standards existing as of September 30, 2024, applicable to institutions. 2 As of September 30, 2024, the agencies have not identified any material differences among the agencies' accounting standards applicable to institutions.

In 2013, the agencies revised the risk-based and leverage capital rule for institutions (capital rule), 3 which harmonized the agencies' capital rule in a comprehensive manner. 4 Since 2013, the agencies have revised the capital rule on several occasions, further reducing the number of differences in the agencies' capital rule. Today, only a few differences remain, which are statutorily mandated for certain categories of institutions, or which reflect certain technical, generally nonmaterial differences among the agencies' capital rule. No new material differences were identified in the capital standards applicable to institutions in this report compared to the previous report submitted by the agencies pursuant to section 37(c).

As of September 30, 2024, the agencies have not identified any material differences among themselves in the accounting standards applicable to institutions.

The following are the remaining technical differences among the capital standards of the agencies' capital rule. 5

The agencies' capital rule largely contains the same definitions. 6 The differences that exist generally serve to accommodate the different needs of the institutions that each agency charters, regulates, and/or supervises.

The agencies' capital rule has differing definitions of a pre-sold construction loan. The capital rule of all three agencies provides that a pre-sold construction loan means any “one-to-four family residential construction loan to a builder that meets the requirements of section 618(a)(1) or (2) of the Resolution Trust Corporation Refinancing, Restructuring, and Improvement Act of 1991 (12 U.S.C. 1831n), and, in addition to other criteria, the purchaser has not terminated the contract.”  7 The Board's definition provides further clarification that, if a purchaser has terminated the contract, the institution must immediately apply a 100 percent risk weight to the loan and report the revised risk weight in the next quarterly Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report). 8 Similarly, if the purchaser has terminated the contract, the OCC and FDIC capital rule would immediately disqualify the loan from receiving a 50 percent risk weight, and would apply a 100 percent risk weight to the loan. The change in risk weight would be reflected in the next quarterly Call Report. Thus, the minor wording difference between the agencies should have no practical consequence.

While the capital rule generally provides uniform eligibility criteria for regulatory capital instruments, there are some textual differences among the agencies' capital rule. The capital rule of each of the three agencies requires that, for an instrument to qualify as common equity tier 1 or additional tier 1 capital, cash dividend payments be paid out of net income and retained earnings, but the Board's capital rule also allows cash dividend payments to be paid out of related surplus. 9 The provision in the Board's capital rule that allows dividends to be paid out of related surplus is a difference in substance among the agencies' capital rule. However, due to the restrictions on institutions regulated by the Board in separate regulations, this additional language in the Board's rule has a practical impact only on bank holding companies (BHCs) and savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) and is not a difference as applied to institutions. The agencies apply the criteria for determining eligibility of regulatory capital instruments in a manner that ensures consistent outcomes for institutions.

Both the Board's capital rule and the FDIC's capital rule also include an additional sentence noting that institutions regulated by each agency are subject to restrictions independent of the capital rule on paying dividends out of surplus and/or that would result in a reduction of capital stock. 10 These additional sentences do not create differences in substance between the agencies' capital standards, but rather note that restrictions apply under separate regulations.

In addition, the Board's capital rule includes a requirement that a Board-regulated institution must obtain prior approval before redeeming regulatory capital instruments. 11 This requirement effectively applies only to a BHC or an SLHC and is, therefore, not included in the OCC's and FDIC's capital rule. All three agencies require institutions to obtain prior approval before redeeming regulatory capital instruments in other regulations. 12 The additional provision in the Board's capital rule, therefore, only has a practical impact on BHCs and SLHCs and is not a difference as applied to institutions.

There is a technical difference between the FDIC's capital rule and the OCC's and Board's capital rule with regard to an explicit requirement for deduction of examiner-identified losses. The agencies require their examiners to determine whether their respective supervised institutions have appropriately identified losses. The FDIC's capital rule, however, explicitly requires FDIC-supervised institutions to deduct identified losses from common equity tier 1 capital elements, to the extent that the institutions' common equity tier 1 capital would have been reduced if the appropriate accounting entries had been recorded. 13 Generally, identified losses are those items that an examiner determines to be chargeable against income, capital, or general valuation allowances.

For example, identified losses may include, among other items, assets classified as loss, off-balance-sheet items classified as loss, any expenses that are necessary for the institution to record in order to replenish its general valuation allowances to an adequate level, and estimated losses on contingent liabilities. The Board and the OCC expect their supervised institutions to promptly recognize examiner-identified losses, but the requirement is not explicit under their capital rule. Instead, the Board and the OCC apply their supervisory authorities to ensure that their supervised institutions charge off any identified losses.

There are special statutory requirements for the agencies' capital treatment of a savings association's investment in or credit to its subsidiaries as compared with the capital treatment of such transactions between other types of institutions and their subsidiaries. Specifically, the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) distinguishes between subsidiaries of savings associations engaged in activities that are permissible for national banks and those engaged in activities that are not permissible for national banks. 14

When subsidiaries of a savings association are engaged in activities that are not permissible for national banks, 15 the parent savings association generally must deduct the parent's investment in and extensions of credit to these subsidiaries from the capital of the parent savings association. If a subsidiary of a savings association engages solely in activities permissible for national banks, no deduction is required, and investments in and loans to that organization may be assigned the risk weight appropriate for the activity. 16 As the appropriate federal banking agencies for federal and state savings associations, respectively, the OCC and the FDIC apply this capital treatment to those types of institutions. The Board's regulatory capital framework does not apply to savings associations and, therefore, does not include this requirement.

Federal law subjects savings associations to a specific tangible capital requirement but does not similarly do so with respect to banks. Under section 5(t)(2)(B) of HOLA, savings associations are required to maintain tangible capital in an amount not less than 1.5 percent of total assets. 17 The capital rule of the OCC and the FDIC includes a requirement that savings associations maintain a tangible capital ratio of 1.5 percent. 18 This statutory requirement does not apply to banks and, thus, there is no comparable regulatory provision for banks. The distinction is of little practical consequence, however, because under the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) framework, all institutions are considered critically undercapitalized if their tangible equity falls below 2 percent of total assets. 19 Generally speaking, the appropriate federal banking agency must appoint a receiver within 90 days after an institution becomes critically undercapitalized. 20

The agencies adopted enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards that took effect beginning on January 1, 2018. 21 These standards require certain BHCs to exceed a 5 percent supplementary leverage ratio to avoid limitations on distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments and also require the subsidiary institutions of these BHCs to meet a 6 percent supplementary leverage ratio to be considered “well capitalized” under the PCA framework. 22 The rule text establishing the scope of application for the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio differs among the agencies. The Board and the FDIC apply the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards for institutions based on parent BHCs being identified as global systemically important BHCs as defined in 12 CFR 217.2. 23 The OCC applies enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards to the institution subsidiaries under their supervisory jurisdiction of a top-tier BHC that has more than $700 billion in total assets or more than $10 trillion in assets under custody. 24

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

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

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

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses; and

5. Assess information collection costs.

Research Data Center (RDC) Proposal for Access to Confidential Data for the National Center for Health Statistics (OMB Control No. 0920-1363, Exp. 4/30/2025)—Extension—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Section 306(b)(4) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k(b)(4)), as amended, authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, to receive requests for providing data and statistics to the public. NCHS receives requests for confidential data from the public through the Research Data Center (RDC) Proposal for Access to Confidential Data. This is a request for an Extension without change from OMB to collect information via the RDC proposal over the next three years at an overall burden rate of 990 hours.

As part of a comprehensive data dissemination program, the Research Data Center (RDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, requires prospective researchers who need access to confidential data to complete a research proposal. Researchers self-select whether they need access to confidential data to answer their research questions. The RDC requires the researcher to complete a research proposal so NCHS understands the research proposed, whether confidential data are available to address the research questions, how the confidential data will be used and what data outputs the researcher needs to satisfy their project. The completed proposal is sent to NCHS for adjudication on whether the proposed research is possible.

To capture the information needed to adjudicate researchers' need for access to confidential NCHS data, this request allows for both respondents and time per response for a total estimated annual burden total of 330 hours (990 hours for a three-year clearance period). There is no cost to respondents other than their time to complete the proposal.

CDC is requesting public comment on the draft “Recommendations for HIV Screening in Clinical Settings,” which is available on regulations.gov in Docket CDC-2024-0100. These recommendations modify the ages for HIV screening including eliminating an upper age limit, encourage providers to use clinical decision support tools such as automated HIV test laboratory orders to implement HIV screening, provide considerations for healthcare populations on which to conduct HIV screening, recommend anyone who requests a test should be tested, and emphasize the use of a general consent process as used for other routine tests. CDC describes the methods and supporting evidence in the recommendations. The recommendations' objectives are to diagnose and link patients with undiagnosed infection to clinical care; relink persons with previously diagnosed HIV to clinical care; diagnose HIV infection earlier; and reduce HIV transmission in the United States.

Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, recommendations, and data. In addition, CDC invites comments specifically on the following questions proposed in this document:

• Does the evidence presented support the proposed recommendations for HIV screening in clinical settings, including the benefits and harms of HIV screening? If not, please state the reason why and, if available, provide additional evidence for consideration.

• Are CDC's proposed recommendations for HIV screening in clinical settings clearly written? If not, what changes do you propose to make it clearer?

• If implemented as currently drafted, do you believe these recommendations would improve HIV screening in clinical settings, improve diagnoses and linking patients with undiagnosed infection to clinical care; relinking persons with previously diagnosed HIV to clinical care; diagnosing HIV infection earlier; and reducing HIV transmission in the United States? If not, please provide an explanation and supporting data or evidence.

• How should CDC disseminate the final recommendations to effectively reach end users such as healthcare providers in clinical settings?

• After the recommendations are finalized, CDC is planning to publish an implementation guide for healthcare providers to supplement the updated recommendations. What should the implementation guide include?

Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. If you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be on public display. CDC will review all submissions and may choose to redact, or withhold, submissions containing private or proprietary information such as Social Security numbers, medical information, inappropriate language, or duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign. Do not submit comments by email. CDC does not accept comment by email.

After the comments received on the draft are considered and addressed, the final recommendations will be published on CDC's website at https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/guidelines/testing.html. The final recommendations will also be posted to docket CDC-2024-0100 at www.regulations.gov.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a virus that attacks the body's immune system. The only way a person can know their HIV status is by getting tested (CDC, 2024a). While there is no cure, people with HIV who get on and stay on effective HIV treatment can live long, healthy lives and protect their partners (CDC, 2024a).

While the number of persons living with HIV in the United States has slightly increased from an estimated 1.1 million people at the end of 2006 to 1.2 million people in 2022, the estimated HIV incidence has decreased from 48,600 in 2006 to 31,800 in 2022 (Campsmith, Rhodes, Hall, & Green, 2008; CDC, 2024b; Prejean et al., 2011). There are now better HIV assays for more accurate diagnosis, improved antiretroviral treatment, pre-exposure prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis, and self-testing, which taken together improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of HIV infections.

In 2006, the CDC published “Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing of Adults, Adolescents, and Pregnant Women in Health-Care Settings,” (hereafter referred to as 2006 HIV Testing Recommendations). These guidelines transformed the HIV testing paradigm in the United States by recommending routine, voluntary HIV screening among all adults and adolescents between 13-64 years of age unless prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection in their patients has been documented to be less than 0.1%. In addition, it was recommended that repeat screening of persons not likely to be at high risk for HIV should be performed based on clinical judgment.

The 2006 HIV Testing Recommendations aimed to normalize HIV screening. To update the evidence, CDC conducted an in-depth systematic review and analysis of other data sources using rigorous methods for guidelines development. CDC obtained input from the public prior to starting the update process and from internal and external experts at different points in the process. CDC seeks to engage a diverse range of perspectives to inform the development of the recommendations, improve their credibility, and increase the transparency of the process.

CDC invites written comments by the public (any interested persons or organizations) on the draft HIV screening guideline. These recommendations will also undergo peer review.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

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

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

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses; and

5. Assess information collection costs.

Performance Monitoring of CDC's Core State Injury Prevention Program (SIPP) (OMB Control No. 0920-1365, Exp. 7/31/2025)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

This is a Revision request for the currently approved Performance Monitoring of CDC's Core State Injury Prevention Program (SIPP) (OMB Control No. 0920-1369, Exp. Date 7/31/2025). Approval is requested for an additional three years to continue collecting information from awardees funded under the Core SIPP cooperative agreement. Data collected up until this point has been used for monitoring the impact of Core SIPP.

Monitoring the impact of population-based strategies and identifying new insights and innovative solutions to health problems are two of the noted public health activities that all public health systems should undertake. For NCIPC, these objectives cannot be satisfied without the systematic collection of data and information from state health departments. The information collection will enable the accurate, reliable, uniform, and timely submission to NCIPC of each awardee's progress report and injury indicators, including strategies and performance measures. The information collection plan proposed here will also generate a variety of routine and customizable reports. State-specific reports will allow each awardee to summarize activities and progress towards meeting strategies and performance measure targets related to the reduction and prevention of unintentional and intentional injuries. NCIPC will also have the capacity to generate reports that describe activities and health outcomes across multiple recipients, which will enable better reporting of trends and provision of technical assistance through linking partners across state health departments and collaborating divisions within CDC.

The information collection and reporting requirements have been carefully designed to align with and support the specific goals and outcomes outlined in the Core SIPP cooperative agreement. The overarching goal of Core SIPP is to strengthen the awardee's injury prevention programs and policies and demonstrate impact in the reduction of injury-related morbidity and mortality. Although the data are limited to the 26 recipients of the Core SIPP NOFO, the results can be generalizable and inform injury prevention work. Moreover, it is steadfastly asserted that the results of the data collection are vital to ensuring the Core SIPPs efficient management. Results will not only allow NCIPC staff to provide data-driven technical assistance to recipients, but also to assess patterns across other NCIPC injury prevention programs such as, Prescription Drug Overdose Prevention for States and the Injury Control Research Centers. In addition, the data collection will inform the continuous quality improvement process and allow NCIPC staff to make mid-course corrections and describe the impact on health outcomes. The information collection procedures allow NCIPC to respond to inquiries from the HHS, the White House, Congress and other stakeholders about program activities and their impact; as well as, work towards CDCs overarching mission to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.

Program recipients use the information collected to manage and coordinate their activities and to improve their efforts to prevent and control injuries. The Partners' Portal allows recipients to fulfill their annual reporting obligations efficiently by employing user-friendly, easily accessible web-based instruments to collect necessary information for both progress reports and continuation applications including work plans. This approach enables recipients to save pertinent information from one reporting period to the next and reduces the administrative burden on the annual continuation application and the performance monitoring process. Awardee program staff are able to review the completeness of data needed to generate required reports, enter basic summary data for reports annually, and finalize and save required reports for upload into other reporting systems as required.

CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 286 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

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

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

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses; and

5. Assess information collection costs.

2024 Marburg Traveler Symptom Monitoring and Feedback—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Global Migration Health (DGMH) requests an Emergency approval for a New information collection. Section 361 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 264) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States. Under its delegated authority, DGMH works to fulfill this responsibility through a variety of activities, including the operation of Port Health Stations at ports of entry and administration of foreign quarantine regulations; 42 Code of Federal Regulation part 71 (specifically 42 CFR 71.20), public health prevention measures to detect communicable disease. This information collection concerns CDC's responsibility to ensure the successful implementation of traveler monitoring to prevent the transmission or spread of communicable diseases into the United States.

On February 21, 2020, CDC issued an interim final rule (IFR) to amend its Foreign Quarantine regulations, to enable CDC to require airlines to collect, and provide to CDC, certain data regarding passengers and crew arriving from foreign countries for the purposes of health education, treatment, prophylaxis, or other appropriate public health interventions, including travel restrictions. CDC's authority for collecting data for travelers arriving in the United States is contained in 42 CFR 71. Under this IFR, airlines must transmit these data to CDC within 24 hours of an order. The order Requirement for Airlines and Operators to Collect and Transmit Designated Information for Passengers and Crew Arriving into the United States; Requirement for Passengers to Provide Designated Information requiring the collection of this information was issued on October 25, 2021 and went into effect on November 8, 2021. Under this order, airlines may transmit the required information using the existing data-sharing infrastructure in place between the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and HHS/CDC or they must retain the information for a minimum of 30 days and transmit it to CDC within 24 hours upon request. This information collection for contact information is already approved under OMB Control No. 0920-1354.

In September 2024, an outbreak of Marburg virus was detected in the Republic of Rwanda. DHS has instructed airlines to redirect flights carrying persons who have recently traveled from or were otherwise present within Rwanda to land at designated U.S. airports. CDC is conducting public health entry screening at these designated U.S. airports of travelers coming from Rwanda. The purpose of public health entry screening is to detect ill travelers or travelers arriving from regions affected by the outbreak who are at risk of becoming ill with Marburg to facilitate post-arrival management. This information collection has been approved under OMB Control Number 0920-1443.

CDC will utilize information collected during public health entry screening (approved under OMB Control Number 0920-1443) to determine which travelers should be monitored for Marburg symptoms in accordance with CDC's interim recommendations for post-arrival public health management of travelers from Rwanda. Monitoring of travelers will be done via text message and web survey and will take place over a period of 21 days from the traveler's last documented Marburg exposure. Text messages and web survey will be available in English and with an additional translated Kinyarwanda version. The information collected will allow CDC to identify the level of follow up necessary based on the level of risk of exposure to Marburg and determine if additional risk assessment and/or targeted public health measures are needed. Information collected from travelers during symptom monitoring will be shared with state and local health departments through existing secure data-sharing infrastructure. This information collection is necessary to facilitate post-arrival public health management of travelers as specified in CDC interim recommendations for management of U.S.-based healthcare personnel who have been in Rwanda and interim recommendations for post-arrival public health management of travelers from Rwanda. At the end of the 21-day monitoring period, CDC will send a final survey to travelers intended to evaluate the impact of rerouting and public health entry screening on travelers. The results of this final survey will allow CDC to identify the most efficient channels for reaching travelers and refine public health messaging for travelers coming from the outbreak area.

CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 2,833 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program; Use: CMS will use this information from plan sponsors and States to approve contract applications, monitor compliance with contract requirements, make proper payment to plans, and ensure that correct information is disclosed to potential and current enrollees. Form Number: CMS-10141 (OMB control number: 0938-0964); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 4,633,032; Total Annual Responses: 87,014,803; Total Annual Hours: 25,409,037. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Chad Buskirk at 410-786-1630 or chad.buskirk@cms.hhs.gov ).

Clear, concise, and timely communication with medical product sponsors and other interested parties, including the public, using Agency regulatory documents as well as a variety of other communication methods, is essential to the public health mission of FDA. FDA currently uses a wide range of communication methods ( e.g., website posting, online resource libraries, webinars and town halls, email, press releases and press conferences, social media, blogs, podcasts, guidance snapshots, graphics and short videos, conferences, meetings, workshops, focus groups, and public speeches) to reach external parties and the public. During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE), FDA considered innovative approaches and novel communication methods to reach a broad audience in an expedited manner. Now that the PHE determined under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) is over, FDA is internally discussing the lessons learned from that experience and reassessing our current best practices for communication to look for additional areas for improvement consistent with our statutory and regulatory framework.

In accordance with section 2505(b) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 117-328) of 2023, FDA's draft report and plan on “Best Practices for FDA Communication with Interested Parties” reviews the types and methods of public communication outside of guidance that FDA uses to communicate and interact with medical product sponsors and other external parties and identifies our current best practices for the efficient development, issuance, and use of such communications. As a part of this draft report and plan, FDA is also considering opportunities to advance the use of innovative forms of communication, to streamline the processes for regulatory submissions, and to implement innovative communication development processes and to transition or update communication practices used during the COVID-19 PHE. Pursuant to section 2505(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, in this Federal Register notice announcing the availability of this document, FDA is seeking public comment on this “Best Practices for FDA Communication with Interested Parties: Draft Report for Public Comment.”

FDA is soliciting comments on its “Best Practices for FDA Communication with Interested Parties: Draft Report for Public Comment” from interested parties. Specifically, we request feedback on the following areas of communication:

1. Are there communication practices that other Federal agencies use to communicate with interested parties, such as regulated industry, that would be consistent with FDA's statutory and regulatory requirements and helpful for FDA to consider implementing?

2. Recognizing that FDA used many innovative communications processes and practices during the COVID-19 public health emergency, what types of communications were most beneficial/useful during the COVID-19 pandemic and why?

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft report and plan at https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/reports-agency-policies-and-initiatives or https://www.regulations.gov.

Clear, concise, and timely communication through guidance documents is essential to the public health mission of FDA. FDA guidance documents are prepared for FDA staff, industry, and the public to describe the Agency's interpretation of, or policy on, a regulatory issue. (21 CFR 10.115(b)). Specifically, FDA uses guidance documents to assist regulated industry, FDA staff, and the public in understanding the Agency's current thinking on policy, scientific, medical, and regulatory issues, such as: the design, manufacturing, and testing of regulated products; content and evaluation of applications for product approvals; and inspection and enforcement policies. Timely publication of guidance documents significantly benefits public health by providing transparency and valuable insight into approaches that may assist industry and other interested parties in complying with applicable statutes and regulations, ensuring consumer and patient safety, and developing new and innovative products to improve public health.

As part of FDA's Transparency Initiative, in 2011, FDA publicly released a comprehensive report entitled “Food and Drug Administration Report on Good Guidance Practices: Improving Efficiency and Transparency” (2011 GGP Report). 1 The 2011 GGP Report identified “best practices” and made recommendations to streamline the development of guidance documents, reduce the time between issuing draft and final guidance documents, and improve access to guidance documents on FDA's website. Since 2011, FDA has made significant strides to implement the recommendations in the 2011 GGP Report and to modernize and enhance our best practices for the efficient initiation, prioritization, development, review, clearance, and issuance of our guidance documents. As a result of these and other Agency improvement efforts, and as explained in the Report and Plan, FDA has significantly increased the number of guidance documents it publishes annually.

As part of FDA's reassessment of its best practices for guidance and in accordance with section 2505(a) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, FDA published a “Draft Report and Plan on Best Practices for Guidance” (Draft Report and Plan) on our website on December 28, 2023. 2 Pursuant to section 2505(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 in a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the Draft Report and Plan, FDA solicited public comment from a broad range of interested parties, including researchers; academic organizations; pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device developers; clinical research organizations; clinical laboratories; healthcare providers; food manufacturers; and patient and consumer groups. 3 The 60-day public comment period closed on March 4, 2024.

FDA received over 30 sets of comments on the Draft Report and Plan from interested parties, including industry and trade groups; healthcare providers and entities; patient and consumer advocacy groups; researchers, scientific, and academic experts; and private citizens. The majority of comments focused on the following topics: (1) general best practices for guidance documents; (2) suggestions for improving FDA's current “Search for FDA Guidance Documents” web page; (3) FDA's guidance agendas; and (4) FDA's proposal to publish additional guidance documents as Level 1 “for immediate implementation” and Level 2 guidance, consistent with applicable statutes and regulations. FDA also received comments encouraging FDA's continued use of guidance to streamline the process for regulatory submissions and providing support for further Agency use of novel and innovative guidance formats. A few comments proposed specific topic areas for consideration of future guidance development. FDA convened a cross-Agency workgroup to carefully review, discuss, and consider all comments received as it prepared this Report and Plan.

FDA carefully considered all relevant comments received in developing this Report and Plan and is now announcing the availability of “Food and Drug Administration Report and Plan on Best Practices for Guidance.” FDA's Report and Plan addresses many of the themes seen across comments received in response to the Draft Report and Plan. FDA appreciates all the feedback and will continue to reassess its best practices for guidance and make further improvements in the future as appropriate.

Persons with access to the internet may also obtain the report and plan at https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/reports-agency-policies-and-initiatives.

Technology description follows.

Available for licensing and commercial development are patent rights covering N-Lactoyl-Phenylalanine (Lac-Phe) analogues having appetite suppressant activity, which may be useful as therapeutics in the treatment of obesity and related secondary diseases. The patent rights also cover methods of synthesis of the N-Lactoyl-Phenylalanine (Lac-Phe) analogues are also disclosed, as well as methods of use and treatment of obesity and related secondary diseases with the Lac-Phe analogues.

This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.

The Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022, Public Law 117-255, 136 Stat. 2363, amended title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. ) (Stafford Act) to add a new section 206 (42 U.S.C. 5136) that requires the: (1) maintenance of a natural hazard assessment program and development and maintenance of products for the public's use that show the risk of natural hazards through use of risk ratings at the census tract level; and (2) designation, at the census tract level, of community disaster resilience zones based on the natural hazard risk ratings derived from a natural hazard risk product maintained by the natural hazard assessment program.

Section 206 also provides FEMA the discretion to: (1) increase the Federal cost share to not more than 90 percent under the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program for mitigation projects within, or primarily benefiting, a community disaster resilience zone; (2) provide financial and technical assistance to State, local, Tribal, and Territorial governments for project planning assistance to carry out activities in preparation for a mitigation project within, or primarily benefiting, a community disaster resilience zone; and (3) establish a process for FEMA certification, and provide certification for mitigation projects within, or primarily benefiting, a community disaster resilience zone.

The National Risk Index is a publicly available dataset and online mapping application that identifies the U.S. communities most at risk for 18 different natural hazards. The 18 hazard types evaluated by the National Risk Index were chosen after reviewing FEMA-approved State Hazard Mitigation Plans for all 50 States in early 2016. 1 FEMA announced the availability of the National Risk Index with limited access to data in November 2020 and released a full web application, which enhanced the data and report functionality, on August 16, 2021. 2 The National Risk Index data and application was last updated on March 23, 2023.

The National Risk Index application visualizes natural hazard risk metrics and includes important data about expected annual loss, social vulnerability, and community resilience. 3 The data are derived from probabilistic data sources or built from historic event and historic loss information and are aggregated to the county and census tract levels, thus providing a baseline risk assessment and natural hazard risk profiles.

In addition to Federal collaborators, the National Risk Index incorporates data from a wide range of relevant sources across the country to ensure the tool's robustness. 4 This includes more than 90 partners across the public and private sectors, including State, regional, and local government agencies; academia; private organizations; and nonprofits. While natural hazard occurrences can induce secondary natural hazard occurrences, only primary natural hazard occurrences (and not their results or after-effects) are considered in the National Risk Index. Currently, the National Risk Index does not account for future conditions or anticipated impacts due to climate change.

With current National Risk Index information, users can discover a holistic view of their community's baseline and current risk from natural hazards via online maps and data downloads. Potential users might be planners and emergency managers at the State, local, Tribal, Territorial, and Federal levels; as well as other decision makers, private sector entities, and interested members of the public.

The interactive mapping application can help decision makers better prepare for and mitigate natural hazard events by providing standardized risk data for planning and an overview of multiple risk factors. In turn, this data can help State, local, Tribal, or Territorial governments develop FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans, required to apply for and/or receive certain FEMA assistance and mitigation grants. More importantly, use of this data can help all users plan for disasters and increase resilience.

The National Risk Index is different from other traditional hazard data and models because of the scope and scale of its analyses. For communities that do not have access to natural hazard risk assessment services, the National Risk Index is a valuable product because it uses authoritative data from a variety of Federal, State, local, academic, non-profit, and private sector partners and contributors, 5 and it provides users analysis of their risk to a natural hazard. The National Risk Index leverages best-available source data and methods to provide a holistic view of the current and baseline community-level risk nationwide by combining multiple hazards with socioeconomic and built environment factors.

FEMA publishes and maintains a publicly available National Risk Index-specific technical document to highlight the National Risk Index research and methodologies for developing all components of the tool. 6 Previously released National Risk Index data versions, documentation, and data updates documentation are available through the National Risk Index Data Archive.

On May 26, 2023, FEMA issued a notice and request for information to seek input from the public on implementation of the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022. This included updates to the methodology and data used for the National Risk Index and any other hazard assessment products; potential improvements to FEMA's provision of hazard data; the process used to designate community disaster resilience zones; financial and technical assistance for resilience or mitigation projects in or primarily benefitting community disaster resilience zones; and the community disaster resilience zone project application and certification process. 7

This request for information closed for comments on July 25, 2023, during which time FEMA received responses from over 100 commentors. 8 The request for information responses indicated six themes: designation methodology, post-designation support, community engagement, data and the National Risk Index, equity, and community displacement.

FEMA has summarized the comments and developed summary responses based on the general themes noted above. Comments and responses may be found at https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/summary-request-information-implementation-community-disaster-resilience-zones.

On September 6, 2023, FEMA announced the designation of an initial set of 483 community disaster resilience zones across the United States. 9 To identify resilience zones, FEMA used components of the National Risk Index to identify the census tracts most at-risk and in-need. FEMA is currently working on additional designations and plans to announce them soon. These designations will help build resilience across the nation by driving Federal, public, and private resources to these designated zones.

FEMA also used the White House Council on Environmental Quality's Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, a geospatial platform that identifies areas across the nation that face especially acute climate and other resilience burdens, to help focus the designations on disadvantaged communities. 10

A map of the census tracts that were designated as community disaster resilience zones on September 6, 2023, can be found at https://www.fema.gov/partnerships/community-disaster-resilience-zones.

The FEMA Youth Preparedness Council (YPC) was formed to bring together youth leaders from across the country who are highly interested and engaged in advocating youth preparedness and making a difference in their communities. This collection meets the requirements of 6 U.S.C. 742, National Preparedness, and Presidential Policy Directive—8 (PPD-8) which emphasize the need for involvement from all sectors of society in preparing for and responding to threats and hazards.

This application form is used to select interested council members based on dedication to public service, efforts in making a difference in their community, and potential for expanding their impact as a national advocate for youth preparedness.

Council members' involvement and activities align with goals 5.2 and 5.3 from the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR). Members are expected to represent the youth perspective on emergency preparedness and take information back to their communities to share. Council members are expected to develop and complete preparedness-related projects.

Youth apply using personal identifiable demographic and contact information, which FEMA retains confidentially for the purposes of providing acceptance/denial responses to applicants and determining a representative sample of applicants. Letters of recommendation and academic records are required, while supplemental materials highlighting past achievements are encouraged.

This proposed information collection previously published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2024, at 89 FR 57923 with a 60-day public comment period. FEMA received no public comments. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Title: Individual & Community Preparedness Division (ICPD) Annual Youth Preparedness Council (YPC) Application Form.

Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0144.

FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-008-FY-21-111 (formerly 008-0-0-24), FEMA Youth Preparedness Council Application.

Abstract: The FEMA Youth Preparedness Council (YPC) was formed to bring together youth leaders from across the country who are highly interested and engaged in advocating youth preparedness and making a difference in their communities. This collection meets the requirements of 6 U.S.C. 742, National Preparedness, and Presidential Policy Directive—8 (PPD-8) which emphasize the need for involvement from all sectors of society in preparing for and responding to threats and hazards. This application form is used to select interested council members based on dedication to public service, efforts in making a difference in their community, and potential for expanding their impact as a national advocate for youth preparedness.

Affected Public: Individuals and Households; State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Number of Responses: 200.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 283.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $2,974.

Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.

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

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $77,538.

Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Interested persons are invited to submit comments and related materials. We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. If you submit a comment, include the Docket ID, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. All submissions must be posted to https://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. For more about privacy and the docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice.

The Guidance is available in docket ID FEMA-2024-0035. For access to the docket and to read background documents or comments received, please go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for the docket ID.

In 2022, FEMA published the 2022-2026 FEMA National Tribal Strategy to better address the needs of the 574 federally recognized Tribal Nations and recognized the need to update the Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance. Throughout 2023, FEMA worked in a Nation-to-Nation manner with Tribal Nations across the country through extensive consultations and listening sessions to identify solutions to alleviate barriers faced by Tribal Nations when seeking Federal assistance through disaster declarations. The Guidance revision is a direct outcome of the extensive engagement with Tribal Nations.

FEMA seeks comments on the Guidance, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID FEMA-2024-0035. Based on the comments received, FEMA may make appropriate revisions to the Guidance. When or if FEMA finalizes the Guidance, FEMA will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register and make the final Guidance available at https://www.regulations.gov. The final Guidance will not have the force and effect of law.

Authority: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq.

Section 604 of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-569) amended the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) to require the establishment of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC), a Federal advisory committee, to: (1) provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the manufactured housing construction and safety standards; and (2) provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the procedural and enforcement manufactured housing regulations. The Act authorizes the Secretary to appoint a total of twenty-two members to the MHCC. Twenty-one members have voting rights; the twenty-second member represents the Secretary and is a non-voting position. Service on the MHCC is voluntary. Travel and per diem for meetings is provided in accordance with Federal travel policy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5703.

HUD encourages nominations from highly qualified and motivated individuals of diverse backgrounds, interests, and experience, who meet the requirements set forth in the Act to serve as voting members of the MHCC for up to two terms of three years each. The MHCC expects to meet at least one to two times annually. Meetings may take place by conference call, virtually, or in person. Members of the MHCC undertake additional work commitments on subcommittees and task forces regarding issues under deliberation.

Members of the MHCC are appointed to serve in one of three member categories. Nominees will be appointed to fill voting member vacancies in the following categories:

1. Producers —Seven individuals from producers or retailers of manufactured housing.

2. Users —Seven individuals representing consumer interests, such as consumer organizations, recognized consumer leaders, and owners who are residents of manufactured homes.

3. General Interest and Public Officials —Seven general interest and public official members.

The Act provides that the Secretary shall ensure that all interests directly and materially affected by the work of the MHCC have the opportunity for fair and equitable participation without dominance by any single interest. The Secretary may reject the appointment of any one or more individuals to ensure that there is not dominance by any single interest. For purposes of this determination, dominance is defined as a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation.

Additional requirements governing appointment and member service include:

(1) Nominees appointed to the User category and three of the individuals appointed to the General Interest and Public Official category shall not have a significant financial interest in any segment of the manufactured housing industry or a significant relationship to any person engaged in the manufactured housing industry.

(2) Each member serving in the User category shall be subject to a ban disallowing compensation from the manufactured housing industry during the period of, and during the one year following, his or her membership on the MHCC.

(3) Nominees selected for appointment to the MHCC shall be required to provide disclosures and certifications regarding conflict-of-interest and eligibility for membership prior to finalizing an appointment.

All selected nominees will be required to submit certifications of eligibility under the foregoing criteria, as a prerequisite to final appointment.

The MHCC's role is solely to advise the Secretary on the subject matter described above.

The MHCC is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. ch. 10), 41 CFR part 102-3 (the FACA Final Rule), and to the Presidential Memorandum, dated June 18, 2010, directing all heads of executive departments and agencies not to make any new appointments or reappointments of federally registered lobbyists to advisory committees and other boards and commissions. The June 18, 2010, Presidential Memorandum authorized the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to implement this policy. On August 13, 2014, OMB issued guidance (79 FR 47482) regarding the prohibition against appointing or re-appointing federally registered lobbyists to clarify that the ban applies to persons serving on advisory committees, boards, and commissions in their individual capacity and does not apply if they are specifically appointed to represent the interests of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry sector, labor unions, environmental groups, etc.), or state or local governments (79 FR 47482).

MHCC members serve at the discretion of the Secretary or for a three-year term, up to two terms.

Individuals seeking nomination to the MHCC should submit detailed information documenting their qualifications as addressed in the Act and this notice. In furtherance of Executive Order 14035, Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce (E.O. 14035, 86 FR 34593), HUD seeks for the MHCC to reflect the diversity of stakeholders in the housing market. The nomination website listed above, therefore, contains questions to elicit demographic information. Nominees may briefly summarize why they want to be a member of the MHCC and include unique skills, knowledge, and experiences that they would bring to inform the work of the committee. Individuals may nominate themselves. HUD recommends that the application for nomination be accompanied by a resume.

The Department will make appointments and reappointments from nominations submitted in response to this Notice. Also, individuals that applied earlier this calendar year do not need to reapply; pursuant to this notice those applications are on file and may be considered for future appointments. Current MHCC members whose first term ends on December 31, 2024, are eligible for reappointment, but will need to submit their nomination to be considered.

To be considered for appointment to a position of an MHCC member whose term will expire in December of 2024 or to fill any MHCC vacancy that currently exists, the application must be submitted by January 2, 2025. Appointments will be made at the discretion of the Secretary.

The AAFs are applied at the anniversary of Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts for which rents are to be adjusted using the AAF for those calendar months commencing after the effective date of this notice. The amount that an owner is required to deposit to the Reserve for Replacement account is also adjusted annually by the most recently published AAF, at the HAP contract anniversary. AAFs are distinct from, and do not apply to the same properties as, Operating Cost Adjustment Factors (OCAFs). OCAFs are annual factors used to adjust rents for project-based rental assistance contracts issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and renewed under section 515 or section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). HUD has published OCAFs for 2024 in the Federal Register at 88 FR 83571. The AAFs are also distinct from Renewal Funding Inflation Factors which help determine renewal funding for public housing agencies operating the Housing Choice Voucher program. A separate Federal Register notice, to be published following the passage of FY 2025 HUD appropriations, will contain the 2025 Renewal Funding Inflation Factors.

Tables showing AAFs will be available electronically from the HUD data information page at http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/aaf.html.

AAFs established by this notice are used to adjust contract rents for units assisted in certain Section 8 housing assistance payment programs during the initial ( i.e., pre-renewal) term of the HAP contract. There are two categories of Section 8 programs that use the AAFs:

Category 1: The Section 8 New Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs; and

Category 2: The Section 8 Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) and Property Disposition (PD) programs.

Each Section 8 program category uses the AAFs differently. The specific application of the AAFs is determined by the law, the HAP contract, and appropriate program regulations or requirements.

AAFs are not used in the following cases:

Renewal Rents. AAFs are not used to determine renewal rents after expiration of the original Section 8 HAP contract. In general, renewal rents are established in accordance with the statutory provision in MAHRA, as amended, under which the HAP is renewed. After renewal, annual rent adjustments will be provided in accordance with MAHRA.

Budget-based Rents. AAFs are not used for budget-based rent adjustments. For projects receiving Section 8 subsidies under the LMSA program (24 CFR part 886, subpart A) and for projects receiving Section 8 subsidies under the PD program (24 CFR part 886, subpart C), contract rents are adjusted, at HUD's option, either by applying the AAFs or by budget-based adjustments in accordance with 24 CFR 886.112(b) and 24 CFR 886.312(b). Budget-based adjustments are used for most Section 8/202 projects.

Housing Choice Voucher Program. AAFs are not used to adjust rents in the Tenant-Based or the Project-Based Voucher programs.

Reserve for Replacement. The amount that an owner is required to deposit to the Reserve for Replacement account is adjusted annually by the AAF at the HAP contract anniversary.

This section of the notice provides a broad description of procedures for adjusting the contract rent. Technical details and requirements are described in HUD notices H 2002-10 (Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation, Loan Management, and Property Disposition) and PIH 97-57 (Moderate Rehabilitation). HUD publishes two separate AAF Tables, Table 1 and Table 2. The difference between Table 1 and Table 2 is that each AAF in Table 2 is 0.01 less than the corresponding AAF in Table 1. Where an AAF in Table 1 would otherwise be less than 1.0, it is set at 1.0, as required by statute; the corresponding AAF in Table 2 will also be set at 1.0, as required by statute. Because of statutory and structural distinctions among the various Section 8 programs, there are separate rent adjustment procedures for the three program categories:

In the Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation programs, the published AAF factor is applied to the pre-adjustment contract rent. In the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program (both the regular program and the single room occupancy program), the published AAF is applied to the pre-adjustment base rent.

For Category 1 programs, the Table 1 AAF factor is applied before determining comparability (rent reasonableness). Comparability applies if the pre-adjustment gross rent (pre-adjustment contract rent plus any allowance for tenant-paid utilities) is above the published Fair Market Rent (FMR).

If the comparable rent level (plus any initial difference) is lower than the contract rent as adjusted by application of the Table 1 AAF, the comparable rent level (plus any initial difference) will be the new contract rent. However, the pre-adjustment contract rent will not be decreased by application of comparability.

In all other cases ( i.e., unless the contract rent is reduced by comparability):

• Table 1 AAF is used for a unit occupied by a new family since the last annual contract anniversary.

• Table 2 AAF is used for a unit occupied by the same family as at the time of the last annual contract anniversary.

Category 2 programs are not currently subject to comparability. Comparability will again apply if HUD establishes regulations for conducting comparability studies under 42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)(2)(C).

The applicable AAF is determined as follows:

• Table 1 AAF is used for a unit occupied by a new family since the last annual contract anniversary.

• Table 2 AAF is used for a unit occupied by the same family as at the time of the last annual contract anniversary.

The amount of the deposit to the Reserve for Replacement account must be increased annually using the most recently published “AAF with Highest Utility Excluded” for the Metropolitan/Region in which the project is located as described in Section IV below. This adjustment must be made without regard to vacancies.

In accordance with Section 8(c)(2)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)(2)(A)), the AAF is reduced by 0.01:

The law provides that:

Legislative history for this statutory provision states that “the rationale [for lower AAFs for non-turnover units is] that operating costs are less if tenant turnover is less . . . .” (see Department of Veteran Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations for 1995, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 591 (1994)). The Congressional Record also states the following:

AAF Table 1 and Table 2 are posted on the HUD User website at http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/aaf.html. Both tables provide the Regional and Metropolitan Component Areas to be used in selecting a project's geographic area for the AAF. For projects located in non-metropolitan areas, select the Query Tool, AAF Documentation, State, then county to determine which Metropolitan Component Area to use when selecting the AAF for the project.

There are two numeric columns in each AAF table. The first column is used to adjust contract rent for rental units where the highest cost utility is included in the contract rent, i.e., where the owner pays for the highest cost utility. The second column is used where the highest cost utility is not included in the contract rent, i.e., where the tenant pays for the highest cost utility.

The applicable AAF is selected as follows:

• Determine whether Table 1 or Table 2 is applicable. In Table 1 or Table 2, locate the AAF for the geographic area where the contract unit is located.

• Determine whether the highest cost utility is or is not included in contract rent for the contract unit.

• If highest cost utility is included, select the AAF from the column for “Highest Cost Utility Included.” If highest cost utility is not included, select the AAF from the column for “Highest Cost Utility Excluded.”

AAFs are rent inflation factors. Two types of rent inflation factors are calculated for AAFs: gross rent factors and shelter rent factors. The gross rent factor accounts for inflation in the cost of both the rent of the residence and the utilities used by the unit; the shelter rent factor accounts for the inflation in the rent of the residence but does not reflect any change in the cost of utilities. The gross rent inflation factor is designated as “Highest Cost Utility Included” and the shelter rent inflation factor is designated as “Highest Cost Utility Excluded.” HUD calculates the AAFs based on the shelter and gross rent inflation factors used in FMR calculations. The source data for AAFs therefore come from the 23 local and 4 regional CPI components (rent of primary residence and household fuels and utilities), depending on the location of the AAF area, and are combined with available measures of private data sources in calculating a weighted average shelter and gross rent inflation factor. The private measures of rent used by HUD are the RealPage average effective rent per unit; Moody's Analytics REIS average market rent; CoStar Group average effective rent; CoreLogic, Inc. single-family combined 3-bedroom median rent; Apartment List Rent Estimate; and Zillow Observed Rent Index.

In calculating the AAF from these data, HUD first takes the annual average of each statistic, then its year-to-year change. HUD then takes the mean of changes from all available sources for each area. Next, HUD takes an average of this private-sector measure of rent inflation with rent inflation as captured by the CPI for the area, where the private-sector measure is weighted at approximately 75 percent and the CPI rent inflation measure is weighted at approximately 25 percent. HUD has determined these weights by comparing the national average of the private rent changes and changes in CPI rent of primary residence to changes in the national average of recent mover rents from the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2018 through 2022. HUD weights the private data averages and overall CPI rent of primary residence in such a way as to minimize the root mean squared error between the resulting average and the ACS recent mover rents. For future AAFs, HUD will update the weights by adding the most recent years of ACS recent mover rents, private rent data, and CPI rent of primary residence to the analysis.

HUD uses a local measure of private rent inflation for markets that are covered by at least three of the six available sources of private rent data. HUD combines this local measure of rent inflation with either the local metropolitan area CPI rent of primary residence for the 23 areas where such data exist or the regional CPI rent in areas without a local index. For areas without at least three of the six private rent data sources available, HUD uses a regional average of private rent inflation factors alongside the regional CPI rent of primary residence. HUD constructs the regional average by taking the rental unit weighted average of the change in rents of each area in a region that does have private rent data coverage. This ensures that smaller areas that are not directly covered by the private sources will still have current rental market conditions taken into account in the calculation of the rent inflation factor for such areas.

The results of the above calculation are the “Highest Cost Utility Excluded” AAF. For the “Highest Cost Utility Included” AAF, HUD averages the result of this step with the year-to-year change in the CPI housing fuels and utilities index for the area in order to make the resulting inflation measure reflective of gross rents.

To make certain that they are using the correct AAFs, users should refer to the Area Definitions Table section at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/aaf.html. Furthermore, users can also search for AAF area definitions using an online lookup tool available on HUD User at the link in the previous sentence. AAFs are based on the updated metropolitan area definitions published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on September 14, 2018, and first incorporated by the U.S. Census Bureau into the 2019 ACS data and the corresponding FY 2022 FMRs. On July 21, 2023, OMB published Bulletin No. 23-01, which contains revisions to metropolitan area definitions. However, the U.S. Census Bureau has not yet incorporated these revisions into the data available to HUD, and therefore HUD is not using these new definitions for FY 2025.

Pursuant to section 230(b) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715u), HUD will pay a partial claim to a mortgagee to cure arrearages and, in certain cases, to achieve principal reduction on an FHA-insured mortgage in default or facing imminent default. In exchange for this partial claim payment, the borrower agrees to execute PC Documents in favor of HUD.

HUD's PC Documents do not accrue interest and require repayment only when the first of the following events occurs: the maturity of the first mortgage, the sale of the property, the payoff of the first mortgage, or if provided for under the partial claim note, the termination of FHA insurance, except that HUD will agree to subordinate the partial claim note to an FHA streamline refinance.

The mortgagee is responsible for having the PC Documents executed, recording the partial claim mortgage, and delivering the original PC Documents to HUD (see 24 CFR 203.371 and HUD Handbook 4000.1 III.A.2.k.v.(H)). If the mortgagee fails to provide HUD with the original PC Documents within the required timeframes, HUD requires reimbursement of the full amount of the partial claim and partial claim incentive fee (see 24 CFR 203.371(d), specifically).

The mortgagee must retain copies of the PC Documents and other required partial claim information in its servicing file. The mortgagee is currently required to retain these items in its servicing file for at least seven years after the transfer or sale of the first mortgage or termination of mortgage insurance.

The mortgagee services the partial claim until it records the partial claim mortgage and delivers the PC Documents to HUD. Thereafter, HUD, through its Loan Servicing Contractor (LSC), services partial claims and serves as the document custodian for PC Documents.

When HUD is informed that the first mortgage is being paid in full, sold, transferred or assumed, terminated, or refinanced without resubordinating the partial claim, HUD, through its LSC, may provide a payoff figure on a partial claim. Once PC Documents become due and payable, HUD's LSC issues a payoff letter. If the borrower fails to pay the partial claim debt, it can be referred to HUD's Financial Operations Center for appropriate collection action. The referral package includes a copy of the PC Documents.

While HUD primarily relies on copies of PC Documents to conduct its servicing and collection activities, there are limited occasions where original PC Documents are required to support such efforts. This is why HUD requires the mortgagee to deliver original PC Documents to HUD and why HUD retains original PC Documents.

HUD is aware of the costs incurred and burdens associated with the mortgagee's delivery of and HUD's retention of original PC Documents. Besides these regular costs and burdens, there are also additional costs and burdens when original PC Documents are lost during delivery and it becomes necessary to take various steps to locate the lost PC Documents and execute lost note affidavits. In light of these costs and burdens, HUD now seeks to evaluate whether mortgagees could retain original PC Documents in their servicing files and deliver them to HUD only upon HUD's request.

HUD will announce the start date of the Demonstration in a subsequent notice that will be issued after the conclusion of the 60-day comment period for this notice. The Demonstration will continue for five years after this start date, unless extended. Mortgagees electing to participate in the Demonstration would be required to retain original PC Documents for the same records retention timeframe as the associated first mortgage. The requirement to retain the original PC Documents would not end after the expiration of the Demonstration for any PC Documents that have been electronically submitted to HUD as part of this Demonstration.

Under the Demonstration, mortgagees would, after execution of the PC Documents by all required parties, agree to: (1) submit an electronic copy of the executed partial claim note to HUD no later than 60 days from the execution date, (2) submit an electronic copy of the recorded partial claim mortgage to HUD no later than six months following the execution date, (3) retain the original PC Documents for the required duration of document retention, as described in HUD Handbook 4000.1 III.A.1.n, unless HUD otherwise instructs the mortgagee that the retention requirements have changed or that retention is no longer required, and (4) deliver the original PC Documents to HUD upon HUD's request no later than five business days after the date of the request, or within another timeframe prescribed by HUD. Mortgagees that elect to submit electronic PC Documents for a subordinate mortgage must continue to process all future PC Documents electronically, for the duration of the Demonstration, unless a particular mortgage property is located in a jurisdiction where the use of digital documents is prohibited.

The main goal of the Demonstration is to reduce the costs and burdens for mortgagees associated with the mailing and tracking of original PC Documents. The Demonstration is also intended to reduce the incidence of original PC Documents being lost during delivery, as when this occurs mortgagees have to obtain and resubmit replacements and borrowers have to re-execute lost documents. In addition, it is intended to reduce the amount of mortgagee reimbursement to HUD in connection with lost PC Documents. Finally, the Demonstration is also intended to reduce HUD's costs related to the retention of original PC Documents and to enhance HUD's ability to conduct servicing and debt collection activities associated with partial claims.

Mortgagee participation in the Demonstration is voluntary. HUD will allow all mortgagees to participate in the Demonstration, where state and local law permits. The actions the participating mortgagees will take related to the submission of electronic PC Documents and the retention of original PC Documents will be performed without any expectation of compensation. If a mortgagee does not adhere to the requirements of the Demonstration, they may be removed from participation in the Demonstration.

For the duration of the Demonstration, participating mortgagees will not adhere to the 24 CFR 203.371(d) requirements to submit original PC Documents to HUD within certain prescribed timeframes. Failure to submit original PC Documents within these timeframes will not result in mortgagees having to reimburse HUD for the full amount of the partial claim or any partial claim incentive fee, so long as electronic copies of the PC Documents were submitted within the required timeframes and original PC Documents are delivered to HUD, upon HUD's request, within the required timeframe.

At the conclusion of the Demonstration, HUD will assess its success, determine whether to implement the Demonstration's PC Documents submission and retention processes on a permanent basis, and identify any additional changes that may be needed to implement those processes. In conducting this evaluation, HUD will assess such factors as whether the Demonstration processes: (1) reduce the costs and burdens for mortgagees associated with delivering original PC Documents to HUD, (2) reduce the number of lost original PC Documents, (3) reduce the costs and burdens for HUD associated with the retention of original PC Documents, (4) enhance HUD's ability to conduct servicing and debt collection activities associated with partial claims, and (5) allow for the assessment of risk to HUD's partial claim recoveries and FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 10 and section 470 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 3542), HUD is seeking comment on the Demonstration in this Federal Register notice for 60 days of public comment. The public comment period will give HUD the opportunity to consider submitted comments and to be in a position to commence implementation of the Demonstration following the conclusion of the 60-day comment period and publication of an additional notice announcing the Demonstration start date. HUD will fully evaluate submitted comments before the Demonstration commences and may modify the design of the Demonstration. If HUD decides to make any changes to the Demonstration, HUD will provide separate notice to the public prior to commencing the Demonstration.

Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, (NEPA) in order to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and the environment, recognizing the profound impact of human activity and the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare of humankind. 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331. NEPA seeks to ensure that agencies consider the environmental effects of their proposed major actions in their decision-making processes and inform and involve the public in that process. NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which promulgated NEPA implementing regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 (CEQ regulations).

To comply with NEPA, agencies determine the appropriate level of review for any major Federal action—an environmental impact statement (EIS), environmental assessment (EA), or categorical exclusion (CE). 40 CFR 1501.3. If a proposed action is likely to have significant environmental effects, the agency must prepare an EIS and document its decision in a record of decision. 40 CFR part 1502, 1505.2. If the proposed action is not likely to have significant environmental effects or the effects are unknown, the agency may instead prepare an EA, which involves a more concise analysis and process than does an EIS. 40 CFR 1501.5. Following the EA, the agency may conclude that the action will have no significant effects and document that conclusion in a finding of no significant impact. 40 CFR 1501.6. If the analysis concludes that the action is likely to have significant effects, however, then an EIS is required.

Under NEPA and the CEQ regulations, a Federal agency also can establish CEs—categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment—in their agency NEPA procedures. 42 U.S.C. 4336e(1); 40 CFR 1501.4, 1507.3(e)(2)(ii), 1508.1(d). If an agency determines that a CE covers a proposed action, it then evaluates the proposed action for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant effect. 40 CFR 1501.4(b). If no extraordinary circumstances are present, the agency may apply the CE to the proposed action without preparing an EA or EIS. 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), 40 CFR 1501.4. If extraordinary circumstances are present, the agency nevertheless may still categorically exclude the proposed action if it determines that there are circumstances that lessen the impacts or other conditions sufficient to avoid significant effects.

Section 109 of NEPA, enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, allows a Federal agency to “adopt” another Federal agency's CEs for proposed actions. 42 U.S.C. 4336c. To use another agency's CEs under section 109, the borrowing agency must identify the relevant CE listed in another agency's (“establishing agency”) NEPA procedures that covers the borrowing agency's category of proposed actions or related actions; consult with the establishing agency to ensure that the proposed adoption of the CE for a category of actions is appropriate; identify to the public the CE that the borrowing agency plans to use for its proposed actions; and document adoption of the CE. 42 U.S.C. 4336c. HUD has prepared this notice to meet these statutory requirements.

For many HUD programs, HUD is authorized by statute to allow Responsible Entities (REs), typically states, units of general local government, and tribes, to assume responsibility to conduct NEPA reviews under HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 58. For other HUD programs, HUD performs the environmental review under 24 CFR part 50. HUD intends to apply these categorical exclusions to reviews conducted under both parts 50 and 58.

Both parts 50 and 58, as well as 24 CFR part 51, contain additional environmental requirements that certain HUD projects must comply with. Proposed actions that are categorically excluded from NEPA but still subject to these requirements are known as “Categorically Excluded Subject to” the requirements listed in 24 CFR 58.5 and 50.4 (CEST), and proposed actions that are categorically excluded from NEPA but not subject to these requirements are known as “Categorically Excluded Not Subject to” the requirements listed in §§ 58.5 and 50.4 (CENST). HUD has evaluated the identified USDA-FSA CEs and has designated each as CENST or CEST in Section II. USDA-FSA Categorical Exclusions.

HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 58.36 and 50.17 limit HUD's ability to utilize adopted categorical exclusions without a waiver. This notice will not go into effect until 58.36 and 50.17 are amended or until a waiver of these regulations is issued.

HUD has identified the following CEs listed in USDA-FSA regulation, 7 CFR part 799 Subpart D—Categorical Exclusions, for adoption. Under each CE, HUD has described categories of proposed actions for which HUD, under part 50, or an RE, under part 58, may use the CE and if the activity will be evaluated as CENST or CEST. The list of categories comprises the proposed actions for which HUD contemplates using the CEs at this time, primarily in support of agricultural activities funded with HUD's Community Development Block Grant—Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program. However, HUD may expand the use of the CEs identified below to other substantially similar agricultural activities, where appropriate.

1. 7 CFR 799.31(b)(2)(i): Existing fence repair.

HUD Level of Review: CENST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Repair, improvement, or minor modification of existing fences.

2. 7 CFR 799.31(b)(2)(ii): Improvement or repair of farm-related structures under 50 years of age.

HUD Level of Review: CENST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Repair, improvements, or minor modifications of farm-related structures under 50 years of age.

3. 7 CFR 799.32(d)(2)(i): Minor construction, such as a small addition.

HUD Level of Review: CENST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Minor construction, such as a small addition, without ground disturbance, of agricultural related structures.

4. 7 CFR 799.32(d)(2)(iv): Grading, leveling, shaping, and filling.

HUD Level of Review: CENST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Grading, leveling, shaping, and filling occurring specifically in areas with previous ground disturbance, soils that are not likely to possess intact and distinct soil horizons and have the reduced likelihood of possessing historic properties with their original depositional contexts in the area and to the depth to be excavated, also referred to as the plow zone.

5. 7 CFR 799.32(d)(2)(xiii): Trough or tank installation.

HUD Level of Review: CENST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Agricultural water trough or tank installation without ground disturbance.

6. 7 CFR 799.32(d)(3)(i): Fence installation and replacement.

HUD Level of Review: CENST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Fence installation and replacement that support agricultural needs, without ground disturbance.

7. 7 CFR 799.32(e)(2)(iii): Construction of a new farm storage facility.

HUD Level of Review: CEST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Construction of a new farm storage facility with ground disturbance.

8. 7 CFR 799.32(e)(2)(xi): Grading, leveling, shaping, and filling in areas or to depths not previously disturbed.

HUD Level of Review: CEST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Grading, leveling, shaping, and filling in areas or to depths not previously disturbed for agricultural efforts.

9. 7 CFR 799.32(e)(2)(xiv): Land smoothing.

HUD Level of Review: CEST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Land smoothing for agricultural needs.

10. 7 CFR 799.32(e)(2)(xxxvii): Watering tank or trough installation, if in areas not previously disturbed.

HUD Level of Review: CEST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Agricultural watering tank or trough installation that includes new ground disturbance.

11. 7 CFR 799.32(e)(2)(xxxviii): Wells.

HUD Level of Review: CEST.

Potential application to HUD activities:

• Well installation and repairs for agricultural needs, with ground disturbance.

When applying the adopted CEs, HUD or the RE will evaluate the proposed action to ensure evaluation of integral elements listed above. In addition, in considering extraordinary circumstances, HUD will consider whether the proposed action has the potential to result in significant effects as described in USDA-FSA's extraordinary circumstances listed at 7 CFR 799.33. USDA-FSA defines extraordinary circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental effect, including, but not limited to, scientific controversy about the environmental effects of the proposal; uncertain effects or effects involving unique or unknown risks; a proposed action connected to other actions with potential impacts; a proposed action that is related to other proposed actions with cumulative impacts; proposed actions that do not comply with 40 CFR 1506.1 Limitations on actions during the NEPA process; and/or contains violations of any existing Federal, State, or local government law, policy, or requirements.

HUD and USDA-FSA began consultation in December 2023 to identify USA-FSA CEs that could apply to HUD proposed agricultural actions. This consultation included a review of USDA-FSA's experience developing and applying the CEs and the types of actions for which HUD plans to utilize the CEs. Based on this consultation and review, HUD has determined that the types of agricultural projects it intends to undertake are substantially similar to such projects for which USDA-FSA has applied the CE. Accordingly, the impacts of HUD projects will be substantially similar to the impacts of USDA-FSA projects, which are not significant, absent the existence of extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, HUD has determined that its proposed use of the agricultural-related CEs, as described within this notice, would be appropriate.

This notice documents adoption of the USDA-FSA CEs listed above in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336c(4), and they will be available for use by HUD and REs effective either upon amendment of 24 CFR 58.36 and 50.17 or upon issuance of a waiver of these regulations.

The Commission was established by section 103 of Public Law 99-420, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 341 note), and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 10). The Commission advises the Secretary of the Interior and the NPS on matters relating to the management and development of Acadia National Park, including but not limited to, the acquisition of lands and interests in lands (including conservation easements on islands) and the termination of rights of use and occupancy.

The meetings are open to the public. Interested persons may make oral presentations to the Commission. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent at the beginning of the meeting. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Written comments can be sent to Kathy Flanders [see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ]. All comments received will be provided to the Commission.

The Commission meeting locations may change based on inclement weather or exceptional circumstances. If a meeting location is changed, the Superintendent will issue a press release and use local newspapers to announce the change. Detailed minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection within 90 days of the meeting.

Purpose of the Meeting: The Commission meeting will consist of the following proposed agenda items:

Request for Accommodations: The meeting is open to the public. Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, language translation services, or other reasonable accommodations. We ask that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting to give the Department of the Interior sufficient time to process your request. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

Public Disclosure of Information: Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10.

The Committee was established by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) and is regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The Committee is responsible for:

1. Monitoring the inventory and identification process.

2. Upon request, considering findings of fact or disputes related to the inventory, summary or repatriation process.

3. Compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and recommending specific actions for such remains.

4. Consulting with Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and museums on matters within the scope of the work of the Committee.

5. Consulting with the Secretary of the Interior in the development of regulations.

6. Making recommendations regarding future care of repatriated cultural items.

The Committee consists of seven members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary may not appoint Federal officers or employees to the Committee. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and traditional Native American religious leaders. At least two of these members must be traditional Indian religious leaders. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by national museum organizations or national scientific organizations. An organization that is created by, is a part of, and is governed in any way by a parent national museum or scientific organization must submit a nomination through the parent organization. One member is appointed from a list of persons developed and consented to by all of the other members.

Members are appointed for four-year terms and incumbent members may be reappointed for two-year terms. The Committee's work is completed during public meetings. The Committee attempts to meet several times a year. In person meetings normally last two or three days while virtual meetings last three to four hours.

Members will be appointed as special Government employees (SGEs). Please be aware that members selected to serve as SGEs will be required, prior to appointment, to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report in order to avoid involvement in real or apparent conflicts of interest. You may find a copy of the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report at the following website: https://www.doi.gov/ethics/special-government-employees/financial-disclosure. Additionally, after appointment, members appointed as SGEs will be required to meet applicable financial disclosure and ethics training requirements. Please contact 202-208-7960 or DOI_Ethics@sol.doi.gov with any questions about the ethics requirements for members appointed as SGEs.

Committee members serve without pay but are reimbursed for each day of committee business. Committee members are also reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in association with Committee meetings (25 U.S.C. 3006(b)(4)). Additional information regarding the Committee, including the Committee's charter, meeting procedures, and past practice, is available on the National NAGPRA Program website, at https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/review-committee.htm.

Nominations must:

1. Be submitted on the official letterhead of the Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

2. Affirm that the signatory is the official authorized by the Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

3. If submitted by a Native American traditional religious leader, affirm that the signatory meets the definition of traditional Native American religious leader (see 43 CFR 10.2 “Traditional religious leader”).

4. Provide the nominator's original signature, daytime telephone number, and email address.

5. Include the nominee's full legal name, home address, home telephone number, and email address.

6. Affirm that the nominee meets the description of a traditional Indian religious leader (see 43 CFR 10.12(b)(1)).

Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Committee and permit the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. ch. 10; 25 U.S.C. 3006.

Background. —On November 4, 2024, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (89 FR 62783, August 1, 2024) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Staff report. —A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews has been placed in the nonpublic record, and will be made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews on February 5, 2025. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

Written submissions. —As provided in § 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, 2 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before February 13, 2025 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by February 13, 2025. However, should the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's procedures with respect to filings.

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Determination. —The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Act; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

The Respiratory Protection Standard requires employers to develop a written respiratory protection program, provide medical surveillance, fit test employees, obtain certificates of analysis on cylinders, change sorbent beds and filters, to inspect emergency-use respirators, mark emergency-use respirator storage compartments, and maintain accurate employee records for fit testing and medical surveillance. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2024 (89 FR 72899).

Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

Agency: DOL-OSHA.

Title of Collection: Respiratory Protection Standard.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0099.

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

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 733,538.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 28,796,953.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 8,502,430 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $416,350,792.

The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( i.e., the State plans) burden, conducts a preclearance process to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, the reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, the collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. OSHA is soliciting comments concerning the extension of the information collection requirements contained in the series of regulations establishing requirements for the submission, initial approval, continuing approval, final approval, monitoring, and evaluation of OSHA-approved State Plans:

• 29 CFR part 1902, State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards;

• 29 CFR part 1953, Changes to State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards;

• 29 CFR part 1954, Procedures for the Evaluation and Monitoring of Approved State Plans; and

• 29 CFR part 1956, State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards Applicable to State and Local Government Employees in States Without Approved Private Employee Plans.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 667) offers an opportunity to the states to assume responsibility for the development and enforcement of state standards through the mechanism of an OSHA-approved State Plan. Absent an approved plan, states are precluded from enforcing occupational safety and health standards in the private sector with respect to any issue for which Federal OSHA has promulgated a standard. Once approved and operational, the state adopts standards and provides most occupational safety and health enforcement and compliance assistance in the state under the authority of its plan, instead of Federal OSHA. States also must extend their jurisdiction to cover state and local government employees and may obtain approval of State Plans limited in scope to these workers. To obtain and maintain State Plan approval, a state must submit various documents to OSHA describing program structure and operation, including any modifications thereto as they occur, in accordance with the identified regulations. OSHA funds 50 percent of the costs required to be incurred by an approved State Plan, with the state at least matching and providing additional funding at its discretion.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.

OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in Occupational Safety and Health State Plans.

The agency is requesting an adjustment increase to adjust the number of burden hours associated with the developmental steps necessary for certain states in the developmental process, including Maine, Massachusetts and Illinois. In addition, the number of Complaints About State Program Administration (CASPAs) and State Plan Changes were modified to depict more realistically the current trends in these numbers. As a result, the total burden hours have increased from 11,055 to 11,370 (an increase of 315 burden hours).

OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved data collection.

Title: Occupational Safety and Health State Plans.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0247.

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

Number of Respondents: 29.

Number of Responses: 1,299.

Frequency of Responses: On occasion; Quarterly; Annually.

Average Time per Response: Varies.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 11,370.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; or (2) by facsimile (fax), if your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at 202-693-1648. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2011-0197). You may supplement electronic submission by uploading document files electronically.

Comments and submissions are posted without change at https://www.regulations.gov . Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index, some information ( e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this website. All submission, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access the docket is available at the website's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq. ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393).

On November 24, 2024, Douglas F. Carlson filed, and on November 25, 2024, the Commission docketed, a Motion for Late Acceptance of Notice of Intent to File Rebuttal Case  1 and corresponding Notice of Intent to File a Rebuttal Case. 2 On November 25, 2024, the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) filed a Motion for Late Acceptance of Notice of Intent to File Rebuttal Testimony  3 and corresponding Notice of Intent to File Rebuttal Testimony. 4 These motions are granted. In addition, the Commission provides notice of the hearing, sets hearing procedures, modifies the deadline for registration for the hearing, and adjusts the procedural schedule.

Mr. Carlson requests that the Commission excuse his failure to timely file his notice because the procedural schedule listed on the Commission's website differed from those set by order. Carlson Motion at 1-2. The Commission recognizes that the information previously presented on the procedural schedule on the website conflicted with the deadlines set forth in Order No. 7695  5 and Order No. 7998. 6 The Commission further recognizes that in Order No. 7998, the Commission unilaterally modified the procedural schedule by moving a deadline up to better support the in-person hearing in this proceeding. Order No. 7998 at 2. Therefore, the Commission grants Mr. Carlson's motion.

APWU similarly states that its filing was delayed because it relied on the procedural schedule set forth in Order No. 7695. APWU Motion at 1. For the reasons expressed above, the Commission also grants the APWU Motion.

The Commission is acting expeditiously on these motions because of the pending holiday and the fact that the hearing is 4 business days from today. The Postal Service will be permitted to conduct discovery and written cross-examination on Mr. Carlson's and APWU's rebuttal testimony. The Postal Service may request oral cross-examination but must provide justification for the request.

Additionally, although the Commission previously stated that hearings with a rebuttal case would occur December 11 to 13, 2024, 7 given Mr. Carlson's indication that he cannot appear in person at the hearings, the Commission hereby gives notice that a hearing on the Postal Service's direct case in the above-captioned docket shall commence at 10 a.m. ET on Wednesday, December 4, 2024. Pursuant to Order No. 7998, the hearing will be conducted in person at 901 New York Avenue NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268. The hearing shall be available by livestream at www.youtube.com/@thepostalregulatorycommiss9709 . 8

Furthermore, the Commission modifies the registration deadline for the hearing. Each individual seeking to attend the live hearing (including motions practice or may conduct cross-examination or follow-up cross-examination) must register by sending an email to registration@prc.gov with the subject line “N2024-1 Hearing Registration” by Monday, December 2, 2024. 9 Please ensure the email contains the following information:

The registration@prc.gov email address is used solely for the exchange of information relating to the logistics of registering for and participating in the hearing. 10 No information related to the substance of the cases shall be provided or communicated via that email.

The Postal Service's witnesses shall appear on December 4, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET. The order of the witnesses is as follows:

It is the Commission's intent to have all the Postal Service witnesses called and excused by 4 p.m. ET.

One of the Postal Service's witnesses, Sharon Owens (Postal Service institutional witness), is not called and is excused. Likewise, the rebuttal witnesses, namely Anita Morrison, Stephen DeMatteo, and Douglas Carlson, are not called for the December 4 hearing.

The Postal Service shall file any corrected testimony, corrected designated written-cross examination, etc., applicable to the excused witnesses with a declaration/affidavit from the witness attesting to the proposed record material, no later than December 2, 2024. The Postal Service may move to admit these materials by written motion not later than December 4, 2024. Objections to the admission of the proposed record material for these excused witnesses are due not later than December 5, 2024.

On December 2, 2024, the Postal Service shall file a “Notice of Designated Materials” identifying any corrections to the testimony or designated materials for each witness sponsored by the Postal Service. Order No. 7695 at 26. Attached to that notice shall be an Adobe PDF file that contains the witness's designated written responses in alphabetical order by the name of the party propounding the interrogatory followed by numerical order of the interrogatory (with any corrections to the responses highlighted). The Postal Service shall also contemporaneously file any corrections to testimony (with those corrections highlighted).

Rebuttal testimony and all materials in support of the case must be filed by December 4, 2024. 12 Parties that wish to conduct oral cross-examination of a rebuttal witness shall file notice of an intent to do so by December 5, 2024. Written discovery (cross-examination) may be served on the parties offering rebuttal testimony immediately after filing of rebuttal testimony and must be filed no later than December 6, 2024. Parties must file a Notice of Designations, consistent with the procedure described above, should they wish to designate rebuttal case discovery responses for the record, no later than December 10, 2024. The Presiding Officer will issue a further ruling admitting designated materials into evidence shortly thereafter.

Due to the filing of a rebuttal case, the briefing schedule is also modified. Initial briefs or statements of positions are now due no later than December 18, 2024. Reply briefs may be filed no later than December 23, 2024.

It is ordered:

1. Douglas F. Carlson's Motion for Late Acceptance of Notice of Intent to File Rebuttal Case, filed November 25, 2024, is granted.

2. APWU's Motion for Late Acceptance of Notice of Intent to File Rebuttal Testimony, filed November 25, 2024, is granted.

3. The hearing on the Postal Service's direct case in the above-captioned docket shall commence at 10 a.m. ET on Wednesday, December 4, 2024, at the Commission's hearing room. The Postal Service shall make the identified witnesses available at the commencement of the hearing, consistent with the body of this Order.

4. If a witness with equivalent knowledge appears for Witness Whiteman, the Postal Service shall be prepared to admit Witness Whiteman's testimony by motion at the hearing.

5. Participants who wish to attend the hearing in-person must register via email consistent with the body of this Order.

6. The modified procedural schedule for this proceeding is set forth below the signature of this Order.

7. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the Federal Register .

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.

The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website ( https://www.prc.gov ). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3011.301. 1

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.

Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review. See 39 CFR 3041.110(n); 39 CFR 3041.205(a). Such requests are reviewed in summary proceedings pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.325(c)(2) and 39 CFR 3041.505(f)(1). Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405(c)-(d), the Commission does not appoint a Public Representative or request public comment in proceedings to review such requests.

1. Docket No(s).: MC2025-413 and K2025-411; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service Contract 52 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Katalin Clendenin; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2025-499 and K2025-497; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 794 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Arif Hafiz; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.

3. Docket No(s).: MC2025-500 and K2025-498; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 795 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Arif Hafiz; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.

4. Docket No(s).: MC2025-501 and K2025-499; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 796 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Arif Hafiz; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.

5. Docket No(s).: MC2025-502 and K2025-500; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 797 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Gregory Stanton; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.

6. Docket No(s).: MC2025-503 and K2025-501; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 798 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Gregory Stanton; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.

7. Docket No(s).: MC2025-504 and K2025-502; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 799 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Gregory Stanton; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.

8. Docket No(s).: MC2025-505 and K2025-503; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 800 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Samuel Robinson; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.

9. Docket No(s).: MC2025-506 and K2025-504; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 801 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Samuel Robinson; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.

10. Docket No(s).: MC2025-507 and K2025-505; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 802 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November 25, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Jennaca Upperman; Comments Due: December 5, 2024.