The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through the adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.

The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) are:

(a) to define the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling;

(b) to serve as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working in methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories;

(c) to specify, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by the other bodies referred to in (b) above, reference Methods of Analysis and Sampling appropriate to Codex Standards which are generally applicable to a number of foods;

(d) to consider, amend, if necessary, and endorse, as appropriate, methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex (Commodity) Committees, except that methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of micro biological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives, do not fall within the terms of reference of this Committee;

(e) to elaborate sampling plans and procedures, as may be required;

(f) to consider specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its Committees; and,

(g) to define procedures, protocols, guidelines or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories.

The CCMAS is hosted by Hungary. The United States attends the CCMAS as a member country of Codex.

The following items from the Provisional Agenda for the 44th Session of the CCMAS will be discussed during the public meeting:

At the April 10, 2025 public meeting, agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Dr. Patrick Gray, U.S. Delegate to the 44th Session of the CCMAS, at Patrick.Gray@fda.hhs.gov . Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 44th Session of the CCMAS.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this Federal Register publication online through the USDA Codex web page located at: https://www.usda.gov/codex .

The Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.646 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

Section 13A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1762 established the value of Summer EBT benefits in 2024 at $40 per child for each month of the summer and requires the Secretary to annually adjust the Summer EBT benefit amounts beginning in calendar year 2025, to reflect changes in the cost of food as measured by TFP rounded down to the nearest dollar increment.

USDA adjusted the Summer EBT benefit levels to reflect the differences between the costs of providing meals and supplements in the outlying areas (Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) and the 48 states and the District of Columbia, as consistent with law and other nutrition assistance programs. The benefit levels for the outlying areas were established in 2024 and are also annually adjusted. This notice provides the 2025 Summer EBT monthly and total summer benefit levels. The law requires the adjusted level to be rounded down to the nearest dollar amount. The total summer benefit level is the rounded down monthly level multiplied by three.

Contiguous States and Indian Tribal Organizations: The adjustment is based on the monthly Thrifty Food Plan cost for a reference family of four. The change for the 12-month period ending on November 30th of the preceding calendar year is used to adjust the benefit level from the previous year. The November 2023 to November 2024 percent change is 1.55 percent, which results in a monthly benefit level of $40 (rounded down from $40.62). This adjustment results in no change in monthly benefit levels for 2025 as monthly benefits. The benefits for 2025 remain at $40 monthly and $120 total.

Alaska: The adjustments are based on the Alaska monthly Thrifty Food Plan cost for a reference family of four. The change for the 12-month period ending on November 30th of the preceding calendar year is used to adjust the benefit levels for the three Alaska geographic areas from the previous year. The November 2023 to November 2024 percent change is 1.56 percent. This percent change is applied to the Urban, Rural I, and Rural II benefit levels from the prior year and rounded down to the nearest dollar increment. The adjusted 2025 monthly benefit for Urban Alaska is $52 (rounded down from $52.51 and for Rural 1 Alaska is $66; (rounded down from $66.96); these are unchanged from 2024 as are the total summer benefits ($156 and $198, respectively). The monthly benefit for Rural 2 Alaska increases slightly from $80 in 2024 to $81 (rounded down from $81.49) while total summer benefits increase to $243 in 2025 from $240 in 2024).

Hawaii: The adjustment is based on the Hawaii monthly Thrifty Food Plan cost for a reference family of four. The change for the 12-month period ending on November 30th of the preceding calendar year is used to adjust the benefit level from the previous year. The November 2023 to November 2024 percent change is 1.46 percent. The 2025 monthly benefit of $59 (rounded down from $59.71) and total summer benefits of $177 are unchanged from 2024.

U.S. Territories (Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands): Monthly TFP costs for Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are not currently produced and Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands do not participate in SNAP. Therefore, the adjustments are based on the same increase in monthly Thrifty Food Plan cost for the contiguous states for a reference family of four. The change for the 12-month period ending on November 30th of the preceding calendar year is used to adjust the benefit level from the previous year. The November 2023 to November 2024 percent change is 1.55 percent. The monthly 2025 benefits of $59 (rounded down from $59.87) and $177 for total are unchanged from 2024.

The 2025 benefit levels are presented below, along with the 2024 benefits.

This notice is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of this Act.

This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.557 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, 48 FR 29100, June 24, 1983, and 49 FR 22675, May 31, 1984).

Section 17(d)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(2)(A)), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish income criteria to be used with nutritional risk criteria in determining a person's eligibility for participation in the WIC Program. The law provides that persons will be income-eligible for the WIC Program if they are members of families that satisfy the income standard prescribed for reduced-price school meals under section 9(b) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)). Under section 9(b), the income limit for reduced-price school meals is 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, as adjusted. Section 9(b) also requires that these guidelines be revised annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The annual revision for 2025 was published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at 90 FR 5917 on January 17, 2025. The guidelines published by HHS are referred to as the “poverty guidelines.”

Program Regulations at 7 CFR 246.7(d)(1) specify that State agencies may prescribe income guidelines either equaling the income guidelines established under Section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act for reduced-price school meals, or identical to State or local guidelines for free or reduced-price health care. However, in conforming WIC income guidelines to State or local health care guidelines, the State cannot establish WIC guidelines which exceed the guidelines for reduced-price school meals, or which are less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. Consistent with the method used to compute income eligibility guidelines for reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, the poverty guidelines were multiplied by 1.85 and the results rounded upward to the next whole dollar.

Currently, the Department is publishing the maximum and minimum WIC income eligibility guidelines by household size for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026. Consistent with section 17(f)(17) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(f)(17)), a State agency may implement the revised WIC income eligibility guidelines concurrently with the implementation of income eligibility guidelines under the Medicaid Program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq. ). State agencies may coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines, i.e., earlier in the year, but in no case may implementation take place later than July 1, 2025. State agencies that do not coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines must implement the WIC income eligibility guidelines on or before July 1, 2025.

The table of this notice contains the income limits by household size for the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, and all United States Territories, including Guam. Separate tables for Alaska and Hawaii have been included for the convenience of the State agencies because the poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than for the 48 contiguous States.

Title of Collection: Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E).

OMB Control Number: 3170-0014.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 600,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,361,056.

Abstract: The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., requires accurate disclosure of the costs, terms, and rights relating to electronic fund transfer (EFT) services and remittance transfer services to consumers. Entities offering EFT services must provide consumers with full and accurate information regarding consumers' rights and responsibilities in connection with EFT services. These disclosures are intended to protect the rights of consumers using EFT services, such as automated teller machine (ATM) transfers, telephone bill-payment services, point-of-sale transfers at retail establishments, electronic check conversions, payroll cards, and preauthorized transfers from or to a consumer's account. EFTA also establishes error resolution procedures and limits consumer liability for unauthorized transfers in connection with EFT services. EFTA and Regulation E impose disclosure and other requirements on issuers and sellers of gift cards, gift certificates, and general-use prepaid cards. Further, EFTA and Regulation E provide protections for consumers in the United States who send remittance transfers to persons in a foreign country. It also provides comprehensive protections for consumers who use “prepaid accounts.” Tailored provisions governing disclosures, limited liability, error resolution, and periodic statements added new requirements regarding the posting of account agreements. Additionally, Regulations E regulates overdraft credit features offered in connection with prepaid accounts.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruptions in healthcare service delivery and reversed some of the gains made in patient safety over the previous two decades. In 2024, AHRQ on behalf of HHS, officially launched the National Action Alliance for Patient and Workforce Safety ( https://www.ahrq.gov/action-alliance/index.html ), a collaboration between public and private partners to recommit to patient and workforce safety and to eliminate preventable harm in healthcare. Diagnostic safety events are an important contributor to patient safety, with diagnostic errors potentially impacting millions of U.S. residents each year ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502242/ ). Diagnostic error is “the failure to (a) establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient's health problem(s) or (b) communicate that explanation to the patient” ( https://doi.org/10.17226/21794 ). However, in order to improve patient safety, a focus on diagnostic error reduction alone is not sufficient. Efforts are needed to improve the diagnostic process as a whole, with an emphasis on diagnostic excellence.

Diagnostic excellence may be defined as “an optimal process to attain an accurate and precise explanation about a patient's condition” ( https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2785845 ). This process should be “timely, cost-effective, convenient, and understandable to the patient.” Diagnostic excellence “embraces the six dimensions of quality enumerated by the Institute of Medicine in 2001: care that is safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable” ( https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2785845 ).

Several efforts have been underway to develop measures that provide information on the state of diagnostic excellence, including research funded by AHRQ and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. The AHRQ Quality Indicators (QI) Program develops indicators of healthcare quality and patient safety in a variety of healthcare settings. The QI Program is actively engaged in collecting information on measures that can contribute to diagnostic excellence measurement. AHRQ is considering measures that rely on administrative claims data (for state and regional health departments with limited access to clinical data), as well as electronic health record data (for healthcare systems with full access to clinical data). AHRQ aims to address gaps in diagnostic excellence measurement with a population health lens and with the following goals:

1. Develop a starter set of standardized measures to support population-level diagnostic excellence surveillance.

2. Generate measures that are accessible and applicable across different types of users, especially those with limited access to clinical data sources.

3. Produce national benchmarks for population-level surveillance of diagnostic excellence.

4. Foster healthcare quality improvement in the area of diagnostic excellence.

AHRQ requests information from the public on existing measures that may be used in diagnostic excellence measurement and others that may be under development.

Criteria. Diagnostic excellence measures should be important, scientifically acceptable, feasible, and useful. These concepts are defined as follows:

Important. (1) There is evidence linking the measure to important outcomes (including either process outcomes or clinical outcomes); (2) there is evidence of inequalities across groups or opportunity for improvement on that measure; or (3) the target population of the measure ( e.g., patients) or users of the measure ( e.g., researchers, providers) value the measurement and find it meaningful.

Scientifically acceptable. A scientifically acceptable measure is both (1) valid (the measure accurately represents the concept it is trying to measure) and (2) reliable (the measure consistently produces the same result over time and in different contexts).

Feasible. A measure is feasible if it is possible to implement with existing data systems and clinical processes.

Useful. A measure is useful if it provides information useful for quality improvement programs, with the ability to capture variation in performance across reporting entities.

Additional Considerations. In addition to the criteria listed above, AHRQ aims to consider the extent to which measures:

• Identify an important gap in diagnostic performance;

• Contribute to the solution of a diagnostic safety problem;

• Are broadly applicable to a population-level diagnostic safety opportunity;

• Could be used to lessen health disparities.

AHRQ requests responses to the following questions:

1. Are you currently working on any initiatives related to diagnostic excellence, diagnostic safety, or diagnostic quality? If so, please describe. If you are working on diagnostic excellence initiatives, which ones would benefit from publicly available measurement tools or resources? Are there specific resources that you would like to see from AHRQ? If so, please describe.

2. If you are currently measuring diagnostic excellence in your organization, what measure(s) are you using? How do you use these measures ( e.g., for quality improvement efforts, to track population health) and what motivated the use of such measures? What data sources are you using? What data model are you using to map data to standardized concepts ( e.g., Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model, others)? Please specify your organization type ( e.g., state/local health department, professional society, healthcare system, research organization, etc.) in your answer.

3. If you or your organization are not currently measuring diagnostic excellence, what diagnostic excellence measures might be helpful to your organization? Please specify your organization type in your answer.

4. If standardized measures with national benchmarks were made available through software by AHRQ, how likely would you be to use them? What characteristics ( e.g., risk adjustment, frequency counts) or features ( e.g., statistical programming languages, data model platforms, technology [web or cloud-based applications]) of such measures would facilitate their use and usefulness within your organization?

5. AHRQ is considering the diagnostic excellence-related measures listed here: https://bit.ly/41mg3i6 . We invite comments on:

a. The extent to which these measures meet the “Criteria” listed above; and

b. The extent to which these measures address the “Additional Considerations” listed above.

6. AHRQ invites any additional comments related to potential AHRQ measures of diagnostic excellence.

AHRQ is interested in all of the questions listed above, but respondents are welcome to address as many or as few as they choose and to address additional areas of interest not listed. It is helpful to identify the question to which a particular answer corresponds.

This RFI is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a policy, solicitation for applications, or as an obligation on the part of the Government to provide support for any ideas in response to it. AHRQ will use the information submitted in response toto this RFI at its discretion and will not provide comments to any respondent's submission. However, responses to this RFI may be reflected in future solicitation(s) or policies. The information provided will be analyzed and may appear in reports.

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2025-0045, and must be received by May 9, 2025.

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

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Title: Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk—Letter of Intent and Operations Manual.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0093.

Summary: A Letter of Intent is a notice to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port that an operator intends to operate a facility that will transfer bulk oil or hazardous materials to or from vessels. An Operations Manual (OM) is also required for this type of facility. The OM establishes procedures to follow when conducting transfers and in the event of a spill.

Need: Under 33 U.S.C. 1321 and Executive Order 12777 the Coast Guard is authorized to prescribe regulations to prevent the discharge of oil and hazardous substances from facilities and to contain such discharges. The Letter of Intent regulation is contained in 33 CFR 154.110 and the OM regulations are contained in 33 CFR part 154 subpart B.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Operators of facilities that transfer oil or hazardous materials in bulk.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 37,360 hours to 27,537 hours a year, due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of responses.

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0437, and must be received by April 9, 2025.

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

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0058.

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (89 FR 86831, October 31, 2024) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Title: Application for Permit to Transport Municipal and Commercial Waste.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0058.

Summary: This information collection provides the basis for issuing or denying a permit, required under 33 U.S.C. 2601 and 33 CFR 151.1009, for the transportation of municipal or commercial waste in the coastal waters of the United States.

Need: In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2601, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring an owner or operator of a vessel to apply for a permit to transport municipal or commercial waste in the United States and to display an identification number or other marking on their vessel.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.

Frequency: Every 18 months.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 4 hours to 2 hours a year, due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of responses.

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0784, and must be received by April 9, 2025.

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

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0013.

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (89 FR 82618, October 11, 2024) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Title: Plan Approval and Records for Load Lines—Title 46 CFR Subchapter E.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0013.

Summary: This information collection is required to ensure that certain vessels are not overloaded—as evidenced by the submerging of their assigned load line. In general, vessels over 150 gross tons or 24 meters (79 feet) in length engaged in commerce on international or coastwise voyages by sea are required to obtain a Load Line Certificate.

Need: 46 U.S.C. 5101 to 5116 provides the Coast Guard with the authority to enforce provisions of the International Load Line Convention, 1966. Title 46 CFR subchapter E—Load Lines, contains the relevant regulations.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 687 hours to 782 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated annual number of respondents.

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

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2025-0042, and must be received by May 9, 2025.

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

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Title: Vessel Inspection Related Forms and Reporting Requirements Under Title 46 U.S. Code.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0032.

Summary: This collection of information requires owners, operators, agents or masters of certain inspected vessels to obtain and/or post various forms as part of the Coast Guard's Commercial Vessel Safety Program.

Need: The Coast Guard's Commercial Vessel Safety Program regulations are found in 46 CFR, including parts 2, 26, 31, 71, 91, 107, 115, 126, 169, 176 and 189, as authorized in 46 U.S.C. A number of reporting and recordkeeping requirements are contained therein.

Forms:

Respondents: Owners, operators, agents and masters of vessels.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 735 hours to 795 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated annual number of responses.

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0438, and must be received by April 9, 2025.

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

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https:// www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0088.

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (89 FR 86833, October 31, 2024) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Title: Voyage Planning for Tank Barge Transits in the Northeast United States.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0088.

Summary: The information collection requirement for a voyage plan serves as a preventive measure and assists in ensuring the successful execution and completion of a voyage in the First Coast Guard District. This rule (33 CFR 165.100) applies to primary towing vessels engaged in towing tank barges carrying petroleum oil in bulk as cargo.

Need: Section 311 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, Public Law 105-383, 46 U.S. Code 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231) authorizes the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations for towing vessel and barge safety for the waters of the Northeast subject to the jurisdiction of the First Coast Guard District. This regulation is contained in 33 CFR 165.100. The information for a voyage plan will provide a mechanism for assisting vessels towing tank barges to identify those specific risks, potential equipment failures, or human errors that may lead to accidents.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Owners and operators of towing vessels.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 937 hours to 1,544 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated annual number of respondents.

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0883, and must be received by April 9, 2025.

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

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0033

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (89 FR 85551, October 28, 2024) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice received one unrelated comment. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Title: Display of Fire Control Plans for Vessel.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0033.

Summary: This information collection is for the posting or display of specific plans on certain categories of commercial vessels. The availability of these plans aid firefighters and damage control efforts in response to emergencies.

Need: Under 46 U.S.C. 3305 and 3306, the Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring the safety of inspected vessels and has promulgated regulations in 46 CFR parts 35, 78, 97, 109, 131, 169, and 196 to ensure that safety standards are met.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 472 hours to 493 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated annual number of respondents.

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

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2025-0044, and must be received by May 9, 2025.

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

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Title: Vapor Control Systems for Facilities and Tank Vessels.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0060.

Summary: The information is needed to ensure compliance with U.S. regulations for the design of facility and tank vessel vapor control systems (VCS). The information is also needed to determine the qualifications of a certifying entity.

Need: The information is needed to ensure compliance with U.S. regulations for the design of facility and tank vessel vapor control systems (VCS). The information is also needed to determine the qualifications of a certifying entity.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Owners and operators of facilities and tank vessels and certifying entities.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 4,409 hours to 4,576 hours a year, primarily due to an increase in the number of VCS facility respondents.

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

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2025-0049, and must be received by May 9, 2025.

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

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Title: Report of Oil or Hazardous Substance Discharge; and Report of Suspicious Maritime Activity.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0096.

Summary: Any discharge of oil or a hazardous substance must be reported to the National Response Center (NRC) so that the pre-designated on-scene coordinator can be informed and appropriate spill mitigation action carried out. The NRC also receives suspicious activity reports from the public and disseminates this information to appropriate entities.

Need: 33 CFR 153.203, 40 CFR 263.30 and 264.56, and 49 CFR 171.15 mandate that the NRC be the central place for the public to report all pollution spills. 33 CFR 101.305 mandates that owners or operators of those vessels or facilities required to have security plans, report activities that may result in a Transportation Security Incident (TSI) or breaches of security to the NRC. Voluntary reports are also accepted.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Persons-in-charge of a vessel or onshore/offshore facility; owners or operators of vessels or facilities required to have security plans; and the public.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 3,683 hours to 3,905 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated annual number of responses.

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

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

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

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

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2025-0093, and must be received by May 9, 2025.

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

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Title: Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain Tank Vessels Over 30 Years Old.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0101.

Summary: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 required the issuance of regulations related to the structural integrity of tank vessels, including periodic gauging of the plating thickness of tank vessels over 30 years old. This collection of information is used to verify the structural integrity of older tank vessels.

Need: 46 U.S.C. 3703 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations related to tank vessels, including design, construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance. 46 CFR 31.10-21a prescribes the regulations related to periodic gauging and engineering analyses of certain tank vessels over 30 years old.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Owners and operators of certain tank vessels.

Frequency: Every 5 years.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 2,842 hours to 3,306 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated annual number of responses.

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

On April 26, 2024, HUD and the U.S. Department of Agriculture published the Final Determination (89 FR 33112), which adopted the 2021 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and the 2019 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1: Energy Standard for Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (ASHRAE 90.1) as the minimum energy standards for new construction of buildings in programs covered by section 109 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12709), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) (Pub. L. 110-140).

In Section VI of the Final Determination, the Departments provided Table 32, which lists compliance dates for the updated energy efficiency standards, also available with further guidance for HUD programs at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/minimum-energy-standards/ .

HUD is delaying the compliance dates for the Final Determination's dates that have not yet passed. The compliance dates for the following programs are extended by six months: Federal Housing Administration-Insured (FHA-Insured) Multifamily, FHA-Insured Single Family, Public Housing Capital Fund, and Competitive Grants (Choice Neighborhoods, Section 202, Section 811). The compliance date for Section 8 Project Based Vouchers is extended until April 1, 2026.

The six month delay will provide additional time for the administration to review questions of fact, law and policy supporting the Final Determination and determine the need for HUD to develop further technical assistance. Additionally, the delay for Section 8 Project Based Vouchers will allow time for HUD to seek comment and publish further guidance on compliance for Section 8 PBV. HUD is not amending the compliance date for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Program, which has already passed. As stated on HUD Exchange, if HOME and HTF projects receive layered funding with other HUD funds covered by this notice as listed in the table below, the later compliance date applies. HUD confirms that HOME and HTF projects with funding from a program covered by this compliance date extension do not have to comply with the Final Determination until the new extended date. See https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/minimum-energy-standards/ for more information. Program participants who may have difficulty meeting compliance dates that have already passed should contact HUD.

The updated compliance dates are as follows:

This notice provides updated compliance deadlines for the Final Determination. A Finding of No Significant Impact was prepared on the preliminary determination that preceded the Final Determination and remained applicable to the Final Determination. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(4) this notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Background.—On February 4, 2025, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (89 FR 87409, November 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 May 14, 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 5:15 p.m. on May 22, 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 May 22, 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.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on January 31, 2025, Stepan Company, 100 West Hunter Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607-1021 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to import the listed controlled substance(s) to bulk manufacture other controlled substances for distribution to its customers. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.

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

The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program 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) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, the collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of these requirements is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that employment has been tested and is in safe operating condition.

The information collection requirements in the DBCP Standard provide protection for workers from the adverse health effects associated with exposure to DBCP. In this regard, the DBCP Standard requires employers to: monitor workers' exposure to DBCP; monitor worker health and provide workers with information about their exposure and the health effects of exposure to DBCP.

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 the 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropane (DBCP) Standard. The agency is requesting for the burden of one hour to remain the same.

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 collection.

Title: 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropane (DBCP) Standard.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0101.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.

Number of Respondents: 1.

Number of Responses: 1.

Frequency of Responses: On occasion.

Average Time per Response: Varies.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1.

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-2012-0010). 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.

Scott C. Ketcham, 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).

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (the “CASE Act”) directed the Copyright Office to establish the Copyright Claims Board (the “CCB”), 1 a voluntary forum for parties seeking resolution of certain copyright disputes that have a total monetary value of $30,000 or less. The CCB “is intended to be accessible especially for pro se [ i.e., self-represented] parties and those with little prior formal exposure to copyright laws who cannot otherwise afford to have their claims and defenses heard in federal court,”  2 an issue analyzed in depth in the Office's 2013 policy report, Copyright Small Claims . 3 Since the CCB launched operations in June 2022, claimants  4 have filed over 1,000 claims. 5 The CCB has managed hundreds of proceedings and issued over 30 final determinations, the first of which was published on February 15, 2023. 6

The CASE Act directs the Register of Copyrights to complete a study within three years of the CCB's first final determination, addressing five specific topics, as well as any other topics related to the CCB that the Register believes to be pertinent. 7 This Notice initiates that study.

The CASE Act provided that the CCB would be housed within the Copyright Office and granted the Office general authority to implement the statute's provisions through its rulemaking power. 8 While the CASE Act detailed many of the components and procedures of the CCB, Congress delegated to the Office the specific authority to promulgate certain regulations necessary for the CCB's operations. 9 These regulations address many aspects of the CCB's proceedings, including how parties should present their positions and how the CCB will operate. 10

The Office began the regulatory process by publishing a notification of inquiry in March 2021, inviting public comment on the CCB's operations. 11 Over the course of the following 15 months, the Office issued several proposed and final rules relating to different stages of CCB processes and procedures, such as initiating proceedings, 12 conducting active proceedings, 13 representation of parties, 14 opt-out procedures, 15 and expedited copyright registration for works involved in claims before the CCB. 16 The Office also hired three Copyright Claims Officers, three Copyright Claims Attorneys, and additional support staff. In collaboration with the Library of Congress, it built the CCB's electronic filing and case management system (“eCCB”), as well as setting up virtual hearing facilities, office space, a standalone website, and other operational essentials. As a result of these efforts, the CCB was able to launch on June 16, 2022, before the CASE Act's deadline. 17

Over the past two and a half years, the Office has issued additional rulemakings. For example, in July 2023, it published a final rule setting forth the requirements for asserting or responding to counterclaims based on an agreement pertaining to the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of an infringement claim. 18 In October 2024, it published a final rule amending the process and fee for obtaining a certified final determination from the CCB. 19 The Office continues to monitor the CCB's operations and make additional regulatory adjustments as needed.

Before identifying the current areas of inquiry, the Office offers a high-level overview of the rules and regulations governing the steps in a CCB proceeding, identifying which procedures are pursuant to regulation or are required by the statute.

To initiate a CCB proceeding, a claimant must pay an initial filing fee (a portion of the total filing fee)  20 and submit its claim for a “compliance review,” i.e., a review of the claim's sufficiency under the statute and any relevant regulations. 21 This process includes two opportunities for the claimant to cure a deficient claim. Once the claim is approved, unless the respondent waives personal service, 22 the claimant must serve notice of the proceeding and a copy of the claim on the respondent. 23 This service must comply with federal law and proof of the service must be filed with the CCB. 24 Respondents then have sixty days from service to opt out of participating in the proceeding. 25 If the respondent does not submit a timely opt-out notice, the proceeding enters the active proceeding phase. 26

Once a proceeding enters the active phase, the claimant makes the second filing fee payment and the parties attend a pre-discovery conference and engage in discovery by exchanging certain information and documents that are relevant to the issues in the proceeding. 27 Discovery typically involves the use of interrogatories and requests to produce documents, using standardized CCB-provided forms. 28 The claimant then submits written testimony to the CCB, through a written statement, documentary evidence, and any witness statements. 29 The respondent is provided an opportunity to submit its own written testimony, after which the claimant may submit reply written testimony. 30 Pursuant to statute, CCB Officers may decide claims based only on written testimony or after an optional hearing. 31

If the claimant requests a “smaller claims” proceeding when they file their claim, discovery and written statements can be more limited. 32 Only one CCB Officer normally presides over a smaller claims proceeding, 33 and proceedings begin with that Officer holding a conference to determine what parts of standard discovery are necessary. The written testimony phase is handled by having the parties present their evidence, witness statements, and any arguments, followed by a “merits conference.” The presiding Officer then provides the parties with proposed findings of fact, and parties have an opportunity to respond in advance of a final determination. 34

If a respondent fails to participate in an active proceeding or, without justifiable cause, fails to meet any filing deadline or other requirement set forth in an order, the CCB, after providing notice to the respondent, may initiate default determination proceedings. 35 As part of those proceedings, the CCB requires the claimant to submit written testimony in support of a default determination. 36 The CCB then considers the evidence to determine if it is sufficient to find that respondent has defaulted and whether the respondent has a meritorious defense. 37

The CCB is intended to be easier for pro se parties to use than litigating in federal court. 38 The Office developed the CCB's regulations, forms, processes, and procedures with this goal in mind. Since the CASE Act's passage, the Office has produced a wide array of information to educate the public, including parties to CCB proceedings, about the CCB and its operations. These materials include a dedicated CCB website ( ccb.gov ) which provides a user handbook, video tutorials, handouts, FAQs, and links to additional resources such as legislative history and rulemaking activity. To date, the Office has participated in many in-person and virtual events to educate the public on the CCB and to promote its use. In addition to speaking at external events, CCB staff frequently educates the public through calls, emails, and the compliance review process. The CCB's website also has a pro bono directory of law school clinics and other organizations that are available to provide free or reduced fee services. 39

The CASE Act requires the Office to complete a study of the CCB's operations for Congress's review no later than three years after issuance of the first CCB final determination. In its Copyright Small Claims report, the Office recommended such a study, explaining that “[a]s with any unprecedented program, it is difficult to predict all of the contingencies that might arise once it becomes operational” and recommended that “after three years of operation, the Office should report to Congress on the efficacy of the system, including in relation to eligible works and claims, damages limitations, fee-shifting authority, identification of unknown infringers, and possible inclusion of mediation or similar [alternative dispute resolution] services.”  40 The CASE Act identifies a number of specific subjects that should be included in the study, but grants the Register the discretion to also study “such other matters as [she] believes may be pertinent concerning the Copyright Claims Board.”  41

The Register has identified additional questions to expand on and supplement the topics proscribed by Congress, listed below. The Office invites written comments on all of these subjects. Parties responding to this Notice of Inquiry need not address every subject, but the Office requests that they clearly identify and separately address each subject for which a response is submitted. This information will be used to inform the Office's report to Congress, as well as possible future regulatory work. Input is sought from a broad range of perspectives, including without limitation those parties that have used the CCB, considered using the CCB, or declined to use the CCB (including respondents who have opted out), and legal representatives of these parties, as well as commenters who provided input to the Office's prior policy study or its implementing regulations for the CCB. Input is also sought on whether potential modifications would involve changing the statute, regulations, or other procedures.

Commenters should provide the factual, legal, or policy basis for their responses and make clear whether they are submitting their comment in a personal capacity or on behalf of an organization or entity they are authorized to represent.

1. The use and efficacy of the CCB in resolving copyright claims, including the number of proceedings the CCB could reasonably administer. 42

a. Is the CCBs existence promoting settlements or other private dispute resolutions, either without bringing a claim before the CCB or after filing a claim with the CCB?

b. Is the CCB's $40 initial filing fee deterring frivolous claims without deterring meritorious claims?

c. Is the compliance review process working as intended and, if not, how should it be modified?

d. Should the CASE Act's service requirements be modified? Are there other ways to increase the ease and efficiency of perfecting service while adequately preserving respondents' due process rights?

e. Is the opt-out system working as intended and, if not, how should it be modified?

f. Are there ways to further streamline and reduce the complexity of CCB proceedings while preserving parties' rights? For example, should any statutory or regulatory time periods be adjusted to allow for faster resolutions of claims?

g. Are the scope of discovery and the use of standard discovery forms appropriately tailored to parties' needs and expectations?

h. Are the CCB's procedures governing written testimony appropriately tailored to parties' needs and expectations?

i. Are the processes and procedures for smaller claims proceedings appropriately tailored to parties' needs and expectations, compared to the processes and procedures that apply in standard proceedings?

2. Are there any aspects of other small claims tribunals, including their models or procedures, that should be considered for the CCB?  43

3. Are there ways that the CCB can be made more accessible and user-friendly, including for self-represented parties? For instance, please consider:

a. Whether the CCB's forms, processes, or procedures should be adjusted; and

b. Whether the CCB should supplement its educational resources ( e.g., its handbook, video tutorials, handouts, and website), either by revising existing resources or adding additional resources.

4. Are there any changes that could be made to improve the default process or reduce the incidence of defaults while adequately preserving respondents' rights and ensuring the timely processing of claims?

5. Are the statutory and regulatory rules for addressing bad-faith actors working as intended? In particular, is the one-year ban for bad-faith actors sufficient in length and should there be different sanctions for repeat offenders?

6. Are there any changes that could be made to improve the ability of claimants to enforce determinations?

7. Whether adjustments to the CCB's authority are necessary or advisable, including with respect to: (A) eligible claims, such as claims under section 1202 of title 17, United States Code (which addresses the integrity of copyright management information); (B) eligible types of works; and (C) applicable damages limitations. 44

a. Are there additional claims that arise under title 17 that would be appropriate for the CCB to resolve?

b. Currently the CASE Act's damages limitations are $30,000 per proceeding and, for statutory damages, $15,000 per work infringed. Would raising or lowering these caps improve the operations of the CCB?

c. Whether greater allowance should be made to permit or limit awards of attorneys' fees and costs to prevailing parties. 45 Currently the cap for attorneys' fees and costs for bad-faith conduct under the CASE Act is $5,000; however, in extraordinary circumstances, the CCB can exceed that cap. 46 Should this cap be increased or decreased?

8. What additional mechanisms, if any, should the CCB adopt to assist claimants in ascertaining the identity and location of unknown online infringers?  47 Should the CCB be granted subpoena power to assist parties in identifying or locating potential respondents?

9. Whether the CCB should be expanded to offer mediation or other nonbinding alternative dispute resolution services to interested parties. 48

10. Other topics of interest to the Register:

a. The CASE Act contains a rule that treats filing certain CCB claims as equivalent to filing a court action, for the purpose of contesting a counter-notice under 512(g)(2)(C). 49 Is this rule working as intended and, if not, how should it be modified?

b. Do law student representatives, legal clinics, and pro bono organizations face any obstacles in representing or counseling clients before the CCB? How can the Office increase CCB participation by these groups?

c. Are there any other issues relevant to the CCB or the CASE Act that commenters wish to address, including any proposed statutory or regulatory changes?

The NRC is reviewing an exemption request from CEG, dated January 22, 2025, and supplemented on February 4, 2025. CEG is requesting an exemption, pursuant to section 72.7 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), in paragraphs 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 that require CEG to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 3, Revision No. 0. If approved, the exemption would allow CEG to use the HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) MPC Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations, for six specific MPCs ( i.e., MPC-89) at the NMP ISFSI, beginning in May 2025, where the terms, conditions, and specifications in CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 3, Revision No. 0, are not met.

NMP is located on the southeastern shore of Lake Ontario, approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) northeast of Oswego, New York, and 60 kilometers (36 miles) north-northwest of Syracuse, New York. Unit 1 began operating in 1969 and Unit 2 began operating in 1988. CEG has been storing spent fuel in the NMP ISFSI under a general license as authorized by 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites.” CEG currently uses the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System under CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 3, Revision No. 0, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in a specific MPC ( i.e., MPC-89) at the NMP ISFSI.

The CoC is the NRC-approved design for each dry cask storage system. The proposed action would exempt the applicant from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 only as these requirements pertain to the use of the six MPC-89 in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System planned for a near-term loading campaign beginning in May 2025. The exemption would allow CEG to use the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations, for six MPC-89 at the NMP ISFSI, beginning in May 2025, despite CEG's site-specific analysis of a postulated tornado missile event for the HI-TRAC not being in compliance with the terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 3, Revision No. 0.

Before using a CoC, general licensees are required to perform a site-specific evaluation to establish that, once loaded with spent fuel, the cask will conform to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC, including following the NRC-approved final safety analysis report (FSAR) methodology. CEG currently uses the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System under CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 3, Revision No. 0, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in MPC-89 at the NMP ISFSI. The HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System CoC provides the requirements, conditions, and operating limits necessary for use of the system to store spent fuel. One of the operating limits established in the CoC involves potential tornado-generated missile impacts. The HI-STORM FW FSAR table 2.2.5 evaluates a generic set of tornado-generated missile impacts. CEG discovered that NMP's site-specific analysis performed to demonstrate protection of the loaded MPC-89, while in the HI-TRAC, against tornado-generated missiles was not performed consistent with the NRC-approved method of evaluation in the FSAR. Contrary to CEG's site-specific analysis, the NRC-approved evaluation in the FSAR does not take credit for the missile resistance offered by the HI-TRAC water jacket shell, and assumes that the small and intermediate missiles will penetrate the water jacket shell with no energy loss.

Therefore, CEG requests this exemption to allow it to conduct the planned loading and transport operations of the six MPC-89 in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at NMP ISFSI beginning in May 2025, even though, because of the different tornado-generated missile analysis of the HI-TRAC in NMP's site-specific review, the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC will not be met.

CEG requested this exemption in order to allow the use of the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations for six MPC-89 at the NMP ISFSI, beginning in May 2025, despite the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC not being met. Approval of the exemption request would allow CEG to effectively manage the margin to full core discharge capacity to enable refueling and offloading fuel from the reactor. It would also allow CEG to effectively manage the availability of the specialized resources and equipment needed to support competing fuel loading and operational activities at NMP.

This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of granting an exemption from the terms, conditions, and specifications in CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 3, Revision No. 0. The exemption would allow CEG to use the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations for six MPC-89 at the NMP ISFSI, for the loading campaign beginning in May 2025, even though the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC will not be met.

The potential environmental impacts of storing spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved storage systems have been documented in previous assessments. On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC amended 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The EA for the 1990 final rule analyzed the potential environmental impacts of using NRC-approved storage casks. The EA for the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 3, Revision No. 0, (82 FR 29225), published in 2017, tiers off of the EA issued for the July 18, 1990, final rule. “Tiering” off earlier EAs is a standard process encouraged by the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) that entails the use of impact analyses of previous EAs to bound the impacts of a proposed action where appropriate. The Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Considering the specific design requirements for the accident conditions, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would not be significant.

The exemptions requested by CEG at the NMP site as they relate to CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 3, Revision No. 0, for the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System are limited to using the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations for the MPC-89 for the planned loading of six canisters starting in May 2025, despite the NMP site-specific analysis of tornado-generated missiles not being performed consistent with the NRC-approved method of evaluation in the CoC FSAR, and so the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC not being met. The staff has determined that this change in analysis will not result in either radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the EA supporting the issuance of CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 3, Revision No. 0. If the exemption is granted, there will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluents released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

The staff considered the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative (denial of the exemption request) would require CEG to delay the near-term planned loading of spent fuel in the MPC-89 in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at the NMP ISFSI. Delaying the loading of spent fuel in the six casks in May 2025 could affect CEG's ability to effectively manage spent fuel pool capacity, reactor fuel offloading, and refueling. Not allowing the planned future loading campaign could also pose challenges to spent fuel heat removal and impact the availability of the specialized workforce and equipment needed to support competing fuel loading and operational activities at NMP and other CEG sites.

The NRC determined that the no-action alternative would result in undue potential human health and safety impacts that could be avoided by proceeding with the proposed exemption.

The NRC provided the New York State Energy, Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) a copy of this draft EA for review by an email dated February 24, 2025. On February 28, 2025, NYSERDA provided its concurrence by email.

The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, which implement NEPA. Based upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the proposed action of granting the exemption from the regulations in 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11) and 72.214, which require the licensee to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC, in this case limited to the use of the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations, for the specific near-term future loading of six MPC-89 beginning in May 2025, would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a FONSI is appropriate, and an environmental impact statement is not warranted.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS, as indicated.

OMB has approved and issued control numbers for three collections of information in PBGC's regulations relating to multiemployer plans (1212-0020, 1212-0032, 1212-0033). These collections of information are described below. OMB approvals for these collections of information expire June 30, 2025. PBGC intends to request that OMB extend its approval of these collections of information for 3 years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. PBGC is soliciting public comments to—

• Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used;

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

• Minimize the burden of the collections 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.

Section 4041A(f)(2) of ERISA authorizes PBGC to prescribe reporting requirements and other rules and standards for administering terminated multiemployer plans. Section 4041A(c) and (f)(1) of ERISA prohibit the payment by a mass-withdrawal-terminated plan of lump sums greater than $1,750 or of nonvested plan benefits unless authorized by PBGC.

The regulation requires the plan sponsor of a terminated plan to file a notice of termination with PBGC. The notice of termination must contain the information and certification specified in the instructions for the notice of termination on https://www.pbgc.gov. The regulation also requires the plan sponsor of a mass-withdrawal-terminated plan that is closing out to give notices to participants regarding the election of alternative forms of benefit distribution and, if the plan is not closing out, to obtain PBGC approval to pay lump sums greater than $1,750 or to pay nonvested plan benefits.

PBGC uses the information in a notice of termination to assess the likelihood that PBGC financial assistance will be needed. Plan participants and beneficiaries use the information on alternative forms of benefit to make personal financial decisions. PBGC uses the information in an application for approval to pay lump sums greater than $1,750 or to pay nonvested plan benefits to determine whether such payments should be permitted.

The regulation also requires plans terminated by mass withdrawal, plans terminated by plan amendment that are expected to become insolvent, and insolvent plans under part 4245 receiving financial assistance from PBGC (whether terminated or not terminated) to file with PBGC withdrawal liability information and actuarial valuations or, for smaller plans receiving financial assistance where the present value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits is $50 million or less, alternative information. PBGC uses the actuarial valuation information to estimate PBGC's multiemployer liabilities for purposes of its financial statements and to provide financial assistance to plans that become insolvent. PBGC intends to propose eliminating the requirement to file withdrawal liability information because this information is largely duplicative with information that PBGC collects from plans that receive special financial assistance under 29 CFR part 4262.

PBGC estimates that each year, plan sponsors submit notices of termination for five plans, distribute election notices to participants in one of those plans and submit requests to pay benefits or benefit forms not otherwise permitted for one of those plans. The estimated annual burden of this part of this collection of information is 25 hours and $25,000.

Furthermore, PBGC estimates that each year, plan sponsors file actuarial valuations electronically for 22 plans that are terminated or insolvent, and that only 1 smaller plan will file alternative information. The estimated annual burden of this part of the collection of information is 6.5 hours and $2,600.

The estimated total hour burden is 31.5 hours (25 + 6.5). The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is estimated to be $27,600 ($25,000 + $2,600).

Section 4245(e) of ERISA requires two types of notice: a “notice of insolvency,” stating a plan sponsor's determination that the plan is or may become insolvent, and a “notice of insolvency benefit level,” stating the level of benefits that will be paid during an insolvency year. The recipients of these notices are PBGC, contributing employers, employee organizations representing participants, and participants and beneficiaries.

The regulation establishes the procedure for complying with these notice requirements. It allows a plan sponsor to combine the notice of insolvency and notice of insolvency benefit level. In addition, the regulation only requires a plan sponsor to provide an updated notice to participants and beneficiaries if there is a change in the amount of benefits paid to participants and beneficiaries. PBGC uses the information submitted to estimate cash needs for financial assistance to troubled plans. The collective bargaining parties use the information to decide whether additional plan contributions will be made to avoid the insolvency and consequent benefit suspensions. Plan participants and beneficiaries use the information in personal financial decisions.

PBGC estimates that at most one plan sponsor of an ongoing plan gives notices each year under section 4245. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 16 hours and $10,000.

Section 4281 of ERISA provides rules for plans that have terminated by mass withdrawal. Under section 4281, if nonforfeitable benefits exceed plan assets, the plan sponsor must amend the plan to reduce benefits. If the plan nevertheless becomes insolvent, the plan sponsor must suspend certain benefits that cannot be paid. If available resources are inadequate to pay guaranteed benefits, the plan sponsor must request financial assistance from PBGC.

The regulation requires a plan sponsor to give notices of benefit reduction, notices of insolvency, and notices of insolvency benefit level to PBGC and to participants and beneficiaries and, if necessary, to apply to PBGC for financial assistance. A plan sponsor can combine the notice of insolvency and the notice of insolvency benefit level.

PBGC uses the information it receives to make determinations required by ERISA, to identify and estimate the cash needed for financial assistance to terminated plans, and to verify the appropriateness of financial assistance payments. Plan participants and beneficiaries use the information to make personal financial decisions.

PBGC estimates that plan sponsors of terminated plans each year will file with PBGC 1 notice of benefit reduction, 2 notices of insolvency, 2 combined notices of insolvency and insolvency benefit level, and 3 notices of insolvency benefit level. PBGC also estimates that plan sponsors each year will file initial requests for financial assistance for 5 plans and will submit 369 non-initial applications for financial assistance. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 113 hours and $268,000.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of a collection of information that filers use to request that PBGC determine whether a defined benefit pension plan is covered under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). (OMB control number 1212-0072; expires June 30, 2025). This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collection of information.

A plan is covered under title IV, and thereby insured by PBGC, if it is described in section 4021(a) of ERISA and does not meet one of the exemptions from coverage listed in section 4021(b)(1)-(13). If a question arises about whether a plan is covered under title IV, a plan may submit the Request for Coverage Determination form to PBGC.

The Request for Coverage Determination form and corresponding instructions are suitable for all types of requests, but they highlight the four plan types for which coverage determinations are most frequently requested: (1) church plans as listed in section 4021(b)(3) of ERISA; (2) plans that are established and maintained exclusively for the benefit of plan sponsors' substantial owners as listed in section 4021(b)(9); (3) plans that cover, since September 2, 1974, no more than 25 active participants and that are established and maintained by professional services employers as listed in section 4021(b)(13); and (4) Puerto Rico-based plans within the meaning of section 1022(i)(1) of ERISA. PBGC needs the information requested to determine whether a plan is covered or not covered under title IV of ERISA.

PBGC's pilot program that specifically provided for a prospective plan to request a coverage determination when the plan was proposed but not yet established expired September 30, 2022. PBGC is removing outdated references to the pilot program in question 4 of Part II of the form and instructions. PBGC is also proposing to revise question 3 of Part III of the form, relating to substantial owners plans, to require a list of all the limited liability company's (LLC) members (if the employer sponsor is an LLC) rather than a statement on how the LLC is treated for federal tax purposes for clarity. Lastly, PBGC is proposing editorial changes to question 4 of part III and question 3 of part V to provide greater clarity to filers.

The existing collection of information is approved through June 30, 2025, under OMB control number 1212-0072. PBGC intends to request that OMB extend its approval of this collection of information, with modifications, for 3 years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

PBGC estimates that each year there will be 295 Request for Coverage Determination forms submitted to PBGC. PBGC further estimates the average hour burden is 1.5 hours and average cost burden is $300. The total estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 442.5 hours and $88,500.

PBGC is soliciting public comments to—

• 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;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used;

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

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

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0208). This ICR has been revised to include a public burden statement. The Office of Personnel Management is particularly interested in comments that:

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

2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM'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; and

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.

RI 38-115, Representative Payee Survey, is used to collect information about how the benefits paid to a representative payee have been used or conserved for the benefit of the incompetent annuitant.

Agency: Retirement Operations, Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management.

Title: Representative Payee Survey.

OMB Number: 3206-0208.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Number of Respondents: 11,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 20 minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 3,667.

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 ( http://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).: MC2025-1202 and K2025-1202; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 1337 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 4, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Kenneth Moeller; Comments Due: March 12, 2025.

None. See Section II for public proceedings.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

This Order filed, in Docket No. RM2024-9 and Docket No. PI2025-2, states that certain proposed revisions to the Postal Service's Service Performance Measurement (SPM) Plan and related SPM design documents, which were filed by the Postal Service pursuant to 39 CFR 3055.5 in Docket No. PI2025-2, will be considered by the Commission in pending Docket No. RM2024-9.

Comments on the proposed revisions should be filed in Docket No. RM2024-9 by March 14, 2025. The Commission is particularly interested in whether commenters view the proposed revisions as sufficient to enable the SPM system to produce accurate, reliable, and representative results for each 5-Digit to 5-Digit ZIP Code pair for each affected product and (if not) what information and data the Postal Service would need to provide to enable the Commission to verify that the SPM system is capable of producing accurate, reliable, and representative results for each 5-Digit to 5-Digit ZIP Code pair for each affected product.

For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, dated February 11, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch. You may also call the SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy at (202) 551-8090.

For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, dated February 11, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch . You may also call the SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy at (202) 551-8090.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dated February 24, 2025, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on March 4, 2025, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal https://lending.sba.gov or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at disastercustomerservice@sba.gov or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

The Interest Rates are:

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 209856 and for economic injury is 209860.

• Title of Information Collection: Application/License for Permanent/Temporary Export or Temporary Import of Classified Defense Articles and Related Classified Technical Data.

• OMB Control Number: 1405-0022.

• Type of Request: Renewal of a Currently Approved Collection.

• Originating Office: Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, PM/DDTC.

• Form Number: DSP-85.

• Respondents: Business, Nonprofit Organizations, and Individuals.

• Estimated Number of Respondents: 74.

• Estimated Number of Responses: 74.

• Average Time per Response: 30 minutes.

• Total Estimated Burden Time: 37 hours.

• Frequency: On occasion.

• Obligation to Respond: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:

• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.

• 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.

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

• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.

In accordance with part 123 of the ITAR, any person who intends to permanently export, temporarily export, or temporarily import classified defense articles, including classified technical data must first obtain DDTC authorization. The “Application/License for Permanent/Temporary Export or Temporary Import of Classified Defense Articles and Related Classified Technical Data” (Form DSP-85) is used to obtain permission for the permanent export, temporary export, or temporary import of classified defense articles, including classified technical data, covered by the U.S. Munitions List (USML). This form is an application that, when completed and approved by the Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (PM/DDTC), Department of State, constitutes the official record and authorization for all classified commercial defense trade transactions, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Methodology: This information collection may be sent to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls via the following methods: electronically or mail.

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

OMB Control Number: 2120-0704.

Title: Organization Designation Authorization.

Form Numbers: FAA Form 8100-13.

Type of Review: Extension without change of an information collection.

Background: 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 44702(d) authorizes the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to delegate to any properly qualified private person functions related to the examination, inspection, and testing necessary to the issuance of certificates. Title 14 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 183, Subpart D allows the FAA to appoint organizations as Administrator representatives. As authorized, these organizations perform certification functions on behalf of the FAA. Applications include information about the applicant, the applicant's experience and qualifications, and the authority it seeks. Applications are submitted to the appropriate FAA office responsible for delegating the issuance certificates and approvals and are reviewed by the FAA team assigned to the applicant to determine whether the applicant meets the requirements necessary to be authorized as a representative of the Administrator. Procedures manuals are submitted for applications that are accepted by the FAA and contain the applicant's proposed procedures to be approved by the FAA to ensure that the correct processes are utilized when performing functions on behalf of the FAA as required by part 183 subpart D. These requirements are necessary to manage the various approvals issued by the organization and document approvals issued and must be maintained to address potential future safety issues.

Respondents: This collection involves organizations applying to perform certification functions on behalf of the FAA.

Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.

Estimated Average Burden per Response: 43.5 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,623 hours.

FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2019-0056), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number (FMCSA-2019-0056) in keyword box, and click on this notice, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov insert FMCSA-2019-0056 in the keyword box, select the document tab and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this notice, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Docket Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including the applicant's safety analyses. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.

The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish the decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If granted, the notice will identify the regulatory provision from which the applicant will be exempt and the effective period and will explain all terms and conditions of the exemption (49 CFR 381.315(c)(1)). If the exemption is denied, the notice will explain the reason for the denial (49 CFR 381.315(c)(2)). The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2), drivers are prohibited from driving after a period of 14 consecutive hours after coming on-duty following 10 consecutive hours off-duty.

Under 49 CFR 395.3(b)(1), drivers are prohibited from operating a CMV for any period after having been on duty 60 hours in any period of 7 consecutive days if the employing motor carrier does not operate CMVs every day of the week.

Under 49 CFR 395.3(b)(2), drivers are prohibited from operating a CMV for any period after having been on duty 70 hours in any period of 8 consecutive days if the employing motor carrier does operate CMVs every day of the week.

R.J. Corman is a full-service railroad construction company, Cranemasters is a railroad contractor, and the NRC is a trade association for railroad contractors, suppliers, and the railroad and rail transit construction industry. The applicants request a renewal of their exemption from the Hours of Service (HOS) regulations for the R.J. Corman and Cranemasters employees who use CMVs to transport equipment used to clear derailed or disabled trains or debris blocking tracks or railroad rights-of-way when responding to unplanned events that affect interstate commerce, service, or the safety of railway operations, including passenger rail operations.

The applicants assert in their original exemption application that many unplanned events occur outside of normal business hours and in many instances, the situation is locally contained. According to the applicants, it would not be practical for a local government official to declare an emergency that would exempt the applicants from the HOS regulations, because (1) many unplanned events occur in remote locations where it may not be clear who a railroad should contact to declare an emergency; (2) more than half of unplanned event call times typically occur between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., including a large number between midnight and 7:00 a.m., making it virtually impossible for the railroads to contact an official to request an emergency declaration before they request a contractor to respond to the unplanned event; and (3) companies likely would not know if such an emergency declaration had been made before they respond to a call from a railroad.

The applicants compare the work of railroad employees responding to an emergency to that of utility service employees responding to an emergency situation. Utility service vehicles are exempt from the HOS regulations under 49 CFR 395.1(n). According to the applicants, the rationale for the utility service vehicle exemption applies with equal force to railroad emergency response contractors when they respond to unplanned events.

The applicants' current exemption applies to time spent by their drivers driving to the site of the unplanned event. The term “unplanned event” includes: a derailment; a rail failure or other report of dangerous track condition; a track occupancy light; a disruption to the electric propulsion system; a bridge-strike; a disabled vehicle on the track; a train collision; weather and storm-related events; and a matter concerning national security or public safety, including a blocked grade crossing.

A copy of the applicants' exemption renewal application is available for review in the docket for this notice.

To ensure an equivalent level of safety, the applicants require drivers to stop operating a CMV after completing work until the drivers obtain the required 10 hours or 34 hours of rest, depending on their cumulative hours on duty for the day and week. The applicants list the following steps taken to ensure that safety is not compromised:

• Drivers will have at least one hour of lead time before mobilizing equipment and actively begin driving;

• During the one-hour lead time, drivers can participate in stretching and light exercise to improve alertness prior to driving;

• Drivers will drive in a convoy using escort vehicles in the front and back;

• Vehicles will be equipped with two-way radios and supervisors conduct routine radio checks every 30 to 45 minutes requiring response from drivers; and

• Supervisors will train employees to recognize fatigue and have a policy that no driver is required to drive a vehicle if feeling fatigued.

Because the relief is limited to the trip to the scene of the unplanned event and such events would happen only occasionally and not during a predictable number of times per week or per month, drivers would not operate CMVs after the 14th hour of coming on duty as a regular part of their schedules. Similarly, drivers would not regularly operate CMVs after accumulating on-duty time of 60 hours during seven consecutive days, or 70 hours during eight consecutive days. Drivers' standard schedules would include adherence to the 14-hour rule and adherence to the 60- and 70-hour rules.

FMCSA provisionally renews the exemption for a period of six months, subject to the terms and conditions of this decision. The exemption from the requirements of 49 395.3(a)(2), 49 CFR 395.3(b)(1), and 49 CFR 395.3(b)(2) is effective beginning March 4, 2025, through September 4, 2025, 11:59 p.m. local time, unless revoked.

This exemption is restricted to individuals employed by R.J. Corman and Cranemasters while driving CMVs to the site of an “unplanned event” which includes the following:

• A derailment;

• a rail failure or other report of a dangerous track condition;

• a track occupancy light;

• a disruption to the electric propulsion system;

• a bridge-strike;

• a disabled vehicle on the train tracks;

• a train collision;

• weather- and storm-related events, including fallen trees and other debris on the tracks, snow, extreme cold or heat, rock and mud slides, track washouts, and earthquakes; and

• a matter concerning national security or public safety, including a blocked grade crossing.

1. When operating under this exemption, drivers and carriers:

• May extend the 14-hour duty period in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) to no more than 17 hours;

• May not exceed 11 hours of driving time, following 10 consecutive hours off duty;

• May extend the 60- and 70-hour rule in 49 CFR 395.3(b) by no more than 6 hours; and

• May not travel more than 300 air miles from the normal work-reporting location or terminal.

2. Drivers must comply with the applicable HOS limits after arriving at the site and drivers must record all time working to restore rail service as on duty, not driving time.

3. Drivers may take advantage of the Agency's personal conveyance regulatory guidance when travelling between the unplanned event work site and nearby lodging or dining facilities (June 7, 2018; 83 FR 26377). If that guidance is not applicable to the trip, CMV drivers who have reached the HOS limits must be transported from the work site by an individual who is not subject to HOS restrictions or use a vehicle that does not meet FMCSA's definition of a CMV (49 CFR 390.5) when they leave the site.

4. Drivers must complete the Driver Education Module 3 and the Driver Sleep Disorders and Management Module 8 of the North American Fatigue Management Program (NAFMP) ( www.nafmp.org ) prior to operating under the exemption; and

5. Motor carriers and drivers must comply with all other provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.

R.J. Corman and Cranemasters must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:

1. Identifier of the Exemption: “R.J. Corman/Cranemasters”;

2. Name of operating carrier and USDOT number;

3. Date of the crash;

4. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the crash scene;

5. Driver's name and license number;

6. Co-driver's name (if any) and license number;

7. Vehicle number and State license number;

8. Number of individuals suffering physical injury;

9. Number of fatalities;

10. The police-reported cause of the crash, if provided by the enforcement agency;

11. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, motor carrier safety regulations; and

12. The total on-duty time accumulated during the 7 consecutive days prior to the date of the crash, and the total on-duty time and driving time in the work shift prior to the crash.

Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to MCPSD@DOT.GOV.

FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, the exemption will be rescinded if: (1) R.J. Corman, Cranemasters, or the drivers operating under the exemption fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objects of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all persons interested in the application for an exemption renewal. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the Addresses section of this notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new material.

The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically, FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR regarding: (1) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1).

FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.

The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:

Title: Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards and Event Recorders.

OMB Control Number: 2130-0004.

Abstract: This notice includes revisions to a currently approved ICR for the Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards (LSS), and revisions to existing OMB Form FRA F 6180.49A, Locomotive Inspection and Repair Record. The LSS (49 CFR part 229) require locomotives and their appurtenances to be in proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which they are put and include specific inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements. Locomotive inspection, repair, and maintenance records are used to help ensure locomotives are safe to operate. Form FRA F 6180.49A is the main record used to collect required information from inspection, maintenance, and testing of each locomotive. The LSS also require collection of event recorder data. The data gathered from locomotive event recorders is used by the railroad industry to improve train handling and promote the safe and efficient operation of trains throughout the country. Locomotive event recorders also provide FRA and State railroad safety inspectors with verified data elements for use in their oversight responsibilities that show how trains are operated from lead locomotives.

This notice includes changes to Form FRA F 6180.49A recommended by the Association of American Railroads on behalf of its Locomotive Committee membership as detailed below:

• In Block #6—“Propelled by,” FRA has added four (4) new permissible values for the following propulsion technologies: Hydrogen Electric; Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (ICE); Battery Electric; and Natural Gas.

• In Block #15—“Items,” FRA has added new Item Code “8. Hand/Park Brake” to clarify and reference what is reported under the Test Type blocks for the block currently titled “Hand Brake 232.105(c)”. This block has also been updated to read “Hand/Park Brake 232.105(c)” for consistency.

Additionally, FRA has made multiple adjustments that increased the previously approved burden hours from 232,525 to 245,200 hours. While the edits to Form FRA F 6180.49A reduced the average time per response from 15 minutes to 13.5 minutes, the overall burden was increased by 12,675 hours. This increase, after a thorough review, is due to the aging fleet, a reduction of repair shops, and optimization of their services. In addition, because of an increase in remote control locomotives, as well as passenger and commuter services, there was a significant increase in the annual number of periodic inspections being performed.

For example, under § 229.23, the increase in the number of non-passenger and passenger locomotives requiring periodic inspections accounts for 85 percent of the annual burden hour increase. Relatedly, the increased use of event recorders and the required periodic inspections increased the annual burden by approximately 8 percent.

Furthermore, FRA determined that the burden hours reported under § 229.317(b) are for a recordkeeping requirement that is already accounted for under § 229.317(h). The burden has been updated accordingly to remove the duplication.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Railroads.

Form(s): FRA F 6180.49A.

Respondent Universe: 745 railroads.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 8,913,1634.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 245,200 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $21,109.300.

FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

A copy of this Notice, all comments received on this Notice, and all background material may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above as a search term. Electronic retrieval assistance and guidance are available at https://www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document also may be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at https://www.FederalRegister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's database at www.GovInfo.gov.

Submissions containing CBI should be sent directly to Mr. David Heller via email to david.heller@dot.gov, or by mail to David Heller, Associate Administrator for Business and Finance Development, Room W21-318, MARAD, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Any comment submissions, including those with CBI, sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal will be placed on the public docket without change.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure.

If your comments contain CBI that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this RFI, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. You should seek to protect any CBI by taking the following steps: (1) Send CBI information directly to the person named in the For Further Information Contact section above; (2) Mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (3) along with the original document, provide a second copy with the CBI redacted or deleted; and (4) explain why the information you are submitting meetings the requirements for CBI described above. Unless you are notified otherwise, MARAD will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket for this RFI.

On July 11, 2024, the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Finland announced their intent to establish the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort, or ICE Pact. This trilateral framework aims to enhance collaboration on the production of polar icebreakers and related capabilities, fostering stronger security and economic ties among the three nations. The initiative focuses on bolstering the signatory nations' shipbuilding industries and industrial capacity, through information exchange and workforce development in the context of polar icebreaker construction and other polar capabilities.

ICE Pact comprises three key components: enhanced information sharing and technical exchange between the three countries, collaboration on workforce development, and an invitation for allies and partners to purchase icebreakers built in U.S., Canadian, or Finnish shipyards. Recognizing the capital-intensive nature of shipbuilding, the framework emphasizes the importance of long-term, multi-ship orderbooks to ensure the viability of shipyards. By leveraging their shipbuilding capacities, the United States, Canada, and Finland aim to not only meet their own needs but also support partner nations in accessing polar regions at an affordable cost.

To implement this framework, officials representing the Governments of the United States, Canada, and Finland signed an implementation plan on November 13, 2024, outlining the framework for collaboration.

The framework also underscores the necessity for enhanced polar capabilities. This is particularly important to the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) Program which seeks to build a new class of U.S. heavy icebreakers. These vessels will serve as vital national security assets, ensuring access to polar regions and fulfilling crucial missions such as defense readiness, all while operating alongside the icebreakers of allied nations in the extreme environmental conditions of high latitudes.

MARAD requests relevant comments, feedback, and information from U.S. shipyards or other stakeholders involved or interested in the design, manufacture, export, and research and development of polar icebreaker and related capabilities.

The following information is requested; please provide as much detail as possible:

(1) Do U.S. shipyards have icebreaker design and construction experience, current or future personnel, access to advanced technologies, and offer maintenance and lifecycle support?

(2) Do U.S. shipyards have dry dock and berthing capacity to support polar icebreakers?

(3) Do U.S. shipyards have cold-weather testing facilities?

(4) Do U.S. shipyards have supply chains that can adapt and recover from supply chain disruptions?

(5) Do U.S. shipyards have established training programs, capacity for international training and exchange, and the ability to adhere to compliance standards?

(6) Are U.S. shipyards willing to demonstrate a commitment to information sharing, to undertake technical advisor exchanges, and engage in R&D participation?

(7) Is there sufficient labor availability to U.S. shipyards? If not, what are the barriers to obtaining that labor and growing that workforce?

(8) What steps can be taken to make the shipbuilding industry more attractive to workers?

(9) Provide specific recommendations for how U.S. shipyards can work within the ICE Pact framework to:

a. Co-develop best practices using existing ice class from recognized organizations and classification societies.

b. Collaborate on new and existing polar icebreakers, as well as other capability designs that emphasize commonality among companies, countries, or both, to encourage economies of scale in the construction, repair, and interoperability of future polar icebreakers, and other capabilities;

c. Establish guiding principles for production line sequencing and supply chain management;

d. Reduce production costs of polar icebreakers, as well as other capabilities; and

e. Enhance operational capabilities and accelerate their delivery, consistent with relevant laws in their respective countries.

(10) How can U.S. industry leverage research, development, and innovation to support the design and implementation of future activities in the Arctic and polar regions? Provide specific recommendations for how U.S. industry can work within the ICE Pact framework to:

a. Develop knowledge and collaborate on ideas that benefit the polar regions while maximizing the effective and efficient use of resources and reducing duplication of industrial effort;

b. Identify, design, and implement projects that promote innovation, sustainability, and mutual benefit; and

c. Expand the expertise for ship design and outfitting for operations in polar regions and under the Polar Code for non-military applications.

(11) How can MARAD support U.S. industry in achieving the recommendations submitted in response to this request for information?

(12) Recognizing that ICE Pact is a multilateral arrangement between governments, what incentives can be employed under the auspices of ICE Pact to encourage U.S. shipyards to exchange and collaborate on the design, R&D, and construction of icebreakers?

(13) What, if any, policy, regulatory, or statutory impediments currently exist, to implementing your recommendations in response to the questions above or lessons learned from other multilateral industrial base initiatives?

(14) What other ideas, thoughts, concerns, or recommendations should MARAD consider in further developing this initiative?

Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies information collection requests PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for renewal and extension. These information collections are contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 through 180). PHMSA has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules published since the information collections were last approved. The following information is provided for each information collection: (1) title of the information collection, including former title if a change is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information collection activity; (4) description of affected public; (5) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity and will publish a notice in the Federal Register upon OMB's approval. PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:

Title: Radioactive (RAM) Transportation Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 2137-0510.

Summary: This OMB Control Number contains information collections involving the transportation of radioactive materials in commerce. Information collection requirements for RAM include: documenting testing and engineering evaluations for packages, documenting DOT 7A packages, revalidating foreign competent authority certifications, providing specific written instruction of exclusive use shipment controls, obtaining U.S. competent authority for package design, registering with U.S. competent authority as a user of a package, and requesting a U.S. competent authority for a special form of radioactive material. The following information collections and their burdens are associated with this OMB Control Number:

Affected Public: Shippers and carriers of radioactive materials in commerce.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

Number of Respondents: 320.

Total Annual Responses: 2,915.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,347.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Title: Subsidiary Hazard Class and Number/Type of Packagings.

OMB Control Number: 2137-0613.

Summary: This OMB Control Number contains an information collection related to the placement of the subsidiary hazard class and type of packaging on a shipping paper. The HMR require that shipping papers and emergency response information accompany each shipment of hazardous materials in commerce. Shipping papers serve as a principal means of identifying hazardous materials during transportation emergencies. Firefighters, police, and other emergency response personnel are trained to obtain the DOT shipping papers and emergency response information when responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. The availability of accurate information concerning hazardous materials being transported significantly improves response efforts in these types of emergencies.

In addition to the basic shipping description information on shipping papers, we also require the subsidiary hazard class or subsidiary division number(s) to be entered in parentheses following the primary hazard class or division number on shipping papers. This requirement originally applied only to transportation by vessel. However, the lack of such a requirement posed problems for motor carriers regarding compliance with segregation, separation, and placarding requirements, as well as posing a safety hazard. For example, in the event the motor vehicle becomes involved in an accident, when the hazardous materials being transported include a subsidiary hazard such as “dangerous when wet” or a subsidiary hazard requiring more stringent requirements than the primary hazard, there is no indication of the subsidiary hazards on the shipping papers and no indication of the subsidiary risks on placards. Under circumstances such as motor vehicles being loaded at a dock, labels are not sufficient to alert hazardous materials employees loading the vehicles, nor are they sufficient to alert emergency responders of the subsidiary risks contained on the vehicles. Therefore, we require the subsidiary hazard class or subsidiary division number(s) to be entered on the shipping paper for purposes of enhancing safety and international harmonization. The following information collection and burden is associated with this OMB Control Number:

Affected Public: Shippers and carriers of hazardous materials in commerce.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

Number of Respondents: 260,000.

Total Annual Responses: 43,810,000.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 24,339.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Title: Flammable Hazardous Materials by Rail Transportation.

OMB Control Number: 2137-0628.

Summary: This OMB control number contains information collections used for information and recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the sampling and testing certification, routing analysis, and incident reporting for flammable liquids by rail transportation. Rail carriers, shippers, PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) may use this information to ensure that rail tank cars transporting flammable liquids are properly classified, ensure trains are routed appropriately, and collect all relevant incident data. The following information collections and associated burden hours are associated with this OMB Control Number:

Affected Public: Shippers and carriers of petroleum liquids transported by rail.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

Number of Respondents: 2,574.

Total Annual Responses: 4,773.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 34,757.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include 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 title 44 generally requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the OCC is publishing notice of the renewal/revision of this collection.

Title: Leveraged Lending.

OMB Control No.: 1557-0315.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Description: On March 22, 2013, the agencies  1 issued guidance to the financial institutions they supervise  2 on how to evaluate and monitor credit risks in leveraged loans, understand the effect of changes in borrowers' enterprise values on credit portfolio quality, and assess the sensitivity of future credit losses to these changes in enterprise values. 3 In regard to the underwriting of such credits, the guidance provides information for financial institutions to consider in assessing whether borrowers have the ability to repay credits when due and whether borrowers have sustainable capital structures, including bank borrowings and other debt, to support their continued operations through economic cycles. The guidance also provides information to financial institutions on the risks and potential impact of stressful events and circumstances on a borrower's financial condition.

The final guidance recommends that financial institutions consider developing: (i) underwriting policies for leveraged lending, including stress-testing procedures for leveraged credits; (ii) risk management policies, including stress-testing procedures for pipeline exposures; and (iii) policies and procedures for incorporating the results of leveraged credit and pipeline stress tests into the firm's overall stress-testing framework. While not requirements, these recommended policies qualify as “collections of information” as defined in the PRA.

Respondents are financial institutions with leveraged lending activities as defined in the guidance that may develop policies recommended in the guidance.

Estimated Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 50,812.8 hours.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

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

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Gaming Industry Tip Rate Compliance Agreement.

OMB Number: 1545-1530.

Revenue Procedure Number : 2007-32.

Abstract: The Gaming Industry Tip Compliance Agreement (GITCA) Program is designed to promote compliance by gaming industry employers and employees with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to tip income and to reduce disputes under section 3121(q). Under the GITCA Program, a gaming industry employer and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) work together to reach a GITCA that establishes minimum tip rates for participating tipped employees in specified occupational categories, prescribes a threshold level of participation by the employer's employees, and reduces compliance burdens for the employer and enforcement burdens for the IRS. The collections of information include the agreements, annual reports, recordkeeping requirements, and model gaming tip agreements, which are detailed within Revenue Procedure 2007-32, Exhibit 1—Gaming Industry Tip Compliance Agreement.

Current Actions: There is no change to the existing revenue procedures or burden at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 710.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 14 hours, 44 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,467 hours.

The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.