Title: In-Person and Online Registration for FSA-hosted Events and Conferences.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0226.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2025.

Type of Request: Revision and Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The collection of information is needed for FSA to obtain information from the respondents who register on the internet to access participation in events, and when necessary, to make payment and reservations to attend any FSA-hosted conferences and events. They can register on FSA's Online Registration site on the internet. Respondents who do not have access to the internet can register by mail or fax. The information is collected by the FSA employees who host the conferences and events. FSA is collecting common elements from interested respondents such as name, organization, address, country, phone number, email address, State, city or town, payment options (credit card, check), special accommodations requests and how the respondent learned of the conference. The information collection element may also include veteran status and new farmer status. The respondents are mainly individuals who will attend the FSA-hosted conferences or events. The information is primarily used to assess attendance and assist FSA staff in preparations to serve individuals registering to attend online or in person events. If applicable, the information collection may be used to collect payment from the respondents and make hotel reservations and other special arrangements as necessary. Demographic information obtained through registration is voluntary and is used to monitor FSA's outreach and engagement of farmers and ranchers. This information is not used to evaluate any FSA program application and choosing not to provide this information will not affect the application process for any individual applying to an FSA program.

The burden hours is 41,250 hours due to the revamped and improved registration format. FSA intends to use web based registrations for events, but will obtain manual registration at events for those without access to internet or a smart device. The number of respondents and responses remains at 550,000. For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hour is the estimated average time per responses hours multiplied by the estimated total annual of responses.

Estimate of Annual Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.075 hours per response. (4.5 minutes).

Type of Respondents: Individuals, Business or other for-profit, non-for-profit institutions, Farms, Federal Government, State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 550,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual of Responses: 550,000.

Estimated Average Time per Responses: 0.075 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 41,250 hours.

We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All responses to this notice, including name and addresses when provided, will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Approve meeting minutes;

2. Discuss old business/updates;

3. Discuss recreation fee schedule;

4. Discuss natural resource management; and

5. Schedule the next meeting.

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

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make a request in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the committee.

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

The SEIS will focus on the portions of the project in the Tobacco and Clark Fork Bear Out of Recovery Zone (BORZ) units based on current monitoring data and open road miles assessing effects to grizzly bears. The Pilgrim Creek Timber Sale Project analysis evaluated the potential effects of five alternatives, including no action and four action alternatives. The record of decision was signed on May 7, 2013. The SEIS will update information related to closed roads barrier effectiveness including monitoring data that has been reported and incorporate results of the Endangered Species Act consultation.

The purpose and need for action are to maintain and increase forest resilience to insects, decrease disease and disturbance by increasing age-class diversity in lodgepole pine stands, improve growing conditions and favoring root disease resistant species in mixed conifer stands affected by root disease, and improve big game forage production while providing for the local economy through commercial timber harvest.

The Kootenai National Forest proposes to complete remaining activities previously authorized by the May 2013 record of decision including:

• Timber harvest—11 units (approximately 219 acres).

• Prescribed burning—19 burn units (approximately 4,564 acres).

• Planting—Required 30 acres; species diversity 232 acres; post-harvest up to 2019 acres.

• Road storage after project implementation (stabilize and berm install)—1 gate removal; 2 berm installs for 2 roads; approximately 4.7 miles.

Four action alternatives, in addition to the no action alternative, were considered. Action alternatives would meet the purpose and need of this project. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative and was authorized by the record of decision (May 2013). Alternatives 3 and 4 are the environmentally preferable alternatives.

Effectiveness of barriers on closed roads within the Clark Fork and Tobacco BORZ units will be evaluated. The supplemental environmental impact statement will update assumptions related to closed road barrier effectiveness in alignment with the monitoring data that has been reported and incorporate results of consultation.

Chadwick Benson, Kootenai Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 31374 U.S. Hwy. 2, Libby, MT 59923.

This project was originally initiated in 2010 with the scoping of the proposed action. In 2011 public scoping was again initiated in reference to the opening sizes exceeding 40 acres and the requirement for a project specific Forest Plan amendment related to open road density in areas managed for big game summer range. Next, on March 23, 2012, a notice of intent was published in the Federal Register . The following year, a notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2013, and started a 45-day comment period. There will be no scoping conducted for this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The scope of the Pilgrim Creek Timber Sale Project final EIS (May 2013) established the scope for this SEIS.

A public review and comment opportunity on the draft SEIS will be announced in the Federal Register and on the Kootenai National Forests' project website, as well as other local media. Please visit the Pilgrim Creek Timber Sale Project web page at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r01/kootenai/projects/31645.

Based upon the updated BORZ consultation, the responsible official will decide whether alternative 3 as set forth in the May 2013 record of decision will continue to be implemented.

These committee meetings are available to the public through the registration links above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available. To request accommodations, please email Corrine Sanders, Support Specialist, at csanders@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg, mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (202) 809-9618.

Records of the meetings will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Louisiana Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov.

—Agendas for these meetings are available at the following link: https://tinyurl.com/499wrt5w.

On May 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of silicon metal from Australia and Norway. 1 Currently, the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations are due to be issued no later than October 1, 2025.

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

On September 5, 2025, the petitioners  2 submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation. 3 The petitioners stated that they request postponement because Commerce has only recently issued supplemental questionnaires for Sections A-D to the mandatory respondent in Australia, and thus, additional time will be necessary to allow Commerce and the petitioners to fully develop the record.

On September 5, 2025, the petitioners submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation. 4 The petitioners stated that they request postponement because Commerce has not yet issued supplemental questionnaires for Sections B-E to the mandatory respondent, and the initial response to Section E of the questionnaire from the mandatory respondent in Norway has yet to be submitted. Therefore, additional time will be necessary to allow Commerce and the petitioners to fully develop the record.

For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days ( i.e., 190 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated). As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determinations no later than November 20, 2025. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

On December 13, 2024, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited interested parties to comment. 1 On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines by 90 days. 2 On April 30, 2025, the petitioners and OARC filed timely case briefs. 3 On May 5, 2025, the petitioners and OARC filed timely rebuttal briefs. 4

On June 30, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline for these final results by 60 days. 5 The deadline for the final results of this review is September 8, 2025. On July 18, 2025, Commerce issued a post-preliminary analysis in this administrative review and invited interested parties to comment. 6 We received no comments from interested parties. For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 7 Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise subject to the Order is aluminum foil from Oman. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties we made changes to OARC's preliminary results margin calculation. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce determines the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period November 3, 2022, through April 30, 2024:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these final results within five days after public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication). Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). 9 Where Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, Commerce will direct CBP to assess importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates. 10 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis ( i.e., 0.50 percent), Commerce will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation. 11 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 12

Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by OARC for which the producer did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 13

The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for OARC will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation ( i.e., 3.89 percent). 14 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5) of Commerce's regulations.

On December 13, 2024, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of this review and invited interested parties to comment. 1 Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

A summary of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The merchandise covered by scope of the Order is aluminum foil from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4

We addressed the issues raised by parties for these final results of review in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is provided in the appendix to this notice.

Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period November 1, 2022, through October 31, 2023:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed in connection with the final results of this administrative review to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For CBA, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the entries by that importer will be liquidated without regard to antidumping duties. For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by CBA for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 6

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies subject to this review will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 13.93 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation of this proceeding. 7 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

On May 2, 2019, Commerce published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty (AD) order on LDWP from Canada. 1 On July 5, 2024, based on timely requests for review from the petitioner and Pipe & Piling Supplies (Pipe & Piling), 2 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the Order covering 41 exporters and/or producers. 3 On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days. 4 Further, on December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by an additional 90 days. 5 On April 23, 2025, we extended the deadline for these preliminary results to September 5, 2025. 6 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 7

The product subject to the Order is LDWP from Canada. A complete description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily relied entirely upon facts otherwise available with adverse inferences for Pipe & Piling. For a complete description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached in Appendix I of this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal Register . On October 3, 2024, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for review of Canam (St Gedeon). 8 Because no other party requested a review of this company, Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to Canam (St Gedeon), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the AD assessment rate calculated for the POR. 9 Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be at least one reviewable, suspended entry that Commerce can instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate at the AD assessment rate calculated for the review period. 10

On May 20, 2025, we notified parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review, in part, with respect to the companies listed in Appendix II because there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by these companies during the POR. 11 We invited interested parties to comment on our intent to rescind the review, in part;  12 however, we received no comments from interested parties. Therefore, in the absence of any suspended entries of subject merchandise from the companies listed in Appendix II during the POR, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Based on record information, we preliminarily determine that Evraz did not have knowledge that subject merchandise it produced was destined for the United States and thus Evraz is not considered the exporter of subject merchandise during the POR for the purposes of this review. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Evraz made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Consistent with Commerce's practice, we find that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to Evraz, but rather to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review. 13

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied total adverse facts available (AFA) to the sole mandatory respondent ( i.e., Pipe & Piling), in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the petition, there are no calculations to disclose.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to not later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice. 14 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 15 Interested parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 16 All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 17 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 18

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform interested parties of the scheduled date for the hearing. 19

All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed via ACCESS. 20 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 21

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, upon completion of the final results, Commerce shall determine and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 22 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP regarding Pipe & Piling and Evraz no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a). If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

With respect to the companies listed in Appendix II for which are rescinding this review, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at rates equal to the cash deposit rate of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). For these companies, Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal Register .

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Pipe & Piling will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by a company not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment in which they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or another completed segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the completed segment for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 12.32 percent, the all-others rate established in the final determination of the less-than-fair value investigation. 23 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Unless the deadline is otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised by interested parties in written briefs, within 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

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

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

On December 13, 2024, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review and invited interested parties to comment. 1 On June 6, 2025, we extended the deadline for these final results to no later than September 8, 2025. 2 For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3

The merchandise covered by this Order is rebar from Türkiye. For a complete description of the scope of this Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 5 For a full description of the methodology underlying all of Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Based on comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations for Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (Icdas) and Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan) from the Preliminary Results. 6 For a discussion of the issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

We determine that, for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022, the following total net countervailable subsidy rates exist:

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

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, for the above-listed companies at the applicable ad valorem assessment rates listed. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies listed above for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposits, effective upon the publication of the final results of this review, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On December 13, 2024, Commerce published the Preliminary Results in the Federal Register . 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 2 On August 1, 2025, Commerce issued a Post-Preliminary Analysis that made changes to the differential pricing analysis method utilized in the Preliminary Results. 3 We invited interested parties to comment on the Post-Preliminary Analysis. 4 For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results and Post-Preliminary Analysis, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A full discussion of the issues raised by parties for these final results are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The product covered by the scope of the Order is CWP from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain changes to Hyundai Steel Company's (Hyundai Steel) and Husteel Co., Ltd.'s (Husteel) preliminary weighted-average dumping margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the weighted average dumping margin for respondents that were not individually examined in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the all-others rate should be calculated by weight averaging the weighted-average dumping margins determined for individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. We calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of zero for Hyundai Steel. Therefore, we have assigned the dumping rate calculated for Husteel to the companies not selected for individual examination in this review. See Appendix II.

We determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2022, through October 31, 2023:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed in connection with the final results of this administrative review to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication). 9

Because the weighted-average dumping margin for Husteel is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales for each importer to the total entered value of the same sales. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, or a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Husteel or Hyundai Steel for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined to the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate of 4.80 percent, if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 10

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review in the Federal Register , as provided for by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be the rates established in these final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 4.80 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation. 11 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

• Snake River Sockeye ( Oncorhynchus nerka ): endangered, naturally and artificially propagated.

• Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ): threatened, naturally and artificially propagated;

○ Snake River Spring/Summer run: threatened, naturally and artificially propagated;

• Snake River Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): threatened, naturally and artificially propagated;

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may make exceptions to the take prohibitions in section 9 of the ESA for programs that are approved by NMFS under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (50 CFR 222.308).

The operators and funding agencies, including Idaho Department of Fish and Game, The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, NMFS's Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), submitted a Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan to NMFS pursuant to ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) for hatchery activities in the Snake River basin (88 FR 53477, August 8, 2023). An EA was also prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by NMFS for the Snake River sockeye salmon hatchery program.

The programs are intended to contribute to the survival and recovery of Snake River Sockeye salmon in the Snake River basin. The proposed program would maintain the Snake River sockeye salmon captive broodstock, collect and spawn adult sockeye salmon returning to the Snake River basin, rear juveniles, and release eggs, juveniles, and adult fish in upper Salmon River basin lakes as well as into Tanner Creek. The proposed continuation of the program would indicate best management practices to minimize adverse effects on the Snake River Sockeye Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

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

Title: Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators.

OMB Number: 3041-0125.

Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of automatic residential garage door operators.

General Description of Collection: On December 22, 1992, the Commission issued rules prescribing requirements for a reasonable testing program to support certificates of compliance with the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators (57 FR 60449). These regulations also require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of residential garage door operators to establish and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for testing to support certification of compliance. 16 CFR part 1211, subparts B and C.

Estimated Number of Respondents: An estimated 17 firms that conduct performance tests and maintain records based on the test results to retain Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) certification and verify compliance with the rule.

Estimated Time per Response: Based on staff's review of industry sources, each respondent will spend an estimated 40 hours (35 hours for PRA burden associated with testing and 5 hours for recordkeeping) annually on the collection of information related to the rule.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 680 hours (17 firms × 40 hours).

Total Estimated Annual Cost to Respondents: Using compensation data available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (December 2024, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03142025.pdf ), staff estimates that the total annual cost of the PRA burden associated with the testing requirement is estimated to be about $45,101, based on an hourly rate of $75.80 as total compensation for management, professional, and related occupations in goods-producing private industries (17 firms × 35 hours × $75.80). Staff also estimates that the total annual cost of the recordkeeping burden is estimated to be about $3,472 based on an hourly rate of $40.85 for sales and office workers (17 firms × 5 hours × $40.85). Therefore, the total burden cost is about $48,573 ($45,101 + $3,472). This estimate includes professional and clerical time that may be spent to retrieve product data from automated or other records systems, explain firm practices/policies intended to assure compliance with the standard, or accompany Commission personnel during inspections.

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

Title: Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.

OMB Number: 3041-0156.

Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Third party conformity assessment bodies seeking acceptance of accreditation or continuing accreditation.

General Description of Collection: On March 12, 2013, the Commission issued a rule Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (78 FR 15836). The rule established the general requirements concerning third party conformity assessment bodies, such as the requirements and procedures for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation of a third party conformity assessment body, and the rule prescribed adverse actions that might be imposed against CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies. The rule also amended the audit requirements for third party conformity assessment bodies and amended the CPSC's regulation for inspections. CPSC's requirements pertaining to third party conformity assessment bodies can be found at 16 CFR part 1112.

Estimated Respondent Burden:

• Application Burden.

The application for CPSC acceptance of accreditation is completed by submitting a Consumer Product Conformity Assessment Body Registration Form (CPSC Form 223); an accreditation certificate for ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories; and a statement of scope that clearly identifies each CPSC rule and/or test method for which CPSC acceptance is sought. 16 CFR 1112.13(a). For independent third party conformity assessment bodies, the estimated time to complete the initial application materials is 75 minutes. For governmental and firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies, the estimate is longer because of their additional requirements. See 16 CFR 1112.13(b)-(c). Firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies will require an estimated 8.4 hours to develop and upload their requirements to the CPSC. Governmental third party conformity assessment bodies will require three hours to develop and upload their requirements to the CPSC.

Based on applications received from FY 2020 to FY 2024, we estimate receiving 40 new applications from independent third party conformity assessment bodies, three applications from firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies, and four applications from governmental third party conformity assessment bodies, each year.

Therefore, we estimate the total hourly burden for new applications to be 87.2 hours, comprised of 50 hours for independent bodies (75 minutes per independent application × 40 applications = 3,000 minutes or 50 hours), 25.2 hours for firewalled bodies (8.4 hours per firewalled application × 3 applications = 25.2 hours) and 12 hours for government bodies (3 hours per governmental application × 4 applications = 12 hours).

• Updating Information Burden .

To update the information on CPSC Form 223, third party conformity assessment bodies will not need to fill out an entirely new form to submit new information. They can access their existing CPSC Form 223 via the third party conformity assessment body application program on the CPSC's website and change only those elements that need updating. From FY 2020 through the first half of 2025, there has been a large increase in additions to scope applications submitted each year. The additions to scope applications accommodate new testing related to toys, furniture, batteries and durable nursery products. We estimate it will take a third party conformity assessment body 30 minutes to update its information to add scope items. Further, we estimate that about 20 percent of the approximately 670 third party conformity assessment bodies will do this per year, for an estimated 134 addition to scope applications annually. Therefore, we estimate the total hourly burden to update information to be 67 hours (134 applications per year × 30 minutes per application = 4,020 minutes or 67 hours per year).

• Third Party Disclosure Burden .

During their normal course of business, third party conformity assessment bodies maintain testing records. In addition, CPSC requires that when a test conducted for purposes of section 14 of the CPSA is subcontracted, a prime contractor's report must clearly identify which test(s) were performed by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body acting as a subcontractor, and the test from the subcontractor must be appended to the prime contractor's report. Records maintained by a conformity assessment body during their normal course of business would not be considered in calculating Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) burden, but we estimate that an average third party conformity assessment body engages in recordkeeping related to 12,000 tests annually pursuant to section 14 of the CPSA that may be considered PRA burden. We estimate that five percent of third party conformity assessment bodies, or 33.5 bodies (670 conformity assessment bodies × 5% = 33.5 subcontracting test bodies), will subcontract tests to other CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies. It is difficult to estimate how many tests will be subcontracted, but for current purposes, we estimate that the third party conformity assessment bodies who subcontract will subcontract 25 percent of their tests. We estimate that it will take seven minutes, on average, to comply with the recordkeeping requirements related to subcontracted tests. If five percent of third party conformity assessment bodies subcontract 25 percent of tests annually, that is a total of 100,500 subcontract tests per year (33.5 subcontracting test bodies × 12,000 tests per body × 25% tests subcontracted = 100,500 subcontract tests). Therefore, at seven minutes per test, we estimate a total burden for third party disclosure to be 11,725 hours (or 703,500 minutes) per year to comply with the subcontracting recordkeeping requirement.

• Discontinue Burden .

If a third party conformity assessment body wishes to voluntarily discontinue its participation with the CPSC, an estimated 30 minutes is needed to create and submit the required documentation. See 16 CFR 1112.29. From FY 2020-24, 106 labs withdrew from the CPSC program. Accordingly, we estimate 20 labs will withdraw at an estimated total hourly burden of 10 hours (or 600 minutes) annually.

• Audit Burden .

The CPSC portion of an audit is required no less than once every two years. See 16 CFR 1112.35(b). Therefore, we estimated that 50 percent of third party conformity assessment bodies each year will go through an audit. This is based on FY2020-2024 data showing an average of 354 CPSC Audits per year. Based on the number of third party conformity assessment bodies that have already been accepted by the CPSC as of the end of May 2025 (686) and our experience with the rate of new successful applications, we predict that the total number of third party conformity assessment bodies will be 700 by FY26. Half of those, 350, will be audited annually. Depending on the type of conformity assessment body ( i.e., independent, firewalled, or governmental), and other factors not controlled by CPSC, audit burden would vary somewhat from body to body. We estimate that laboratories will spend approximately 15 minutes to resubmit their updated materials, including the CPSC Form 223, accredited scope listing and accreditation certificate for the CPSC Audits. Firewalled and governmental labs are also expected to submit an updated attestation, as well as an employee undue influence memorandum. In addition, for firewalled labs, a revised risk assessment of impartiality and undue influence is also included. Therefore, the total amount of time spent by conformity assessment bodies will be approximately 87.5 hours (350 bodies audited × 15 min. per audit = 5,250 minutes, or 87.5 hours).

Total Estimated Annual Burden: Adding all the annual estimated burden hours results in a total of approximately 11,977 hours (87.2 hours application burden + 67 hours updating burden + 11,725 hours disclosure burden + 10 hours discontinue burden + 87.5 hours audit burden = 11,976.7 total annual burden hours).

To calculate the total cost of this PRA burden, we use the total compensation for all civilian workers, available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” which is $47.20 per hour worked as of December 2024. At $47.20 per hour, the total cost of the PRA burden is approximately $565,314 ($47.20 × 11,977 hours = $565,314.40).

Purpose of Program: The EIR program, established under section 4611 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), provides funding to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based (as defined in this notice), field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students; and to rigorously evaluate such innovations.

This notice invites applications for Mid-phase grants only. The notice inviting applications for Expansion grants within the EIR program is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . The Department does not intend to offer an Early-phase competition, yet may fund high-scoring, unfunded applicants from any of the FY 2024 EIR competitions.

Assistance Listing Number: 84.411B.

OMB Control Number: 1894-0006.

The central design element of the EIR program is its multi-tier structure that links the amount of funding an applicant may receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project, through three distinct grant tiers: “Early-phase,” “Mid-phase,” and “Expansion.”

Mid-phase grants provide funding for the implementation and rigorous evaluation (as defined in this notice) of a program that has been successfully implemented under an Early-phase grant or other similar effort, such as developing and testing an innovative education practice at a local level, for the purpose of measuring the program's impact and cost-effectiveness.

Mid-phase grant projects refine and expand the use of practices with prior evidence of effectiveness to improve outcomes for high-need students. They implement and rigorously evaluate an intervention's impact and effectiveness, including cost considerations such as economies of scale. Mid-phase grant projects are uniquely positioned to help answer questions about the process of scaling a practice across geographies as well as locale types.

Mid-phase grants measure the cost-effectiveness of their practices using administrative or other readily available data. These types of efforts are critical to sustaining and scaling EIR-funded effective practices after the EIR grant period ends, assuming that the practice has positive effects on important student outcomes.

The FY 2025 Mid-phase competition prioritizes projects that tackle persistent challenges in education through the absolute priority on Promoting Evidence-Based Literacy, aligned with national efforts to improve literacy achievement nationwide. Projects that directly benefit all students, but especially high-need students, through effective literacy instruction, aligned to the science of reading, are strongly encouraged. By focusing on literacy—the foundation of all learning, the Department aims to support scalable solutions that address one of the most urgent academic needs facing schools today.

All EIR applicants and grantees should also indicate how they will develop their organizational capacity, project financing, and business plans to sustain their projects and continue implementation and adaptation after Federal funding ends.

Further advancing the Department's commitment to restoring excellence and expanding state leadership, applicants may also respond to two competitive preference priorities.

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Returning Education to the States encourages projects that elevate State- and Tribal-led efforts to take the lead in serving the students, families, and educators within their communities.

In addition, Competitive Preference Priority 2: Education Choice (High-Impact Tutoring) supports projects such as those proposing individualized or small-group tutoring programs through innovative delivery models, a proven approach in demonstrating results in helping students accelerate academic progress. 1

Collectively, these priorities reflect the Department's vision of empowering States to lead, investing in evidence-based strategies, and ensuring that all students have access to high-quality instruction and support. Mid-phase grants represent a critical opportunity to scale effective strategies and measure impact through proven, locally driven innovation.

Priorities: This notice includes one absolute priority and two competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), the absolute priority is from section 4611(a)(1)(A) of the ESEA and the Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514) (Supplemental Priorities), and the competitive preference priorities are from the Supplemental Priorities.

Absolute Priority: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Field-Initiated Innovations: Promoting Evidence-Based Literacy.

Projects or proposals to—

(a) Create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students; and

(b) Advance, increase, or expand evidence-based literacy instruction (as defined in this notice).

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 10 points to an application, depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1, and up to an additional 5 points to an application, depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 2.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Returning Education to the States (up to 10 points).

Projects or proposals that will be carried out by one or more of the following entities:

(a) State educational agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49)),

(b) An Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(e)), Tribal organization (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(l)), or Tribal educational agency (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7452(b)(3)), or

(c) Consortia of the entities identified under this priority.

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Expanding Education Choice (High-Impact Tutoring) (up to 5 points).

Projects or proposals that will expand access to education services that accelerate learning such as high-impact tutoring.

Note: Applicants are encouraged to review the evidence related to education services that accelerate learning, including high-impact tutoring, and to cite the highest-level of evidence supporting their response to the competitive preference priority in their application.

Definitions: The following definitions apply to this program. The definitions of “baseline,” “continuous improvement,” “evaluation,” “evidence-building,” “independent evaluation,” “logic model,” “nonprofit,” “performance measure,” “performance target,” “project component,” “quality data,” “relevant outcome,” and “What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks)” are from 34 CFR 77.1. The definitions of “evidence-based,” “local educational agency,” and “State educational agency” are from section 8101 of the ESEA. The definitions of “evidenced-based literacy instruction,” “evidence framework,” “experimental study,” and “quasi-experimental design study” are from the Supplemental Priorities.

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

Continuous improvement means using plans for collecting and analyzing data about a project component's implementation and outcomes (including the pace and extent to which project outcomes are being met) to inform necessary changes throughout the project. These plans may include strategies to gather ongoing feedback from participants and stakeholders on the implementation of the project component.

Evaluation means an assessment using systematic data collection and analysis of one or more programs, policies, practices, and organizations intended to assess their implementation, outcomes, effectiveness, or efficiency.

Evidence-building means a systematic plan for identifying and answering questions relevant to programs and policies through performance measurement, exploratory studies, or program evaluation.

Evidence-based means an activity, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on—

(i) Strong evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented experimental study; or

(ii) Moderate evidence from at least 1 well-designed

and well-implemented quasi-experimental study.

Evidence-based literacy instruction means literacy instruction that relates to explicit, systematic and intentional instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, oral and sign language, vocabulary, language structure, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and writing; promotes knowledge-rich materials; and is backed by one or more of the following, as supported by an evidence framework (as defined in this notice):

(a) strong evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study (strong evidence as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I)) or

(b) moderate evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study (moderate evidence as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(II)).

Evidence framework means an approach to providing a determination about whether an activity, strategy, or intervention meets each aspect of the definition of strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I-II)), as applicable.

(a) An evidence framework must include each of the following:

(i) Whether or not a study is an experimental study or quasi-experimental experimental design study;

(ii) Whether or not a study shows a positive, statistically significant effect on student outcomes or other relevant outcomes;

(iii) Whether or not a study uses outcome measures that demonstrate validity and reliability, that do not give an unfair advantage to participants in one condition over another, and that are measured consistently for the groups or participants that are being compared;

(iv) Whether or not a study design is otherwise of high quality, including whether it minimizes factors outside the intervention that could affect student or other relevant outcomes (confounds) and whether random assignment (if used) was done with integrity; and

(v) Whether or not study implementation and analysis is appropriate, including whether groups or participants being compared demonstrate baseline equivalence on key individual and other relevant characteristics, whether differences in baseline equivalence are statistically controlled, and by considering the impact on the validity of the study of any changes to the sample over time.

(b) An evidence framework may be implemented or verified by the Department or peer reviewers with statistical expertise who affirm an applicant's assertion that relevant information is strong evidence or moderate evidence because it is supported by study ratings included in the What Works Clearinghouse in one or more of:

(i) a practice guide;

(ii) an intervention report; or

(iii) individual studies otherwise assessed to meet strong evidence or moderate evidence.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to a treatment group receiving an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy as compared with a control group that does not. Experimental studies can support claims of strong evidence. Randomized controlled trials and single-case design studies are specific types of experimental studies that meet this definition.

Independent evaluation means an evaluation of a project component that is designed and carried out independently of, but in coordination with, the entities that develop or implement the project component.

Local educational agency (LEA) means:

(a) In General. A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.

(b) Administrative Control and Direction. The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.

(c) Bureau of Indian Education Schools. The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the LEA receiving assistance under the ESEA with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any SEA (as defined in this notice) other than the Bureau of Indian Education.

(d) Educational Service Agencies. The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.

(e) State Educational Agency. The term includes the SEA in a State in which the SEA is the sole educational agency for all public schools.

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

Nonprofit, as applied to an agency, organization, or institution, means that it is owned and operated by one or more corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity.

Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance.

Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project.

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

Quality data encompasses utility, objectivity, and integrity of the information. “Utility” refers to how the data will be used, either for its intended use or other uses. “Objectivity” refers to data being accurate, complete, reliable, and unbiased. “Integrity” refers to the protection of data from being manipulated.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. Cross-sectional group designs, comparative interrupted time series, difference-in-difference designs, and growth curve designs are specific types of quasi-experimental studies that meet this definition. This type of study can meet the definition of moderate evidence but not strong evidence.

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

State educational agency (SEA) means the agency primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools.

What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 5.0, or in the WWC Standards Handbook, Version 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures Handbook, Version 4.0 or 4.1, the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference; see § 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7261.

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

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

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

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $253,000,000.

These estimated funds are the total available for new awards for both the Mid-phase and Expansion competitions and any funding of high-scoring, unfunded applicants from any of the FY 2024 EIR competitions. Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: Up to $10,000,000.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $10,000,000 for a project period of 60 months. Under 34 CFR 75.104(b) the Secretary may reject, without consideration or evaluation, any application that proposes a project funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount. The Department intends to fund one or more projects under each of the EIR competitions, including Expansion grants (84.411A) and Mid-phase grants (84.411B). Entities may submit applications for different projects for more than one competition (Mid-phase grants and Expansion grants).

Estimated Number of Awards: 8-15.

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

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

Note: Under section 4611(c) of the ESEA, the Department must use at least 25 percent of EIR funds for a fiscal year to make awards to applicants serving rural areas, contingent on receipt of a sufficient number of applications of sufficient quality. For purposes of this competition, we will consider an applicant as rural if the applicant meets the qualifications for rural applicants as described in the Eligible Applicants section and the applicant certifies that it meets those qualifications through the application. In implementing this statutory provision and program requirement, the Department may fund high-quality applications from rural applicants out of rank order in the Mid-phase grants competition.

1. Eligible Applicants:

(a) An LEA;

(b) An SEA;

(c) The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE);

(d) A consortium of SEAs or LEAs;

(e) A nonprofit organization; and

(f) An LEA, an SEA, the BIE, or a consortium described in clause (d), in partnership with—

(1) A nonprofit (as defined in this notice) organization;

(2) A business;

(3) An educational service agency; or

(4) An IHE.

To qualify as a rural applicant under the EIR program, an applicant must meet both of the following requirements:

(a) The applicant is—

(1) An LEA with an urban-centric district locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary;

(2) A consortium of such LEAs;

(3) An educational service agency or a nonprofit organization in partnership with such an LEA; or

(4) A grantee described in clause (1) or (2) in partnership with an SEA; and

(b) A majority of the schools to be served by the program are designated with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, or a combination of such codes, as determined by the Secretary.

Note: An applicant that is a nonprofit organization may, under 34 CFR 75.51, demonstrate its nonprofit status by providing: (1) proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.

In addition, with respect to IHEs and their affiliates, the following entities may apply for a grant under this competition: (1) As noted above, any IHE that is a partner in an application submitted by an LEA, SEA, BIE, consortium of SEAs or LEAs, or a nonprofit organization; (2) A private IHE that is a nonprofit organization; (3) A nonprofit organization, such as a development foundation, that is affiliated with a public IHE; and (4) A public IHE with 501(c)(3) status. A public IHE without 501(c)(3) status (even if that entity is tax exempt under Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code or any other State or Federal provision), or that could not provide any other documentation of nonprofit status described above, however, would not qualify as a nonprofit organization, and therefore would not be eligible to apply for and receive an EIR grant.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: Under section 4611(d) of the ESEA, each grant recipient must provide, from Federal, State, local, or private sources, an amount equal to 10 percent of funds provided under the grant, which may be provided in cash or through in-kind contributions, to carry out activities supported by the grant. Applicants must include a budget showing their matching contributions to the budget amount of EIR grant funds and must provide evidence of their matching contributions for the first year of the grant in their grant applications.

Section 4611(d) of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to waive the matching requirement on a case-by-case basis, upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as:

(i) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve a rural area;

(ii) The difficulty of raising matching funds in areas with a concentration of LEAs or schools with a high percentage of students aged 5 through 17—

(A) Who are in poverty, as counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary;

(B) Who are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq. );

(C) Whose families receive assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ); or

(D) Who are eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program; and

(iii) The difficulty of raising funds on Tribal land.

An applicant that wishes to apply for a waiver must include a request in its application, describing the exceptional circumstances that make it difficult for the applicant to meet the matching requirement. Further information about applying for waivers can be found in the application package for this competition.

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

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

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

4. Other: a. Evaluation: A grantee funded under this competition must conduct an independent evaluation (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). (see 34 CFR 75.590).

b. Independent Evaluation Report: A grantee funded under this competition must make public the final report, including results of any required independent evaluation and submit the final evaluation to the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), which is administered by the Institute of Education Sciences. (see 34 CFR 75.590)

c. High-need students: The grantee must serve high-need students.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42234), and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

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

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, will address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative for a Mid-phase grant to no more than 30 pages and (3) use the standards outlined in the Common Instructions.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for the Mid-phase grants competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion.

A. Significance (up to 15 points).

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project introduces an innovative approach, such as a modification of an evidence-based project component to serve different populations, an extension of an existing evidence-based project component, a unique composition of various project components to explore combined effects, or development of an emerging project component that needs further testing.

B. Strategy to Scale (up to 35 points).

The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project for recipients, community members and partners. In determining the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which there is unmet demand for broader implementation of the project that is aligned with the proposed level of scale. (up to 10 points)

(2) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (up to 10 points)

(3) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project. (up to 5 points)

(4) The quality of the plan to deliver project services more efficiently at scale and maintain effectiveness. (up to 5 points)

(5) The quality of the mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information and resources on its project to support further development, adaptation, or replication by other entities to implement project components in additional settings or with other populations. (up to 5 points)

C. Quality of the Project Design (up to 20 points).

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

(1) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes. (up to 15 points)

(2) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program. (up to 5 points)

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation or Other Evidence-Building (up to 30 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations, as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks. (up to 15 points)

(2) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential implementation in other settings. (up to 5 points)

(3) The quality of the evaluation plan for measuring fidelity of implementation, including thresholds for acceptable implementation, to inform how implementation is associated with outcomes. (up to 5 points)

(4) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project. (up to 5 points)

Note: Applicants may wish to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks; (2) “Technical Assistance Materials for Conducting Rigorous Impact Evaluations”: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluationTA.asp; and (3) Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. In addition, applicants may view an optional webinar recording that was hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The webinar focused on more rigorous evaluation designs, discussing strategies for designing and executing experimental studies that meet WWC evidence standards without reservations. This webinar is available at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Multimedia/18.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217, information outside the rank order of applications, including: the information in each application; and any other information—

(1) Relevant to a criterion, priority, or other requirement that applies to the selection of applications for new grants;

(2) Concerning the applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous award under any Department program; and

(3) Concerning the applicant's failure under any Department program to submit a performance report or its submission of a performance report of unacceptable quality.

Before making awards, Department staff will screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether applications have met eligibility and other requirements, including whether an application may fail to meet the “General Terms and Conditions” applicable to awarded funds referenced elsewhere within this notice. This screening process may occur at various stages of the review and selection process. Applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant, regardless of the whether the application was included in the peer review process. Applications not selected for funding will be informed of the Secretary's decision in accordance with 34 CFR 75.218.

Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in this notice.

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

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

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

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

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals and agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. General terms and conditions: If you are awarded a grant under this competition, you must ensure and may be required to demonstrate that federal funds will not be used under this project in any manner that violates the United States Constitution, Title VI or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. or 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq. ), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. ), the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. 7905), section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1011f), or other applicable federal law. To the extent that a grantee uses grant funds for such unallowable activities, the Department may take appropriate enforcement action including under section 451 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), including the potential recovery of funds under section 452 of GEPA, or may pursue termination under 2 CFR 200.340. The Grant Award Notification document accompanying your award may contain further terms and conditions, as necessary to ensure grantee compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and administrative priorities.

2. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. See the Common Instructions for additional information.

3. Performance Measures: For the purpose of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of performance measures (as defined in this notice) for the Mid-phase grants.

Annual performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that reach their annual target number of students as specified in the application; (2) the percentage of grantees that reach their annual target number of high-need students as specified in the application; (3) the percentage of grantees with ongoing well-designed and independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their effectiveness at improving student outcomes in multiple contexts; (4) the percentage of grantees that implement an evaluation that provides information about the key practices and the approach of the project so as to facilitate replication; (5) the percentage of grantees that implement an evaluation that provides information on the cost-effectiveness of the key practices to identify potential obstacles and success factors to scaling; and (6) the cost per student served by the grant.

Cumulative performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that reach the targeted number of students specified in the application; (2) the percentage of grantees that reach the targeted number of high-need students specified in the application; (3) the percentage of grantees that complete a well-designed, well-implemented, and independent evaluation that provides evidence of their effectiveness at improving student outcomes at scale; (4) the percentage of grantees that complete a well-designed, well-implemented, and independent evaluation that provides information about the key elements and the approach of the project so as to facilitate replication or testing in other settings; (5) the percentage of grantees with a completed evaluation that provides information on the cost-effectiveness of the key practices to identify potential obstacles and success factors to scaling; and (6) the cost per student served by the grant.

Data collection and reporting: (1) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and (2) the applicant's capacity to collect and report the quality of the performance data, as evidenced by quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

Project-Specific Performance Measures: Applicants must propose project-specific performance measures and performance targets (both as defined in this notice) consistent with the objectives of the proposed project. Applications must provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

(1) Project-specific performance measures. How each proposed project-specific performance measure would: accurately measure the performance of the project; be consistent with the program performance measures established under this notice; and be used to inform continuous improvement of the project.

(2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each proposed baseline is valid and reliable, including an assessment of the quality data used to establish the baseline; or (ii) if the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.

(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).

All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.

Purpose of Program: The EIR program, established under section 4611 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), provides funding to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based (as defined in this notice), field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students; and to rigorously evaluate such innovations.

This notice invites applications for Expansion grants only. The notice inviting applications for Mid-phase grants within the EIR program is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . The Department does not intend to offer an Early-phase competition, yet may fund high-scoring, unfunded applicants from any of the FY 2024 EIR Competitions.

Assistance Listing Number: 84.411A.

OMB Control Number: 1894-0006.

Expansion grants are supported by strong evidence for at least one population and setting, and grantees are encouraged to implement at the national level (as defined in this notice). Expansion grants provide funding for the implementation and rigorous evaluation (as defined in this notice) of a program that has been found to produce sizable, significant impacts under a Mid-phase grant or other effort meeting similar criteria, for the purposes of (a) determining whether such impacts can be successfully reproduced and sustained over time, and (b) identifying the conditions in which the program is most effective.

All EIR applicants and grantees should also indicate how they will develop their organizational capacity, project financing, and business plans to sustain their projects and continue implementation and adaptation after Federal funding ends.

Expansion grant projects scale practices that have prior evidence of effectiveness to improve outcomes for high-need students. They implement and rigorously evaluate the replication of an intervention that has been found to produce sizable, important impact and effectiveness, including cost considerations such as economies of scale, to determine if the impact of the intervention can be successfully reproduces and sustained over time, and the conditions in which the program is most effective. Expansion grant projects are uniquely positioned to help answer critical questions about the process of scaling a practice to the national level across geographies as well as locale types.

Expansion grant applicants design an evaluation that has the potential to meet strong evidence. Expansion grants shall measure the cost—effectiveness of their practices using administrative or other readily available data. These types of efforts are critical to sustaining and scaling EIR-funded effective practices after the EIR grant period ends.

The FY 2025 Expansion competition prioritizes projects that tackle persistent challenges in education through the absolute priority on Promoting Evidence-Based Literacy, aligned with national efforts to improve literacy achievement nationwide. Projects that directly benefit all students, but especially high-need students, through effective literacy instruction, aligned to the science of reading, are strongly encouraged. By focusing on literacy—the foundation of all learning, the Department aims to support scalable solutions that address one of the most urgent academic needs facing schools today.

Further advancing the Department's commitment to restoring excellence and expanding State leadership, applicants may also respond to two competitive preference priorities.

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Returning Education to the States encourages projects that elevate State- and Tribal-led efforts to take the lead in serving the students, families, and educators within their communities.

In addition, Competitive Preference Priority 2: Education Choice (High-Impact Tutoring) supports projects such as those proposing individualized or small-group tutoring programs through innovative delivery models, a proven approach in demonstrating results in helping students accelerate academic progress. 1

Collectively, these priorities reflect the Department's vision of empowering States to lead, investing in evidence-based strategies, and ensuring that all students have access to high-quality instruction and support. Expansion grants represent a critical opportunity to scale effective strategies and measure impact through proven, locally driven innovation.

Priorities: This notice includes one absolute priority and two competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), the absolute priority is from section 4611(a)(1)(A) of the ESEA and the Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514) (Supplemental Priorities), and the competitive preference priorities are from the Supplemental Priorities.

Absolute Priority: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Field-Initiated Innovations: Promoting Evidence-Based Literacy.

Projects or proposals to—

(a) Create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students; and

(b) Advance, increase, or expand evidence-based literacy instruction (as defined in this notice).

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 10 points to an application, depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1, and up to an additional 5 points to an application, depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 2.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Returning Education to the States (up to 10 points).

Projects or proposals that will be carried out by one or more of the following entities:

(a) State educational agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49)),

(b) An Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(e)), Tribal organization (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(l)), or Tribal educational agency (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7452(b)(3)), or

(c) Consortia of the entities identified under this priority.

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Expanding Education Choice (High-Impact Tutoring) (up to 5 points).

Projects or proposals that will expand access to education services that accelerate learning such as high-impact tutoring.

Note: Applicants are encouraged to review the evidence related to education services that accelerate learning, including high-impact tutoring, and to cite the highest-level of evidence supporting their response to the competitive preference priority in their application.

Definitions: The following definitions apply to this program. The definitions of “baseline,” “continuous improvement,” “evaluation,” “evidence-building,” “independent evaluation,” “logic model,” “national level,” “nonprofit,” “performance measure,” “performance target,” “project component,” “quality data,” “regional level,” “relevant outcome,” and “What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks)” are from 34 CFR 77.1. The definitions of “evidence-based,” “local educational agency,” and “State educational agency” are from section 8101 of the ESEA. The definitions of “evidenced-based literacy instruction,” “evidence framework,” “experimental study,” and “quasi-experimental design study” are from the Supplemental Priorities.

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

Continuous improvement means using plans for collecting and analyzing data about a project component's implementation and outcomes (including the pace and extent to which project outcomes are being met) to inform necessary changes throughout the project. These plans may include strategies to gather ongoing feedback from participants and stakeholders on the implementation of the project component.

Evaluation means an assessment using systematic data collection and analysis of one or more programs, policies, practices, and organizations intended to assess their implementation, outcomes, effectiveness, or efficiency.

Evidence-building means a systematic plan for identifying and answering questions relevant to programs and policies through performance measurement, exploratory studies, or program evaluation.

Evidence-based means an activity, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on strong evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented experimental study.

Evidence-based literacy instruction means literacy instruction that relates to explicit, systematic and intentional instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, oral and sign language, vocabulary, language structure, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and writing; promotes knowledge-rich materials; and is backed by the following, as supported by an evidence framework (as defined in this notice): strong evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study (strong evidence as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I)).

Evidence framework means an approach to providing a determination about whether an activity, strategy, or intervention meets each aspect of the definition of strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I-II)), as applicable.

(a) An evidence framework must include each of the following:

(i) Whether or not a study is an experimental study or quasi-experimental experimental design study;

(ii) Whether or not a study shows a positive, statistically significant effect on student outcomes or other relevant outcomes;

(iii) Whether or not a study uses outcome measures that demonstrate validity and reliability, that do not give an unfair advantage to participants in one condition over another, and that are measured consistently for the groups or participants that are being compared;

(iv) Whether or not a study design is otherwise of high quality, including whether it minimizes factors outside the intervention that could affect student or other relevant outcomes (confounds) and whether random assignment (if used) was done with integrity; and

(v) Whether or not study implementation and analysis is appropriate, including whether groups or participants being compared demonstrate baseline equivalence on key individual and other relevant characteristics, whether differences in baseline equivalence are statistically controlled, and by considering the impact on the validity of the study of any changes to the sample over time.

(b) An evidence framework may be implemented or verified by the Department or peer reviewers with statistical expertise who affirm an applicant's assertion that relevant information is strong evidence or moderate evidence because it is supported by study ratings included in the What Works Clearinghouse in one or more of:

(i) a practice guide;

(ii) an intervention report; or

(iii) individual studies otherwise assessed to meet strong evidence or moderate evidence.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to a treatment group receiving an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy as compared with a control group that does not. Experimental studies can support claims of strong evidence. Randomized controlled trials and single-case design studies are specific types of experimental studies that meet this definition.

Independent evaluation means an evaluation of a project component that is designed and carried out independently of, but in coordination with, the entities that develop or implement the project component.

Local educational agency (LEA) means:

(a) In General. A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.

(b) Administrative Control and Direction. The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.

(c) Bureau of Indian Education Schools. The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the LEA receiving assistance under the ESEA with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any SEA (as defined in this notice) other than the Bureau of Indian Education.

(d) Educational Service Agencies. The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.

(e) State Educational Agency. The term includes the SEA in a State in which the SEA is the sole educational agency for all public schools.

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

National level means the level of a project component that is able to be effective in a wide variety of communities, including rural and urban areas, as well as with different characteristics (such as socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, language, and migrant status), populations, and settings.

Nonprofit, as applied to an agency, organization, or institution, means that it is owned and operated by one or more corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity.

Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance.

Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project.

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

Quality data encompasses utility, objectivity, and integrity of the information. “Utility” refers to how the data will be used, either for its intended use or other uses. “Objectivity” refers to data being accurate, complete, reliable, and unbiased. “Integrity” refers to the protection of data from being manipulated.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. Cross-sectional group designs, comparative interrupted time series, difference-in-difference designs, and growth curve designs are specific types of quasi-experimental studies that meet this definition. This type of study can meet the definition of moderate evidence but not strong evidence.

Regional level means the level of scope or effectiveness of a project component that is able to serve a variety of communities within a State or multiple States, including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups (such as socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, language, and migrant status). For an LEA-based project, to be considered a regional-level project, a project component must serve students in more than one LEA, unless the project component is implemented in a State in which the SEA is the sole educational agency for all schools.

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

State educational agency (SEA) means the agency primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools.

What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 5.0, or in the WWC Standards Handbook, Version 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures Handbook, Version 4.0 or 4.1, the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference; see § 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7261.

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

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

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

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $253,000,000.

These estimated available funds are the total available for new awards for both Mid-phase and Expansion competitions and any funding of high-scoring, unfunded applicants from any of the FY 2024 competitions.

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

Estimated Average Size of Awards: Up to $15,000,000.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $15,000,000 for a project period of 60 months. Under 34 CFR 75.104(b) the Secretary may reject, without consideration or evaluation, any application that proposes a project funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount. The Department intends to fund one or more projects under each of the EIR competitions, including Expansion grants (84.411A) and Mid-phase grants (84.411B). Entities may submit applications for different projects for more than one competition (Mid-phase grants and Expansion grants).

Estimated Number of Awards: 4-8.

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

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

Note: Under section 4611(c) of the ESEA, the Department must use at least 25 percent of EIR funds for a fiscal year to make awards to applicants serving rural areas, contingent on receipt of a sufficient number of applications of sufficient quality. For purposes of this competition, we will consider an applicant as rural if the applicant meets the qualifications for rural applicants as described in the Eligible Applicants section and the applicant certifies that it meets those qualifications through the application. In implementing this statutory provision and program requirement, the Department may fund high-quality applications from rural applicants out of rank order in the Mid-phase grants competition.

1. Eligible Applicants:

(a) An LEA;

(b) An SEA;

(c) The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE);

(d) A consortium of SEAs or LEAs;

(e) A nonprofit organization; and

(f) An LEA, an SEA, the BIE, or a consortium described in clause (d), in partnership with—

(1) A nonprofit (as defined in this notice) organization;

(2) A business;

(3) An educational service agency; or

(4) An IHE.

To qualify as a rural applicant under the EIR program, an applicant must meet both of the following requirements:

(a) The applicant is—

(1) An LEA with an urban-centric district locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary;

(2) A consortium of such LEAs;

(3) An educational service agency or a nonprofit organization in partnership with such an LEA; or

(4) A grantee described in clause (1) or (2) in partnership with an SEA; and

(b) A majority of the schools to be served by the program are designated with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, or a combination of such codes, as determined by the Secretary.

Note: An applicant that is a nonprofit organization may, under 34 CFR 75.51, demonstrate its nonprofit status by providing: (1) proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.

In addition, with respect to IHEs and their affiliates, the following entities may apply for a grant under this competition: (1) As noted above, any IHE that is a partner in an application submitted by an LEA, SEA, BIE, consortium of SEAs or LEAs, or a nonprofit organization; (2) A private IHE that is a nonprofit organization; (3) A nonprofit organization, such as a development foundation, that is affiliated with a public IHE; and (4) A public IHE with 501(c)(3) status. A public IHE without 501(c)(3) status (even if that entity is tax exempt under Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code or any other State or Federal provision), or that could not provide any other documentation of nonprofit status described above, however, would not qualify as a nonprofit organization, and therefore would not be eligible to apply for and receive an EIR grant.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: Under section 4611(d) of the ESEA, each grant recipient must provide, from Federal, State, local, or private sources, an amount equal to 10 percent of funds provided under the grant, which may be provided in cash or through in-kind contributions, to carry out activities supported by the grant. Applicants must include a budget showing their matching contributions to the budget amount of EIR grant funds and must provide evidence of their matching contributions for the first year of the grant in their grant applications.

Section 4611(d) of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to waive the matching requirement on a case-by-case basis, upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as:

(i) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve a rural area;

(ii) The difficulty of raising matching funds in areas with a concentration of LEAs or schools with a high percentage of students aged 5 through 17—

(A) Who are in poverty, as counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary;

(B) Who are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq. );

(C) Whose families receive assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ); or

(D) Who are eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program; and

(iii) The difficulty of raising funds on Tribal land.

An applicant that wishes to apply for a waiver must include a request in its application, describing the exceptional circumstances that make it difficult for the applicant to meet the matching requirement. Further information about applying for waivers can be found in the application package for this competition.

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

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

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

4. Other: a. Evaluation: A grantee funded under this competition must conduct an independent evaluation (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). (see 34 CFR 75.590).

b. Independent Evaluation Report: A grantee funded under this competition must make public the final report, including results of any required independent evaluation and submit the final evaluation to the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), which is administered by the Institute of Education Sciences. (see 34 CFR 75.590)

c. High-need students: The grantee must serve high-need students.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on August 29. 2025 (90 FR 42234), and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

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

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, will address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative for an Expansion grant to no more than 35 pages and (3) use the standards outlined in the Common Instructions.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for the Mid-phase grants competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion.

A. Significance (up to 15 points).

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project introduces an innovative approach, such as a modification of an evidence-based project component to serve different populations, an extension of an existing evidence-based project component, a unique composition of various project components to explore combined effects, or development of an emerging project component that needs further testing.

B. Strategy to Scale (up to 35 points).

The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project for recipients, community members and partners. In determining the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which there is unmet demand for broader implementation of the project that is aligned with the proposed level of scale. (up to 10 points)

(2) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (up to 10 points)

(3) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project. (up to 5 points)

(4) The quality of the plan to deliver project services more efficiently at scale and maintain effectiveness. (up to 5 points)

(5) The quality of the mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information and resources on its project to support further development, adaptation, or replication by other entities to implement project components in additional settings or with other populations. (up to 5 points)

C. Quality of the Project Design (up to 20 points).

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

(1) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes. (up to 15 points)

(2) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program. (up to 5 points)

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation or Other Evidence-Building (up to 30 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations, as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks. (up to 15 points)

(2) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential implementation in other settings. (up to 5 points)

(3) The quality of the evaluation plan for measuring fidelity of implementation, including thresholds for acceptable implementation, to inform how implementation is associated with outcomes. (up to 5 points)

(4) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project. (up to 5 points)

Note: Applicants may wish to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks; (2) “Technical Assistance Materials for Conducting Rigorous Impact Evaluations”: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluationTA.asp; and (3) Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. In addition, applicants may view an optional webinar recording that was hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The webinar focused on more rigorous evaluation designs, discussing strategies for designing and executing experimental studies that meet WWC evidence standards without reservations. This webinar is available at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Multimedia/18.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217, information outside the rank order of applications, including: the information in each application; and any other information—

(1) Relevant to a criterion, priority, or other requirement that applies to the selection of applications for new grants;

(2) Concerning the applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous award under any Department program; and

(3) Concerning the applicant's failure under any Department program to submit a performance report or its submission of a performance report of unacceptable quality.

Before making awards, Department staff will screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether applications have met eligibility and other requirements, including whether an application may fail to meet the “General Terms and Conditions” applicable to awarded funds referenced elsewhere within this notice. This screening process may occur at various stages of the review and selection process. Applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant, regardless of the whether the application was included in the peer review process. Applications not selected for funding will be informed of the Secretary's decision in accordance with 34 CFR 75.218.

Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in this notice.

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

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

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

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

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals and agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. General terms and conditions: If you are awarded a grant under this competition, you must ensure and may be required to demonstrate that federal funds will not be used under this project in any manner that violates the United States Constitution, Title VI or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. or 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq. ), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. ), the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. 7905), section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1011f), or other applicable federal law. To the extent that a grantee uses grant funds for such unallowable activities, the Department may take appropriate enforcement action including under section 451 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), including the potential recovery of funds under section 452 of GEPA, or may pursue termination under 2 CFR 200.340. The Grant Award Notification document accompanying your award may contain further terms and conditions, as necessary to ensure grantee compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and administrative priorities.

2. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. See the Common Instructions for additional information.

3. Performance Measures: For the purpose of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of performance measures (as defined in this notice) for the Mid-phase grants.

Annual performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that reach their annual target number of students as specified in the application; (2) the percentage of grantees that reach their annual target number of high-need students as specified in the application; (3) the percentage of grantees with ongoing well-designed and independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their effectiveness at improving student outcomes in multiple contexts; (4) the percentage of grantees that implement an evaluation that provides information about the key practices and the approach of the project so as to facilitate replication; (5) the percentage of grantees that implement an evaluation that provides information on the cost-effectiveness of the key practices to identify potential obstacles and success factors to scaling; and (6) the cost per student served by the grant.

Cumulative performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that reach the targeted number of students specified in the application; (2) the percentage of grantees that reach the targeted number of high-need students specified in the application; (3) the percentage of grantees that complete a well-designed, well-implemented, and independent evaluation that provides evidence of their effectiveness at improving student outcomes at scale; (4) the percentage of grantees that complete a well-designed, well-implemented, and independent evaluation that provides information about the key elements and the approach of the project so as to facilitate replication or testing in other settings; (5) the percentage of grantees with a completed evaluation that provides information on the cost-effectiveness of the key practices to identify potential obstacles and success factors to scaling; and (6) the cost per student served by the grant.

Data collection and reporting: (1) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and (2) the applicant's capacity to collect and report the quality of the performance data, as evidenced by quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

Project-Specific Performance Measures: Applicants must propose project-specific performance measures and performance targets (both as defined in this notice) consistent with the objectives of the proposed project. Applications must provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

(1) Project-specific performance measures. How each proposed project-specific performance measure would: accurately measure the performance of the project; be consistent with the program performance measures established under this notice; and be used to inform continuous improvement of the project.

(2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each proposed baseline is valid and reliable, including an assessment of the quality data used to establish the baseline; or (ii) if the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.

(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).

All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.

This is a synopsis of the Media Bureau's document, ( public notice ), DA 25-792, released on September 3, 2025. The full text of this document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-792A1.pdf . To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Effective 11:59 p.m. ET, September 3, 2025, the Bureau is reinstituting a freeze on all applications for major changes for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations. In addition, at 6:00 p.m. ET, October 15, 2025, the Bureau will institute a freeze on all minor change applications for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations and displacement applications for LPTV and TV translator stations. These freezes are necessary in order to provide a stable database for stations to prepare for the filing of major modification applications. Applicants that file a major or minor modification application during these temporary freezes will be dismissed without consideration and will need to re-file once the freezes are lifted.

Beginning at 12:01 a.m. ET, October 22, 2025, the Bureau will lift the major modification application filing freeze and accept, on a first-come, first-served basis, applications for all major changes to Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations including those that propose relocations of no more than 121.0 km from the station's antenna reference coordinates. At 12:01 a.m. ET, October 22, 2025, the Bureau will also lift the temporary freeze on all minor modification and displacement applications. We are imposing a distance limit on major changes in order to ensure that existing stations are able to implement facility modifications that maximize service to their existing viewers and markets before we permit new station applications or moves by existing stations that practically amount to a new station ( i.e., stations that may seek to forego serving their existing viewers or markets and relocate to distant locations).

At 6:00 p.m. ET, December 3, 2025, all applications for major changes for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations will once again be frozen. At 6:00 p.m. ET, January 14, 2026, the Bureau will also institute a temporary freeze on all minor change applications for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations and displacement applications for LPTV and TV translator stations. These freezes are being reinstituted in order to provide a stable database for stations to prepare for the complete lifting of the freeze on major modification applications and for applicants to prepare for the opportunity to seek new stations. Applicants that file applications during these temporary freezes will be dismissed and will need to re-file once the freezes are lifted.

Beginning at 12:01 a.m. ET, January 21, 2026, we will lift the freezes and begin accepting, on a first-come, first-served basis, all major change and minor change applications (including displacement applications). At the same time, we will lift the freeze and begin accepting, on a first-come, first-served basis, applications for new LPTV and TV translator stations. These filings opportunities will remain available indefinitely unless the Commission determines that a new freeze is warranted. There will be no geographical restrictions or any other limitations on applications for minor modification, major modification or applications for new LPTV and TV translator stations beyond the operating parameters and enumerated restrictions set forth in parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's rules.

Each applicant should carefully read the instructions to its application, as well as this public notice, to ensure that each response, which constitutes a certification or material representation, is accurate and complete. We also remind applicants that they must certify that, at the time of filing, they have sufficient finances to construct and operate the facility, and there is reasonable site assurance for the site specified in the application.

Applications Filing Instructions and Fees. Class A station major modification applications must be filed electronically via the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS) on FCC Form 2100—Schedule E and applicants will be required to pay the requisite fee for a major change application ($5,000.00). LPTV and TV translator applications for new stations or major changes to existing stations must be filed electronically via LMS on FCC Form 2100—Schedule C and applicants will be required to pay the requisite fee for a major change application ($910.00). Filing instructions are provided in the Appendix of the released public notice document.

First-Come, First-Served Processing and Settlements. All major change and new station applications will be processed on a first-come, first-served basis and will be “cut off” daily for purposes of determining mutually exclusive (MX) applications. Applications filed during these opportunities may not propose facilities that would cause impermissible interference to other authorized full power, Class A, and LPTV/translator stations, including valid construction permits for same, and any earlier-filed application for a new or modified facility, including earlier-filed applications for minor (including displacement) or major change. Applicants will be given an opportunity to resolve MX applications through settlement or engineering amendment that may be submitted either prior or during a settlement window to be announced by the Bureau by separate public notice. Following the close of the settlement window, remaining MX applications will be resolved through competitive bidding.

Acceptability of Applications. Applicants will be permitted to input information in their applications prior to any filing opportunities, but should not submit their application prior to the dates and times set forth above for any given opportunity. Applications that are submitted before the freezes are lifted will be dismissed without consideration. The Bureau will conduct an initial review of all applications filed during these opportunities for compliance with the filing parameters set forth in the released public notice document and all relevant technical and legal rules. It will dismiss any application that is unacceptable for filing. An applicant will have one opportunity to file a minor curative amendment to a dismissed application and a petition for reconsideration, requesting reinstatement of the application nunc pro tunc . Any curative amendment may only propose minor changes, must comply with all relevant rules, and may not result in any new MX applications. Bureau staff will not reinstate the application of an applicant that is unable to cure all defects (including any defects not previously identified by the Bureau staff). This process will ensure the timely evaluation of processing of all applications and issuance of construction permits.

Petitions to Deny. Once a singleton application is found to be legally and technically acceptable, the application will be accepted for filing, which will commence the 30-day period for filing petitions to deny. For MX applications that are subject to competitive bidding, petitions to deny may be filed against the winning bidder's long-form application within fifteen (15) days following the issuance of a public notice announcing that the long-form application has been accepted for filing. Petitions to deny must be filed in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Commission's rules. Electronic submissions are encouraged, though petitions to deny may be filed electronically or by paper.

Local Requirements. If and when a major modification application or new station application is accepted for filing, the applicant must provide a public notice to inform its local community about its proposal. The initial filing of a major change or new station application does not trigger the local public notice requirements. Rather, the acceptance for filing starts an applicant's local public notice obligations. Specifically, once an application is accepted for filing, an LPTV/TV translator applicant for a new station or major modification must give local notice by posting notice online, either (1) on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, the applicant, or its parent entity, or (2) on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website. The online notice must be posted for 30 consecutive days following the acceptance of the application for filing. A Class A major modification applicant must provide an on-air public announcement containing the text set forth in § 73.3580(b)(1)(i). The on-air notice must be aired six times between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. (Monday-Friday) over the course of four consecutive weeks following the acceptance of the application for filing.

Amendments to Applications. Each applicant must continue to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the information in its application. Each applicant must notify the Commission, by electronically filing an amendment, of any substantial change that may be of decisional significance to the application.

This action is taken by the Chief, Media Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by §§ 0.61 and 0.283 of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 0.61 and 0.283.

The FDIC is requesting OMB approval for the following collection of information:

Title: Cost of AML/CFT Compliance Survey.

OMB Number: 3064-NEW.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Affected Public: Insured State nonmember banks.

Estimated Annual Burden: The FDIC estimates a total burden for OMB No. 3064-NEW of 15,424 hours. The FDIC expects 1,928 respondents for the survey and expects each respondent will take 8 hours to complete the survey. This is a high estimate to account for the use of the survey instrument by other agencies with more complex respondents.

General Description of Collection: This information collection will seek information on Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/CFT compliance costs and related topics via survey. The survey is voluntary. The purpose of the survey is to better understand the cost of AML/CFT compliance for FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions. The information gathered will help assess the cumulative impact of BSA/CFT regulations and may inform efforts to adjust regulatory obligations in accordance with safety and soundness principles and advance deregulatory proposals consistent with the executive orders of the Trump administration. The data may also support the development of deregulatory rulemakings or guidance to reduce compliance burden without compromising the effectiveness of current AML/CFT frameworks. Reponses will not be used for supervisory purposes.

Interested members of the public may view the proposed survey questionnaire on the following web page: https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications/survey-costs-amlcft-compliance.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title: Generic Clearance for Improving DASG's APIs Customer Experience; Use: This new request will enable the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Data Analytics and Systems Group (hereafter “the Agency”) to act in accordance with OMB Circular A-11 Section 280, Executive Order 14058, and the OMB memoranda on burden reduction, to ultimately transform the experience of its customers to improve both efficiency and mission delivery and increase accountability by communicating about these efforts with the public.

The Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance to identify services' accessibility, navigation, and use by customers and make improvements in service delivery based on customer insights gathered through developing an understanding of the user experience interacting with the Government. Under this request, two types of activities (Customer Research and Customer Feedback Surveys) will be conducted to generate customer insights. Form Number: CMS-10923 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Individual and Households, Private sector (Business or other for-profits), Not for profits institutions; Number of Respondents: 82,020; Number of Responses: 82,020; Total Annual Hours: 15,876. (For questions regarding this collection, contact Rachel Lorencz at rachel.lorencz@cms.hhs.gov .

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) Application Form and Supporting Regulations; Use: Section 353(b) of the Public Health Service Act specifies that the laboratory must submit an application in such form and manner as the Secretary shall prescribe that describes the characteristics of the laboratory and examinations and procedures performed by the laboratory. The application must be completed by entities performing laboratory's testing specimens for diagnostic or treatment purposes. This information is vital to the certification process. In this revision, changes were made to the form to facilitate its completion and data entry. We anticipate that the changes will not increase the time to complete the form. Form Number: CMS-116 (OMB control number: 0938-0581); Frequency: Biennially and Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector—Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 50,236; Total Annual Responses: 50,236; Total Annual Hours: 50,236. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Cheryl Murphy at Cheryl.Murphy@cms.hhs.gov. )

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

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Hospital Notices: IM/DND; Use: This information collection applies to beneficiaries in Original Medicare and enrollees in Medicare health plans. The purpose of the IM is to inform beneficiaries and enrollees of their rights as hospital inpatients and how to request a discharge appeal by a Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) and how to file a request. Consistent with 42 CFR 405.1205 for Original Medicare and 422.620 for Medicare health plans, hospitals must provide the initial IM within 2 calendar days of admission. A follow-up copy of the signed IM is given no more than 2 calendar days before discharge. The follow-up copy is not required if the first IM is provided within 2 calendar days of discharge. Form Number: CMS-10065/10066 (OMB control number: 0938-1019); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private Sector, Business or other for profits, Not for profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 25,397,156; Total Annual Responses: 25,397,156; Total Annual Hours: 4,313,823. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact: Katherine Hosna at 410-786-4993 or KatherineHosna@cms.hhs.gov ).

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: CLIA Proficiency Testing (PT); Use: This is an extension package. The purpose of this package is to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection request (ICR) for proficiency testing (PT) and reapproval of PT programs. The ICR includes laboratories filling in PT submission forms for microbiology PT and document collection for a PT program if it needs to reapply for approval using the initial approval process.

On October 31, 1988, Congress enacted the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-578) (CLIA'88), codified at 42 U.S.C. 263a, to ensure the accuracy and reliability of testing in all laboratories, including, but not limited to, those that participate in Medicare and Medicaid, that test human specimens for purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any disease or impairment, or the assessment of health, of human beings. The Secretary established the initial regulations implementing CLIA on February 28, 1992 at 42 CFR part 493 (57 FR 7002). Among other things, those regulations required laboratories conducting moderate or high complexity testing to enroll in an approved PT program for each specialty, subspecialty, and analyte or test for which the laboratory is certified under CLIA. PT evaluates a laboratory's performance by testing of unknown samples just as it would test patient samples.

A Health and Human Services (HHS)-approved PT program sends unknown samples to a laboratory for analysis. After testing, the laboratory reports its results to the PT program. The program grades the results using the CLIA grading criteria and provides the laboratory with its scores. PT is crucial to maintaining the quality of laboratory testing because it independently verifies the accuracy and reliability of laboratory testing, including the competency of testing personnel. PT referral was further addressed by enactment of the Taking Essential Steps for Testing Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-202, December 4, 2012) (TEST Act) and our implementing regulations (79 FR 25435 and 79 FR 27105). As of July 2025, there were 307,193 CLIA-certified laboratories, of which 33,990 Certificate of Compliance (CoC) and Certificate of Accreditation (CoA) laboratories were required to enroll in an HHS-approved PT program and comply with the PT regulations.

Testing has evolved significantly since 1992, and technology is now more accurate and precise than the methods in use at the time the PT regulations became effective for all laboratories in 1994. In addition, many tests for analytes for which PT was not initially required are now in routine clinical use. For example, tests for cardiac markers, such as troponins, and hemoglobin A1c test commonly used to monitor glycemic control in persons with diabetes, were not routinely performed prior to 1992. Recognizing these changes, we finalized revisions to our existing PT regulations in the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) Proficiency Testing Regulations Related to Analytes and Acceptable Performance (CMS 3355-F) which published July 11, 2022 (87 FR 41194). Each PT program supplies laboratories with its forms required for enrolling in microbiology PT; and reapplication for approval has no standardized forms required.

The original CLIA regulation PRA Supporting Statement for CLIA (OMB control number: 0938-0612) did not include the collection requirements for microbiology PT provisions or PT programs included in this final rule. We determined during the proposed rule phase that this ICR would be needed to cover the additional information collections. We plan to include these two information collections when the PRA package under OMB control number: 0938-0612 is due for renewal.

Laboratories are currently required to report PT results for microbiology organism identification to the highest level that they report results on patient specimens. We are clarifying that this is required when reporting microbiology PT results to PT programs. The information that the laboratory submits to the PT program will be used by the PT program to determine successful participation in PT. Form Number: CMS-10690 (OMB control number: 0938-1357); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector—Not-for-profit organizations; Number of Respondents: 1,335; Total Annual Responses: 1,335 Total Annual Hours: 1,407. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Penny Keller at 410-786-2035.)

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Alternative Tools: Assessing Drug Manufacturing Facilities Identified in Pending Applications.” This guidance provides information to applicants on how FDA intends to use alternative tools to assess drug manufacturing facilities identified in an NDA, an ANDA, a BLA, or a supplement to any of these types of applications. As part of the negotiations relating to the reauthorization of BsUFA and PDUFA, FDA agreed to issue guidance on the use of alternative tools to assess manufacturing facilities named in pending applications and to incorporate best practices from the use of such tools during the COVID-19 pandemic. This guidance, within the context of approval and licensure decisions by FDA, describes the use of alternative tools to assess manufacturing facilities identified in an NDA, an ANDA, or a BLA to establish that these facilities meet the applicable requirements, including under section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) and either section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262). FDA considered the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance in M-25-20, and finds this action to be deregulatory in nature.

During the pandemic, FDA expanded its use of alternative tools to evaluate drug manufacturing facilities to support regulatory decision making when facility inspections were not feasible. The following alternative tools were used during the COVID-19 public health emergency:

• Requesting records and other information, pursuant to section 704(a)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 374(a)(4)), directly from facilities and other entities subject to inspection

• Performing remote interactive evaluations ( e.g., remote live streaming video of operations, teleconferences, screen sharing)

• Requesting existing inspection reports and other information from trusted foreign regulatory partners through mutual recognition agreements and other agreements

FDA has strategically used these tools within the context of decisions related to preapproval inspections (PAIs) or prelicense inspections (PLIs) to maximize facility assessment efficiency as part of appropriate, risk-based assessments. Given the success of these innovative approaches, FDA intends to continue risk-based use of these alternative tools and to apply certain virtual technological capabilities within a specific inspectional context defined within this guidance. When used in advance or in lieu of PAIs and PLIs or to support PAIs and PLIs, the appropriate use of these approaches will help FDA maintain operational flexibility to support timely facility evaluations and application decisions.

This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Alternative Tools: Assessing Drug Manufacturing Facilities Identified in Pending Applications” issued on September 22, 2023 (88 FR 65396). FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance as the guidance was finalized. Based on the comments received, FDA updated the guidance with additional clarification on: (1) the recommended timeframe for facilities to respond to section 704(a)(4) of the FD&C Act records requests; (2) the timeframes for when facilities may expect to receive requests from FDA to use a remote subject matter expert (SME) during an inspection; (3) Agency efforts to coordinate logistical approaches and technologies with facilities regarding FDA's use of alternative tools; and (4) the effect of a facility declining to allow FDA to use a remote SME or when a facility is unable to support the virtual interaction with a remote SME.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Alternative Tools: Assessing Drug Manufacturing Facilities Identified in Pending Applications.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 210 and 211 relating to current good manufacturing practice requirements and electronic records and signatures have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0139 and 0910-0303, respectively. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 relating to the submission of NDAs and ANDAs have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 relating to the submission of BLAs have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

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

Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform.

On November 6, 2025, the Committee will discuss and make recommendations on the topic of “Generative Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Digital Mental Health Medical Devices.” Many of these medical devices pose novel risks and, as mental health devices continue to evolve in complexity, regulatory approaches ideally will also evolve to accommodate these novel challenges and opportunities to provide a reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness while promoting innovation to support public health. There is an increasing demand for mental health services in the US and insufficient access to mental health care providers. These new devices may be one way to help address this gap in care for people, potentially improving outcomes and access. The committee will discuss the benefits, risks to health, and risk mitigations that might be considered for these new digital mental health devices, including premarket evidence and postmarket monitoring considerations.

FDA intends to make background material and the link to the live webcast available to the public no later than (2) business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background materials and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm . Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

The meeting will include slide presentations with audio and video components to allow the presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an in-person advisory committee meeting.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Committee. All electronic and written submissions to the Docket (see ADDRESSES ) on or before October 17, 2025, will be provided to the Committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately between 10:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before October 9, 2025. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by October 10, 2025.

For press inquiries, please contact the HHS Press Room at www.hhs.gov/press-room/index.html or 202-690-6343. FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact CDR Daniel Bailey, M.S., M.B.A, M.DIV, at Daniel.bailey@fda.hhs.gov or 301-529-54505 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ). This meeting notice also serves as notice that, pursuant to 21 CFR 10.19, the requirements in 21 CFR 14.22(b), (f), and (g) relating to the location of advisory committee meetings are hereby waived to allow for this meeting to take place using an online meeting platform. This waiver is in the interest of allowing greater transparency and opportunities for public participation, in addition to convenience for advisory committee members, speakers, and guest speakers. The conditions for issuance of a waiver under 21 CFR 10.19 are met.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program Application, Implementation, and Evaluation, OMB No. 0906-0111—Extension.

Abstract: HRSA's Office of Pharmacy Affairs (OPA) is introducing a 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program as a voluntary mechanism for qualifying drug manufacturers to effectuate the 340B ceiling price on select drugs to covered entities, as outlined in a Federal Register Notice (90 FR 38165; herein referred to as the “Notice”) issued on August 7, 2025. This information collection request includes the collection of 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program plans from drug manufacturers, the collection of reports from drug manufacturers for OPA's evaluation of the pilot program and for overall 340B Program surveillance, and the collection of data submitted by covered entities to manufacturers to request a rebate.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The scope of the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program will be limited to manufacturers with Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program Agreements with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' for the initial price applicability year 2026. 1 Once selected plans are approved in accordance with the Notice, manufacturers may then begin to effectuate the 340B rebate starting January 1, 2026. This information collection request includes the collection of 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program plans from drug manufacturers, the collection of sales data from drug manufacturers for OPA's evaluation of the pilot program and for overall 340B Program surveillance, and the collection of data submitted by covered entities to manufacturers to request a rebate.

Collection of Drug Manufacturer Applications: OPA will evaluate and approve plans for participation in the 340B Rebate Pilot Program based on the elements required in the Notice (90 FR 38166-67).

Collection of Reporting Data from Manufacturers: Manufacturers will be required to submit data to the 340B Prime Vendor on a monthly basis to ensure program integrity and to provide transparency in the 340B Program. Monthly submissions will provide better data for tracking 340B data and reduce lag time in assessing Program metrics. The data submitted is also being collected to support the assessment of the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program.

Collection of Data Submitted by Covered Entities to Manufacturers: Covered entities are required to provide specific data to participating manufacturers in order for the manufacturers to provide rebates to effectuate the 340B discount on the entities' covered outpatient drug purchases. Specific requirements that detail the type of and frequency of such submittals can be found in the Notice (FR 38166). The data collected will be kept private to the extent permitted by the law.

HRSA received an emergency clearance from OMB on August 26, 2025. The emergency clearance will ensure that the agency will collect drug manufacturer applications by September 15, 2025. This 60-day Federal Register Notice will allow HRSA to fully consider all public comments on its burden statement. HRSA has taken all practicable steps to consult with the public to minimize burden (including a 30-day comment period in the Notice).

Likely Respondents: Pharmaceutical manufacturers and 340B covered entities.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: Nurse Faculty Loan Program Forms OMB No. 0915-0314—Revision.

Abstract: This clearance request seeks approval for the Nurse Faculty Loan Program (NFLP) Forms. The forms included are the NFLP—Program Specific Data Form, NFLP—Annual Performance Report (APR) Financial Data Form, and the NFLP Due Diligence Form. They are currently approved under OMB Approval No. 0915-0314, with the expiration date of August 31, 2026. For greater clarity and consistency, the only change to this information collection request is to change the title from the “Nurse Faculty Loan Program—Program Specific Data Form, Annual Performance Report Financial Data Form, and NFLP Due Diligence Form” to the “Nurse Faculty Loan Program Forms.”

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: Section 846A of the Public Health Service Act provides the Secretary of HHS with the authority to provide grants to accredited schools of nursing for the establishment and operation of student loan funds to increase the number of qualified nurse faculty. HRSA makes awards to accredited schools of nursing and the schools provide loans to students enrolled in advanced education nursing degree programs who are committed to becoming nurse faculty. Following graduation from the NFLP grant recipient school, NFLP borrowers may receive up to 85 percent of loan cancellation over a 4-year period in exchange for service as full-time faculty at a school of nursing. The NFLP grant recipient school collects any portion of the loan that is not cancelled and any loans that go into repayment and deposits these monies into the NFLP loan fund to make additional NFLP loans.

The NFLP—Program Specific Data Form is a required electronic attachment within the NFLP application materials. The data provided in the form is an essential component of the formula-based criteria used to determine the amount awarded to the applicant schools. The form collects application-related data from applicants such as the amount requested, number of students to be funded, tuition information, and projected unused loan fund balance. This data collection assists HRSA in streamlining the application submission process, enabling an efficient award determination process, and facilitating reporting on the use of funds and analysis of program outcomes. There are no changes to this form.

The NFLP—APR Financial Data Form is an online form that collects outcome and financial data to capture the NFLP loan fund account activity related to financial receivables, disbursements, and borrower account data related to employment status, loan cancellation, loan repayment and collections. NFLP grant recipient schools will provide HHS with current and cumulative information on (1) NFLP loan funds received, (2) number and amount of NFLP loans made, (3) number and amount of loans cancelled, (4) number and amount of loans in repayment, (5) loan default rate percent, (6) number of NFLP graduates employed as nurse faculty, and (7) other related loan fund costs and activities. The NFLP—APR Financial Data Form is used to monitor grantee performance by collecting information related to the NFLP loan fund operations and financial activities for a specified reporting period (July 1 through June 30 of the academic year). NFLP grant recipient schools are required to complete and submit the NFLP—APR Financial Data Form annually. The data provided in the form is essential for HRSA to effectively monitor the school's use of NFLP funds in accordance with the statute and program guidelines. There are no changes to this form.

The NFLP Due Diligence Form is a required form that is completed and submitted electronically by NFLP grant recipient schools. This form indicates that due diligence has been exercised in the cancellation of any remaining loan funds for NFLP borrowers due to permanent/total disability, death, and uncollectible/bad debt write-offs. The data collected on the due diligence form will include the student borrower's unique ID number, reason for cancellation, the amount of principal loaned, the total amount of principal loan funds and corresponding interest canceled, and the outstanding amount of principal/interest that would be canceled because of death or permanent disability or written-off as uncollectible/bad debt. The NFLP Due Diligence Form is essential for monitoring performance measure outcomes and to verify and validate accuracy of information submitted on the NFLP Annual Performance Reports. There have been no changes to this form.

Likely Respondents: NFLP grant recipient schools and applicants to the NFLP program.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to 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. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Accreditation of Commercial Testing Laboratories and Approval of Commercial Gaugers.

OMB Number: 1651-0053.

Form Number: N/A.

Current Actions: Extension with change.

Type of Review: Extension (with change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Abstract: Commercial laboratories seeking to become a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Accredited Laboratory and commercial gaugers seeking to become a CBP Approved Gauger must submit the information specified in 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, respectively, to CBP on CBP Form 6478. After the initial accreditation and/or approval, a private company may apply to include additional facilities under its accreditation and/or approval by submitting a formal written request to CBP. This application process is authorized by Section 613 of Public Law 103-182 (NAFTA Implementation Act), codified at 19 U.S.C. 1499, which directs CBP to establish a procedure to accredit privately owned testing laboratories. The information collected is used by CBP in deciding whether to approve individuals or businesses desiring to measure bulk products or to analyze importations. Instructions for completing these applications are accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

CBP Form 6478 is accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%206478_0.pdf.

Type of Information Collection: Application.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 4.

Estimated Time per Response: 75 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.

Under existing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, each traveler  1 entering the United States must provide an oral or written declaration of all articles brought into the United States, to a CBP officer. See part 148, subpart B of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 148, subpart B). The Declaration Zone test, described below, provides arriving travelers with an alternative method to meet this requirement by allowing a demonstrative initial declaration at select cruise terminals at certain sea ports of entry.

On August 30, 2021, CBP announced a two-year Declaration Zone Test (the “initial test”) which allowed travelers entering the United States through participating cruise terminals to provide a demonstrative initial declaration by entering one of two declaration zone queues, either No Items to Declare or Items to Declare. 2 At cruise terminals that do not have declaration zones, all travelers must enter the same queue and provide an oral or written declaration, regardless of whether or not the traveler has items to declare. Declaration zones facilitate the processing of travelers by separating those who need to go directly to a CBP officer for additional processing, travelers with items to declare, from those who do not, travelers with no items to declare. The initial test was limited to closed loop cruises  3 participating in the voluntary facial biometric debarkation (FBD)  4 program at two sea ports of entry.

On October 16, 2023, CBP extended the Declaration Zone Test for an additional two years and expanded the test (the “2023 test extension and expansion”) to include additional sea ports of entry and travelers who disembark from certain open loop cruises  5 participating in Simplified Arrival. 6 The 2023 test extension and expansion was set to expire on October 16, 2025.

This notice extends the 2023 Extension and Expansion of Declaration Zone Test  7 beyond its original expiration date of October 16, 2025, for an additional period of three years. All provisions of the 2023 test extension and expansion, with the exception of the amended expiration date and the number of locations still available for test implementation, will remain applicable through the extended period. CBP invites public comment on any aspect of the Declaration Zone test which may be submitted via email to traveler-entry-programs@cbp.dhs.gov.

For convenience, CBP has republished pertinent information from the previous notices in the following subsections, including the purpose of the test, a description of the test, eligibility and participation requirements, CBP's legal authority to conduct this test, a description of the affected Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requirements, and the evaluation criteria for this test.

The purpose of the Declaration Zone Test is to determine the feasibility of allowing an initial demonstrative declaration as an acceptable declaration method. The evaluation of the initial testing period from 2021 to 2023 was significantly limited due to COVID-19-related disruptions and further limited due to only being available at two sea ports of entry. The 2023 test extension and expansion allowed expansion of the test to up to 18 additional sea ports of entry; however, during the extended testing period, declaration zones were only available at six sea ports of entry. Additionally, the Declaration Zone test did not include open loop cruises in the testing population until the 2023 test extension and expansion. To effectively evaluate the feasibility of allowing an initial demonstrative declaration, including the processing of open loop cruises, it is necessary for CBP to evaluate the use of declaration zones at additional facilities. Thus, CBP is extending the testing period to allow additional facilities to participate that may not have been able to do so previously. The selected three-year testing period will also allow CBP to align the expiration of the Declaration Zone test, which covers arriving vessels, with the Air Declaration Zone test, which covers arriving aircraft. Since 19 CFR part 148 subpart B does not currently distinguish between the maritime and air environments, additional testing will be necessary to determine how to most effectively address the operational differences of aircraft and vessel debarkation, such as differences in the collection of baggage and how that might affect travelers' entry into declaration zones.

The Declaration Zone test was originally scheduled to run for a period of approximately two years, beginning no earlier than September 27, 2021. The Declaration Zone test was extended and expanded on October 16, 2023, with a set expiration date of October 16, 2025. For the reasons described previously, CBP is extending the Declaration Zone test for an additional three years, ending on October 16, 2028. Consistent with both the initial test and first extension, expansion dates may vary at each participating location. While the test is ongoing, CBP will evaluate the results and determine whether the test should be extended or otherwise modified. CBP reserves the right to discontinue this test at any time at CBP's sole discretion. CBP will announce any modifications by notice in the Federal Register .

Within a cruise terminal facility participating in the Declaration Zone test, two distinct customs declaration zone queues are established for entering the area where travelers are processed following their egress from a vessel (the “egress area”): one for No Items to Declare and another for Items to Declare. Signage is posted to clearly label the queues at the entrance to the egress area after travelers collect their luggage. The physical act of selecting the No Items to Declare queue or the Items to Declare queue in and of itself constitutes an initial demonstrative declaration. CBP officers conduct roving enforcement operations within the baggage collection and egress areas to ensure traveler compliance. This test solely alters the method of declaration by allowing an initial demonstrative declaration and does not modify travelers' existing obligation to accurately declare items in accordance with CBP regulations. See 19 CFR 148.18, 148.19.

Travelers who determine they have nothing to declare enter the No Items to Declare queue and proceed through the egress area to the facility exit. CBP officers conduct roving operations in the No Items to Declare zone to affirm traveler compliance, receive oral declarations, and make referrals to secondary inspection as necessary. Travelers who are not questioned by CBP officers conducting roving operations may proceed to the exit.

Travelers with items to declare enter the Items to Declare queue and present themselves to a CBP officer to make an oral declaration. The CBP officer makes a determination if duty is owed by the traveler or if additional inspection is warranted. The CBP officer then directs the traveler accordingly.

If a traveler is referred to secondary inspection at any point, CBP officers will follow standard procedures, including collecting an oral and/or written declaration during the referral and inspection. CBP officers will also follow current agency policy on declaration amendment opportunities. See 19 CFR 148.16.

The Declaration Zone test is limited to closed loop cruises participating in the voluntary FBD program and to open loop cruises participating in Simplified Arrival. Additionally, the test is only available at cruise terminal facilities identified by CBP as having sufficient space and infrastructure to accommodate queuing for processing through a Declaration Zone. CBP Headquarters will communicate with each Field Office and port of entry with cruise terminal facilities meeting these criteria and advise of the option to have a Declaration Zone test at their respective terminal(s). Participating sea ports of entry are listed online at https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometrics/locations/seaports. Currently, the Declaration Zone test is conducted at cruise terminals at the Miami Sea Port, Port Everglades, Port Canaveral, Galveston, Norfolk, and Bayonne  8 sea ports of entry. In the extended testing period announced by this notice, CBP plans to expand the test to include cruise terminals at up to 14 additional sea ports of entry, which would mean a total of 20 possible participants, consistent with the 20 permitted under the 2023 extension and expansion.

CBP is authorized to impose requirements different from those specified in CBP regulations for purposes of conducting a test program or procedure designed to evaluate the effectiveness of new technology or operational procedures regarding the processing of passengers, vessels, or merchandise. See 19 CFR 101.9(a). Test programs must be limited in scope, time, and application. Waiver or modification of requirements under existing regulations is permitted so long as the waiver or modification does not affect the collection of the revenue, public health, safety, or law enforcement.

This test is authorized under 19 CFR 101.9(a) because it evaluates the effectiveness of a demonstrative initial declaration as an alternative to existing declaration requirements. This test is limited in scope, time, and application because this notice authorizes the alternative procedure for a period of three years and will only be applicable to select cruise terminals at certain sea ports of entry. CBP does not anticipate that this test will affect the collection of the revenue, public health, safety, or law enforcement.

CBP regulations require each traveler to provide an oral or written declaration of all articles brought into the United States to a CBP officer. See 19 CFR 148.12 and 148.13. The test described in the 2021 and 2023 notices and extended by this notice provides travelers at participating cruise terminals with a modified method of satisfying the oral or written declaration requirements by allowing a demonstrative initial declaration, as described in Section II.B.

If a traveler enters the No Items to Declare queue and is not questioned by CBP officers conducting roving operations prior to exiting the egress area of the facility, the requirement to provide an oral or written declaration under 19 CFR 148.12 or 148.13 will be deemed satisfied for the purposes of this test. For all other travelers, the initial demonstrative declaration supplements the requirement to provide an oral and/or written declaration under 19 CFR 148.12 and 148.13.

Regardless of which declaration zone queue a traveler selects, all other requirements of 19 CFR part 148, subpart B, regarding declarations, including those provided by 19 CFR 148.18, regarding failure to declare, and 19 CFR 148.19, regarding false or fraudulent statements, still apply.

CBP will use the results of this renewed test to assess the operational feasibility of allowing an initial demonstrative declaration to be an acceptable declaration method. CBP will evaluate this test based on a number of criteria, including:

• Evaluation of cruise line customer satisfaction surveys gathering feedback on the debarkation process; and

• Comparison of year-over-year enforcement statistics for each test period to ensure no impact to duty collection or to the frequency of enforcement activities.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires that CBP consider the effect of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public, and under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 3507(c) and (d), obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. There is no new collection of information required in this document; thus, the provisions of the PRA are inapplicable to this test.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to 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. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Holders or Containers Which Enter the United States Duty Free.

OMB Number: 1651-0035.

Form Number: N/A.

Current Actions: Extension without change.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Abstract: Subheading 9803.00.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), codified as 19 U.S.C. 1202, provide for the release without entry or the payment of duty of certain substantial holders or containers pursuant to the provisions of 19 CFR 10.41b.

19 CFR 10.41b eliminates the need for an importer to file entry documents by instead requiring, among other things, the marking of the containers or holders to indicate the HTSUS numbers that provide for duty-free treatment of the containers or holders.

For U.S. manufactured serially numbered holders or containers which may be released without entry or the payment of duty under 9801.00.10 HTSUS, 19 CFR 10.41b(c) requires the owner to place the following markings on the holder or container: 9801.00.10, HTSUS (unless the holder or container has a permanently attached metal tag or plate showing, among other things, the name and address of the U.S. manufacturer); the name of the owner; and the serial number assigned by the owner. For serially numbered holders or containers of foreign manufacture for which may be released without entry or payment of duty under 9803.00.50 HTSUS, 19 CFR 10.41b(d) requires the owner to place markings containing the following information: 9803.00.50 HTSUS; the district and port code numbers of the port of entry; the entry number; the last two digits of the fiscal year of entry covering the importation of the holders and containers on which duty was paid; the name of the owner; and the serial number assigned by the owner.

This collection of information applies to the importing and trade community which is familiar with import procedures and with the CBP regulations.

Type of Information Collection: Holders/Containers Entering U.S. Duty-Free.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 18.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 360.

Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 90.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to 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. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Delivery Ticket.

OMB Number: 1651-0081.

Form Number: 6043.

Current Actions: Extension without change.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Abstract: CBP Form 6043, Delivery Ticket, is used to document transfers of imported merchandise between parties. This form collects information such as the name and address of the consignee; the name of the importing carrier; lien information; the location of where the goods originated and where they were delivered; and information about the imported merchandise. CBP Form 6043 is completed by warehouse proprietors, carriers, Foreign Trade Zone operators and other trade entities involved in transfers of imported merchandise. This form is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1551a and 1565, and provided for by 19 CFR 4.34, 4.37 and 19.9. It is accessible at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/publications/forms .

The respondents to this information collection are members of the trade community who are familiar with CBP regulations.

Type of Information Collection: Delivery Ticket (Form 6043).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,156.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 200.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 231,200.

Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 57,800.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to 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. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary Importation.

OMB Number: 1651-0015.

Form Number: 3173.

Current Actions: Extension.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Abstract: Imported merchandise which is to remain in the customs territory for a period of one year or less without the payment of duties with the intent to destroy or export is entered as a temporary importation of goods under bond (TIB), as authorized under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202). Consistent with 19 CFR 10.37, when this time period is not sufficient, importers and brokers may request an extension by submitting a CBP Form 3173, “Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary Importation”, either electronically or manually, to the Center Director. The period of time may be extended for not more than two further periods of 1 year each, or such shorter periods as may be appropriate. An Extension may be granted by CBP, upon written or electronic submission of a CBP Form 3173, provided that the articles have not been exported or destroyed before receipt of the application, and liquidated damages have not been assessed under the bond before receipt of the application. CBP Form 3173 is provided for in 19 CFR 10.37 and is accessible at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/publications/forms?title=3173.

Under the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) concerning document imaging, certain Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) participants are able to submit electronic images of a specific set of CBP and Participating Government Agency (PGA) forms and supporting information to CBP through the Document Image System (DIS). Specifically, importers and brokers, are allowed to submit official CBP documents and specified PGA forms via the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).

Although the first phase of the DIS test was limited to certain CBP and PGA forms, subsequent deployment phases of DIS will incorporate additional forms and these other forms may be referenced in the DIS implementation guidelines.

This information collection is necessary to ensure compliance with 19 CFR 10.37 and the DIS guidance.

Type of Information Collection: Form 3173.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,822.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 14.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 25,508.

Estimated Time per Response: 13 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,535.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to 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. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Screening Requirements for Carriers.

OMB Number: 1651-0122.

Form Number: N/A.

Current Actions: Extension without change.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Carriers.

Abstract: Section 273(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1323(e) the Act) authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish procedures which carriers must undertake for the proper screening of their alien passengers prior to embarkation at the port from which they are to depart for the United States, in order to become eligible for an automatic reduction, refund, or waiver of a fine imposed under section 273(a)(1) and 273(b)(1) of the Act. To be eligible to obtain such an automatic reduction, refund, or waiver of a fine, the carrier must provide evidence to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it screened all passengers on the conveyance in accordance with the procedures listed in 8 CFR 273.

Some examples of the evidence the carrier may provide to CBP include: a description of the carrier's document screening training program; the number of employees trained; information regarding the date and number of improperly documented aliens intercepted by the carrier at the port(s) of embarkation; and any other evidence to demonstrate the carrier's efforts to properly screen passengers destined for the United States.

Type of Information Collection: Screening Requirements for Carriers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 41.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 41.

Estimated Time per Response: 100 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,100.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to 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. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Administrative Rulings.

OMB Number: 1651-0085.

Form Number: N/A.

Current Actions: Extension with change.

Type of Review: Extension (with change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Abstract: The collection of information in 19 CFR part 177 is necessary in order to enable Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to respond to requests by importers and other interested persons for the issuance of administrative rulings. These rulings pertain to the interpretation of applicable laws related to prospective and current or completed transactions involving, but not limited to classification, country of origin, marking, valuation, preferential tariff treatment, entry and duty assessment procedures, duty deferral programs, vessels and carriers, restricted and prohibited merchandise, and intellectual property. The collection of information in Part 177 of the CBP Regulations is also necessary to enable CBP to make proper decisions regarding the issuance of binding rulings that modify or revoke prior CBP binding rulings. This collection of information is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 301, 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202, (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1502, 1624, 1625. The application to obtain an administrative ruling is accessible at: https://erulings.cbp.gov/s/ or the public can submit a ruling request by mail (or email).

This collection of information applies to the importing and trade community who are familiar with import procedures and with the CBP regulations.

Type of Information Collection: Administrative Rulings (HQ).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 262.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 262.

Estimated Time per Response: 20.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,240.

Type of Information Collection: Administrative Rulings (NCSD/NIS).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,628.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 3,628.

Estimated Time per Response: 20 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 72,560.

Type of Information Collection: Appeals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 100.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,000.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) collects information, when necessary, when inviting firms to submit bids, proposals, and offers for public contracts for supplies and service. Using solicitation methods such as Requests for Proposals (RFP), Requests for Information (RFI), and Broad Agency Announcements (BAA), the Government requests information from prospective offerors such as pricing information, delivery schedule compliance, and evidence that the offeror has the resources (both human and financial) to accomplish requirements. The information collection is necessary for compliance with the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR), 48 CFR Chapter 30, and the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, 15 U.S.C. 628.

The prior information collection request for OMB No. 1600-0005 was approved through November 30, 2021, and includes the following:

• 3052.209-70 Prohibition on Contracts with Corporate Expatriates (Required in all solicitations and contracts) The offeror must disclose whether it is a foreign incorporated entity that should be treated as an inverted domestic corporation.

• 3052.209-71 Reserve Officer Training Corps and Military Recruiting on Campus (Required in all solicitations and contracts with institutions of higher education) Requires that the Contractor represent that it does not now have, and agrees that during performance of the contract that it will not adopt, any policy or practice described in paragraph (b) of the clause.

• 3052.209-72 Organizational Conflict of Interest, paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), (Required in all solicitations and contracts where a potential organizational conflict of interest exists and mitigation may be possible) The offeror must disclose whether it is aware of any facts which create any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest; and, provide information as required by the Government and a mitigation plan relating to the conflict, if applicable.

• 3052.209-74 Limitations on Contractors Acting as Lead System Integrators (Required in solicitations for the acquisition of a major system when the acquisition strategy envisions the use of a lead system integrator) The offeror must disclose whether it proposes to perform this contract as a lead system integrator with system responsibility, and whether it has a direct financial interest in the system that is the subject of the solicitation; and, provide evidence, as needed.

• 3052.209-76 Prohibition on Federal Protective Service (FPS) Guard Services Contracts with Business Concerns Owned, Controlled, or Operated by an Individual Convicted of a Felony, paragraphs (a) through (g), (Required in in all solicitations and contracts for FPS guard services) The offeror must disclose whether it is owned, operated or controlled by an individual convicted of any felony. A business concern owned, operated or controlled by an individual convicted of any felony may submit an award request to the Government. The request must include information that is considered personally identifiable information, and any additional information the Government deems necessary.

• 3052.215-70 Key Personnel and Facilities (Required in solicitations and contracts when the selection for award is substantially based on the offeror's possession of special capabilities regarding personnel or facilities) Before removing or replacing any of the specified individuals or facilities, the offeror must notify the Government, in writing, before the change becomes effective.

• 3052.219-72 Evaluation of Prime Contractor Participation in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program (Required in all solicitations containing (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.219-71, DHS Mentor-Protégé Program and (FAR) 48 CFR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan) The offeror must provide a signed letter of mentor-protégé agreement, if it wishes to receive credit under the source selection factor.

• 3052.247-70 F.o.b. Origin Information (Required in solicitations as appropriate) The offeror must provide information related to the offeror's shipping point.

The DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate issues BAAs soliciting when white papers and proposals from the public. DHS S&T evaluates white papers and proposals received in response to a DHS S&T BAA using the evaluation criteria specified in the BAA through a peer or scientific review process in accordance with FAR 35.016(d). Unclassified white papers and proposals are typically collected via the DHS S&T BAA secure website, while classified white papers and proposals must be submitted via proper classified courier or proper classified mailing procedures as described in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NSPOM).

Federal agencies with an annual extramural research and development (R&D) budget exceeding $100 million are required to participate in the SBIR Program. Similarly, Federal agencies with an extramural R&D budget exceeding $1 billion are required to participate in the STTR Program. Federal agencies who participate in the SBIR and STTR programs must collect information from the public to meet:

(1) Applicable reporting requirements under 15 U.S.C. 638(b)(7), (g)(8), (i), (j)(1)(E), (j)(3)(C), (l), (o)(10), and (v);

(2) The requirement to maintain both a publicly accessible database of SBIR/STTR award information and a government database of SBIR/STTR award information for SBIR and STTR program evaluation under 15 U.S.C. 638g(10, (k), (o) (9), and (o)(15); and

(3) Requirements for public outreach under 15 U.S.C. 638(j)(2)(F), (o)(14), and (s).

DHS is seeking to renew this collection, and revise it to add, for purposes of entering into other transaction agreements pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 391, 6 U.S.C. 596(1), and 49 U.S.C. 106(l)(6), Form 700-24, Other Transaction Agreement Solicitation, and Form 700-25, Other Transaction Agreement Solicitation Amendment. On the forms, respondents submit an Employer Identification Number, as well as the business' name, address and title. Respondents must also identify the authorized business representative's personal name and must include a signature.

The information being collected is used by the Government's contracting officers and other acquisition personnel, including technical and legal staff to determine the adequacy of technical and management approach, experience, responsibility, responsiveness, and expertise of the firms submitting offers; the identification of members of the public ( i.e., small businesses) who qualify for and are interested in participating in the DHS SBIR Program; and, provide the DHS SBIR Program Office necessary and sufficient information to determine whether proposals submitted by the public to the DHS SBIR Program meet the criteria for consideration under the program.

Failure to collect this information would adversely affect the quality of products and services DHS receives from contractors. Potentially, contracts would be awarded to firms without sufficient experience and expertise, thereby placing the Department's operations in jeopardy. Defective and inadequate contractor deliverables would adversely affect DHS's fulfillment of the mission requirements in all areas. Additionally, the Department would be unsuccessful in identifying small businesses with research and development (R&D) capabilities, which would adversely affect the mission requirements in this area.

Many sources of the requested information use automated word processing systems, databases, and web portals to facilitate preparation of material to be submitted and to post and collect information. It is commonplace within many of DHS's Components for submissions to be electronic as a result of implementation of e-Government initiatives.

Information technology ( i.e., electronic web portal) is used in the collection of information to reduce the data gathering and records management burden. DHS uses a secure website the public can use to propose SBIR research topics and submit proposals in response to SBIR solicitations. In addition, DHS uses a web portal to review RFIs and register to submit a white paper or proposal in response to a specific BAA. The data collection forms standardize the collection of information that is necessary and sufficient for the DHS SBIR Program Office to meet its requirements under 15 U.S.C. 638.

This information collection required by the HSAR and the SBIR and STTR programs may or may not involve small business contractors, depending on the particular transaction. The burden applied to small businesses has been reduced to the least burdensome commensurate with the DHS need for the information. In certain cases, information collection is done via a secure website which is intended to minimize burden for businesses (including small businesses) and other for-profit entities, and not-for-profit institutions. Small businesses and other small entities will be able to enter identifying information and subsequently update rather than resubmit the information via the internet.

Less frequent incidence of collecting such information as offerors' technical approach, management approach, experience statements, and resumes indicating level of expertise would negatively affect the quality of products and services DHS received from contractors. Potentially, contracts would be awarded to firms without sufficient experience and expertise, thereby placing the Department's operations in jeopardy.

Additionally, DHS collects information that is both necessary and sufficient to comply with 15 U.S.C. 638 and receive white papers and proposals from the public in response to BAAs. Failure to allow the public to submit information would diminish the ability of the DHS SBIR Program Office to meet its obligation for outreach as required by 15 U.S.C. 638, evaluate white papers and proposals in accordance with the criteria in the BAA and provide the respondents with the results of the evaluation.

DHS/ALL/PIA-006 General Contact Lists dated June 15, 2007 covers the basic contact information that must be collected for DHS. Other information collected will typically pertain to the contract itself, and not individuals. All information for this information collection is submitted voluntarily. However, sensitive information ( e.g., felony conviction information) may also be collected through this information collection. Due to this sensitivity, and the sensitivities regarding the procurement process as a whole, a new PIA is required to document and identify any potential risks associated with collecting this information.

There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents.

The burden estimates are based upon definitive proposals reported by DHS and its Components to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for FY 2019, and, for the forms, data reported by contracting activities related to single source DHS other transaction awards and modifications issued in FY 2019. No program changes occurred and there have been no changes to the information being collected. However, the burden was adjusted to reflect an agency adjustment increase of 13,206 in the number of respondents within DHS for FY 2019, to include the number of respondents added as a result of the new forms, as well as an increase in the average hourly wage rate.

The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:

5. 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;

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

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

8. 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.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Title: Solicitation of Proposal Information for Award of Public Contracts.

OMB Number: 1600-0005.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Private Sector.

Number of Respondents: 130,418.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1.8.

Total Burden Hours: 1,358,512.

We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from the City of Davenport (applicant) for an ITP under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed threatened sand skink ( Neopseps (=Plestiodon) reynoldsi ) and blue-tailed mole skink ( Eumeces egregius lividus ) (skinks), incidental to the expansion of the city's utility infrastructure in Polk County, Florida. We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's HCP, and on the Service's preliminary determination that this proposed ITP may qualify for a categorical exclusion pursuant to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), the DOI's NEPA regulations (43 CFR part 46), and the DOI's Departmental Manual (516 DM 8.5(C)(2)). To make this preliminary determination, we prepared a draft screening form and NEPA statement for HCPs, both of which are available for public review.

The applicant requests a 10-year ITP to take skinks via the conversion of approximately 4.5 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering skink habitat incidental to the expansion of its utility infrastructure on a 6.26 ac parcel within Sections 4 and 5 of Township 27 South in Range 27 East, Polk County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of skinks through the purchase of 9 ac of conservation credits (in accordance with the Service's 2:1 mitigation ratio guidelines) from a Service-authorized conservation bank prior to engaging in any phase of the project. The Service would require the applicant to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any phase of the project.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that reasonably foreseeable effects of the applicant's proposed project, including the expansion of its existing utilities and associated infrastructure ( e.g., electric, water, and sewer lines), would have a minor effect on the skinks and the human environment. Therefore, no extraordinary circumstances in 43 CFR 46.215 apply. Reasonably foreseeable effects encompass effects of implementation of the action including effects of the action in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future effects. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would be a low-effect ITP that may qualify for application of a categorical exclusion (516 DM 8.5(C)(2)), pursuant to NEPA, the DOI's NEPA regulations, and the DOI DM. A low-effect ITP is one that would result in (1) nonsignificant or minor individual or cumulative effects on species covered in the HCP; (2) no significant effects on the human environment; and (3) reasonably foreseeable effects that would not result in significant effects to the human environment.

The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested ITP. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER17860289 to the City of Davenport.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. If you submit a comment at https://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the website. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, such as your address, phone number, or email address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Moreover, all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32), NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and the DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 46).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public, and other Federal agencies, with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract: The Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (the Act), which is codified at 25 U.S.C. chapter 42, allows Indian Tribes on a voluntary basis to take their funds out of trust status within the Department of the Interior (and the Federal Government) in order to manage such funds on their own. The Act's implementing regulations describe the requirements for application for withdrawal. See 25 CFR 1200.13 “How does a Tribe apply to withdraw funds?”

The Act generally covers all tribal trust funds including judgment funds as well as some settlements funds, but excludes funds held in individual Indian money accounts and other trust funds. Both the Act and the regulations state that upon withdrawal of the funds, the Department of the Interior (and the Federal Government) have no further liability for such funds. Accompanying their application for withdrawal of trust funds, Tribes are required to submit a management plan for managing the funds being withdrawn to protect the funds once they are out of trust status. This information collection allows the BTFA to collect a Tribe's applications for withdrawal of funds held in trust by the Department of the Interior.

Title of Collection: Application to Withdraw Tribal Funds from Trust Status, 25 CFR part 1200.

Control Number: 1035-0003.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Tribal governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: One respondent, on average, every 3 years.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 750 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 750.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: One per Tribe per trust fund withdrawal application.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public, and other Federal agencies, with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract: The BIA owns, operates, and maintains three electric power utilities that provide a service to the end user, pursuant to 25 CFR part 175 (“Electric Power Utilities”). The BIA must collect customer information to identify the individual responsible for repaying the government its costs for delivering the service and bill for those costs. The BIA must also collect information to identify the location of the service delivery ( i.e., electrical hook-up). In addition, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), 31 U.S.C. 3701-3733, requires that certain information be collected from individuals and businesses doing business with the government. This information includes the taxpayer identification number for possible future use to recover delinquent debt.

Title of Collection: Electric Power Service Application.

OMB Control Number: 1076-0021.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individual Indians and Indian Tribes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 1,315.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,315.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 30 minutes to 1 hour.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 665.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: $0.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501).

Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), the Secretary of the Interior shall certify and publish in the Federal Register notice of adopted liquor control ordinances for the purpose of regulating liquor transactions in Indian country. On April 30, 2025, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council adopted the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Liquor Control Ordinance by 2025-RES-034, which regulates and controls the sale, purchase, transportation, manufacture, consumption, and possession of alcoholic beverages on the trust lands of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.

This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe duly adopted the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Liquor Control Ordinance by 2025-RES-034 dated April 30, 2025.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Liquor Control Ordinance shall read as follows:

Wampanoag Tribal Council does ordain as follows:

(a) The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe with a duly-enacted Constitution, pursuant to which the governing body of the Tribe is its Tribal Council.

(b) Article VI, § 2.A. of the Constitution, provides that the Tribal Council is empowered to promote and protect the health, peace, morals, education, political integrity, economic security and general welfare of the Tribe and its members.

(c) Article VI, § 2.B of the Constitution provides that the Tribal Council is empowered to establish a departmental structure for the Tribal government with a delegation of appropriate powers to such subdivisions and agencies.

(d) Article VI, § 2.C of the Constitution expressly authorizes the Tribal Council to establish procedures and ordinances for the conduct of all Tribal government business.

(e) Article VI, § 2.L. of the Constitution provides that the Tribal Council is empowered to establish and enforce all ordinances governing Tribal members.

(f) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1154, Federal law prohibits the introduction of liquor into Indian Country and authorizes tribes to decide when and to what extent liquor transactions, sales, possession and service shall be permitted on their Tribal Lands.

(g) The Tribal Council deems it necessary to regulate and control the purchase, sale, manufacture, possession, consumption and distribution of liquor on Tribal Lands for the safety of the Tribe, its Tribal members, Tribal employees, and members of the public present on Tribal lands.

(a) This Liquor Control Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority contained in Article VI, §§ 2.A, 2.B, 2.C and 2.L.

(b) The purpose of the Ordinance is to adopt, as laws of the Tribe, this Liquor Control Ordinance and establish the laws applicable to the purchase, sale, manufacture, possession, consumption and distribution of liquor on Tribal Lands.

(c) The Tribe has established business enterprises and welcomes patrons to visit these Tribal businesses, venues and events wherein the Tribe may permit the sale of liquor by the Tribe, its instrumentalities, entities and authorities as well as licensed persons and entities. The imposition of this Ordinance will provide a source of revenue for the Tribe to pay for critical services to support our Tribal community, Tribal programs and continued economic development on Tribal Lands.

Unless otherwise required by the context, the term “liquor” as used throughout the Ordinance shall mean “alcohol”, “alcoholic beverages”, “liqueur or cordial”, “malt beverages” and “wine” as those terms are defined by the Massachusetts State Liquor Control Act, M.G.L. Chapter 138 Section 1 as amended and incorporated by reference herein.

For purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) “Cultural Sites” means a site of cultural, spiritual and historical significance to the Tribe. These sites include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Museum, 414 Main Street, Mashpee;

b. Mashpee Old Indian Meetinghouse and surrounding cemetery grounds, 410 and 414 Meetinghouse Road, Mashpee;

c. 55 Acre Ceremonial Area, 483 Great Neck Road South, Mashpee (Rear of property).

(b) “Liquor License” means the license issued to a person or entity by the Mashpee Wampanoag Liquor Control Department authorizing the sale, distribution, storage, transportation and possession of Liquor on Tribal Lands consistent with applicable law.

(c) “Tribal Council” means the Tribal Council of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.

(d) “Tribal Lands” means any lands legally held by the United States of America in trust for the benefit of the Tribe and other lands over which the Tribe may exercise jurisdiction.

(e) “Tribe” means the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, a federally recognized Indian Tribe.

To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Tribe asserts jurisdiction to determine whether liquor sales and service are permitted on Tribal Lands. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended nor shall be construed to limit the jurisdiction of the Tribe over Tribal Lands.

Any person or entity intending to possess, sell and/or distribute, transport or store Liquor on Tribal Lands must provide proof of a valid Liquor License prior to taking any such action on Tribal Lands in accordance with this Ordinance. For possession of Liquor only, Tribal Council may waive the Liquor License requirement for events, venues or other circumstances.

Liquor may be offered for sale and may be served on Tribal Lands only in those areas of Tribal Lands that have been approved by the Tribal Council and in conformity with the requirements of this Ordinance as well as applicable Tribal Law, Federal Law and the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Possession of Liquor may be permitted on Tribal Lands only in those areas of Tribal Lands that have been approved by the Tribal Council and in conformity with the requirements of this Ordinance as well as applicable Tribal Law, Federal Law and the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

It shall be a violation of Tribal Law for any person or entity to manufacture, sell, transport, import, deliver, furnish, purchase, consume or possess any liquor except as authorized by this Ordinance. Federal liquor laws applicable to Indian Country shall remain applicable to any person, act, or transaction which is not authorized by this Ordinance and violators of this Ordinance shall be subject to federal prosecution as well as to legal action in accordance with Tribal Law.

Furthermore, the following is strictly prohibited and a violation of Tribal Law:

(a) Possession of Liquor at Cultural Sites;

(b) Possession of open containers of Liquor, or unopened containers of Liquor in bottles, cans, or otherwise outside of those areas of Tribal Lands approved by the Tribal Council.

(a) Establishment. The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council hereby establishes the Mashpee Wampanoag Liquor Control Department. During any period in which the Liquor Control Department is not occupied, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Gaming Commission shall serve as the Liquor Control Department.

(b) Department Responsibilities.

(1) The primary responsibility of the Department shall be to enforce the Tribe's Liquor Control Code on Tribal Lands.

(2) The Department shall have the authority to authorize the sale of liquor only on those areas of Tribal Lands that have been approved by the Tribal Council.

(3) The Department shall perform such other duties as may be delegated to the Department by Tribal Council.

(4) The Department shall have the authority to issue Liquor Licenses to persons and entities permitting the sale, distribution, storage, transportation and possession of liquor on Tribal Lands.

(5) The Department shall have the duty to make such reports to Tribal Council as required; to compile information and conduct background investigations to determine the suitability of an applicant for a Liquor License; to collect fees set in accordance with this Ordinance, to keep accurate records, books and accounts; and to develop application forms, licenses and other relevant documents required to enforce this Ordinance.

(6) The Department shall have the authority and duty to take or facilitate actions necessary to implement applicable provisions of State law, as required; to coordinate with other departments and agencies of the Tribe to ensure the effective enforcement of this Ordinance and applicable regulations.

(7) It shall be the duty of the Department to see that all ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the Tribal Council pertaining to the Department are properly complied with.

Any person who violates this Ordinance shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $250 for each violation involving possession, but up to $5,000 for each violation. Neither the Tribe nor any of its instrumentalities, entities and authorities will be required to pay any such fine. In addition, persons or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the Tribe who violate this Ordinance may be subject to criminal penalties as provided in applicable Tribal criminal law. All contraband liquor shall be immediately confiscated by the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Police. The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce this Ordinance, civil fines, and criminal punishment, if applicable.

The Tribal Council may set a fee schedule that may be amended from time to time and applied to all liquor license applications. Neither the Tribe nor any of its instrumentalities, entities and authorities will be required to pay such a fee. The Tribal Council may waive imposition of the License fee should good cause be shown by the person or entity.

Nothing contained in this Ordinance is intended to, nor does it in any way, limit or restrict the Tribe's ability to impose tax upon the sale or consumption of liquor. The Tribe retains the right to impose such taxes to the fullest extent permitted by Federal law.

This Ordinance shall apply to all Tribal Lands of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.

Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to waive, alter, or amend the Tribe's sovereign immunity or the sovereign immunity of any of the Tribe's departments, committees, commissions, enterprises, agencies, instrumentalities, authorities, officers, agents, or employees.

Authorized liquor sales and service on Tribal Lands shall comply with the Massachusetts State Liquor Control Act standards to the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1161.

Subject to the contractual right of any party to an existing contract binding on a Tribal Party and any limitations arising from the Constitution, all ordinances, laws (other than the Constitution), judgments, decisions, orders, resolutions, rules, regulations or other actions, or any part or provision thereof, of any Tribal Party, or any of the officers, employees, or agents of the foregoing, whether written, unwritten or established by tradition, that are in effect as of the date hereof and that are in conflict or inconsistent with the terms of this Ordinance are hereby repealed and annulled to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency, and this ordinance shall supersede the same.

If any section, subsection, sentence, or other portion if this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed to be a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Tribal Council. Thereafter it shall be enforced in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the Tribe.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public, and other Federal agencies, with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract: The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA or Act), 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., imposes certain requirements for child custody proceedings that occur in State court when a child is an “Indian child.” The regulations, primarily located in 25 CFR part 23 subpart I, provide procedural guidance for implementing ICWA, which necessarily involves information collections to determine whether the child is Indian, to provide notice to the Tribe and parents or Indian custodians, and to maintain records. The information collections are conducted during a civil action ( i.e., a child custody proceeding). These civil actions occur in State court, and the United States is not a party to the civil action. However, the State civil action is subject to the Federal statutory requirements of ICWA, which the Secretary of the Interior oversees. The Secretary also has general authority to manage Indian affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9.

Title of Collection: Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Proceedings in State.

OMB Control Number: 1076-0186.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals/households and State/Tribal governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 7,556.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 98,069.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 15 minutes to 12 hours, depending on the activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 301,811.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $286,362.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501).

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., (IGRA) provides the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) with 45 days to review and approve or disapprove the Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of class III gaming activity on the Tribe's Indian lands. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8). If the Secretary does not approve or disapprove a Tribal-State compact within the 45 days, IGRA provides the Tribal-State compact is considered to have been approved by the Secretary, but only to the extent the compact is consistent with IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(D). The IGRA also requires the Secretary to publish in the Federal Register notice of the approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in class III gaming activities on Indian lands. See 25 U.S.C. (d)(8)(D). As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval by the Secretary. The Amendment permits electronic table gaming. The Amendment is approved.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Denver Art Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A total of six cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The six sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony are one bundle containing rattles, scalps, a headdress, sweet grass braids, and a robe (1938.223.1-7); one elk bag containing a package of dried tongues and pemmican (1938.136.1-3); one elk bag containing rattles and a necklace (1938.218.1-4); two hairlock necklaces (1938.146 and 1938.174); and one robe (1946.65).

The Denver Art Museum is responding to a 1994 repatriation request from the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana for a sacred bundle (object number 1938.223.1-7) associated with the Blood Tribe (Kainaiwa) of Alberta, Canada, and specifically linked to the individuals Come Singing and Shore Chief. While the initial claim was deferred pending further documentation, the Blackfeet Nation submitted a follow-up request in 1995, endorsed by Chief Roy Fox of the Kainaiwa, seeking a temporary loan of the bundle for use in the Okan Ceremony. In addition to the original bundle, the Blackfeet Nation requested five other sacred objects to complete the ceremonial use of the bundle (Objects 1938.136.1-3, 1938.218.1-4, 1938.146, 1938.174, and 1946.65). The Denver Art Museum approved the loan, with renewals from 1995 to 2000. As of this notice it is assumed, based on prior correspondence, that the items remain in the community in either Montana or Alberta. Although the five additional objects were not included in the original claim, their inclusion in the ceremonial loan request and continued use affirms their sacred status and ongoing cultural, historical, and traditional significance. As such, all six objects are now included in this Notice of Intent to Repatriate.

The six items were originally acquired by the museum from private collector Madge Hardin Walters of San Diego, California. Walters spent time with members of the Blackfeet and Blood Tribes in Montana and Alberta during the 1920s and early 1930s and acquired the objects either directly from tribal members or through intermediaries. However, the museum's records do not confirm whether these objects were transferred voluntarily or under duress, nor whether the original parties had the authority to convey them. Consequently, the Denver Art Museum does not assert a right of possession.

The Denver Art Museum has determined that:

• The six sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice are, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision).

• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Denver Art Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Denver Art Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Human remains representing, at least, four individuals have been identified (Accession 308). The 10 associated funerary objects are three projectile points, one chert flake, one unmodified rock, one pismo clam fragment, one lot of shellfish remains, two oversized groundstone objects, and one lot processed materials. Accession 308 was removed from CA-SLO-801 in San Luis Obispo County, CA in 1984. The excavations were led by Westec as part of the mitigation for development at Sunset Palisades near Shell Beach, CA. The collection of cultural materials and ancestors were received at UCSB in May 1985. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified (Accession 576.DIA). The six associated funerary objects are stone objects. The individuals are believed to have been removed from Diablo Canyon (CA-SLO-2) in San Luis Obispo, CA. The ancestral remains were taken home by R.O. Browne, who served as crew foreman for excavations led by Roberta Greenwood in 1968. Following Mr. Browne's passing, the ancestor was donated to UC Santa Barbara in 1995 on his behalf. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been identified (Accession 576.DS). The 238 associated funerary objects include stone objects, animal bones, shellfish remains, and one lot processed material. The individuals are were removed from one of several sites along the coastline near Diablo Canyon (CA-SLO-2, CA-SLO-51/H, and/or CA-SLO-585) in San Luis Obispo, CA. The ancestral remains were taken home by R.O. Browne, who served as crew foreman for excavations led by Roberta Greenwood in 1968. Following Mr. Browne's passing, the ancestors were donated to UC Santa Barbara in 1995 on his behalf. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 254 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified (Accession 576.SEQ). The three associated funerary objects are two groundstone fragments and one animal bone. Accession 576.SEQ is a collection of ancestral human remains likely removed from a location near Arroyo Sequit in Los Angeles County, California. The Arroyo Sequit site (CA-LAN-52) is a well-known historic Chumash village ( Lisiqshi ) that has been periodically excavated for at least 90 years. The identity of the original collector and the date of removal are unknown. The remains were previously held by R.O. Browne, an individual known to have collected and removed cultural materials from sites across California and beyond. The materials were reportedly stored in a private storage unit on his property until his death. In 1995, portions of his collection, including these remains, were donated posthumously to UC Santa Barbara. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• The three objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Denver Art Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A total of four cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The four objects of cultural patrimony are two medicine bundles with multiple objects inside, and two Tomahawk Lodge sticks. The first medicine bundle was ostensibly in the collection of Charlie Lefthand, and was then purchased by Erich Kohlberg, a dealer of Native American art and other objects, of Denver, Colorado at an unknown date. It is unconfirmed if Lefthand was from the Northern or Southern Arapaho, however, the Southern Arapaho were consulted on this object and offered their support of the Northern Arapaho claim. The Denver Art Museum then purchased the bundle from Kohlberg's Antiques in Denver in 1939. The parfleche bundle contains six smaller objects—five small hide bags with unknown contents and one animal tail. The second medicine bundle was purchased by MJ Kohlberg from Arapaho Chief Sharp Nose at an unknown date. The Denver Art Museum then purchased the object from Kohlberg's Antiques in Denver in 1941. The rawhide pouch contains 14 smaller objects such as a braid of sweet grass, a dried bulb, multiple hide medicine bags with unknown contents, and a bundle of five leather ties. The Denver Art Museum's analysis of the records of transactions, paired with traditional knowledge shared by the Tribe, showed that the knowledge and use of these medicines could not be freely obtained or created, but instead were passed down through specific individuals within the community, therefore each of the above bundles should not have been sold or alienated as they are communally owned cultural items.

The two Tomahawk Lodge sticks, both made of wood and decorated with quill and feathers, were obtained by Charles Burkhart from the Convent of the Sisters of the Holy Child in Cheyenne, Wyoming. This convent was established in 1884 and the sticks were apparently acquired by the convent in that year and remained in the convent's collection until 1933, when they were put on the market. Charles Burkhart “Eagle Plume” was a trading post salesman who worked at, and later owned, the Perkins Trading Post in Allenspark, Colorado. Burkhart bought the sticks in 1933 on behalf of Perkins Trading Post, from whom the Denver Art Museum purchased the sticks in 1941. Society organizations hold communal title to these items, therefore they were considered inalienable at the time the objects were separated from the group.

The Denver Art Museum has determined that:

• The four objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Denver Art Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Denver Art Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Washtenaw County Medical Examiner's Office, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The one associated funerary object is one lot of copper beads. The Ancestral remains and associated funerary object were reportedly excavated from a family farm in Saline, Michigan in the 1950's and were later discovered as part of an estate settlement. The Ancestor and associated funerary objects were transferred to the Washtenaw County Forensic and Autopsy Services in November of 2024, and given the M.E. Case Number: 81-24-0975. A forensic anthropology analysis was completed on November 12, 2024. The Ancestral remains are of an adult 25-35 years female. Dating for the site is unknown.

The Washtenaw County Medical Examiner's Office has no record of, nor do its officials have any knowledge of, any treatment of items with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that represent a potential hazard to the collection(s) or to persons handling the collection(s).

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The Washtenaw County Medical Examiner's Office has determined that:

• The Ancestral remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The one object described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual Ancestral remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Wyandotte Nation.

Written requests for repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Washtenaw County Medical Examiner's Office must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Washtenaw County Medical Examiner's Office is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation (Accession 250.100). The one unassociated funerary object is a modified stone object made of serpentine. In 1961, Heath Taylor of Los Angeles Community College removed the object from a child's burial somewhere near present-day Paradise Cove, near Malibu in Los Angeles County, CA. The object was later given to David Jennings, a Professor at Los Angeles Community College. In 1981, Professor Jennings donated the item to UCSB. It is unknown whether the item was treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections has determined that:

• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary object has been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Merced College and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

On an unknown date, human remains were removed from the foothills above Le Grand, most likely along White Rock Road between Le Grand and the White Rock Mine, which spans Mariposa and Merced Counties. In 2001, the human remains representing at least one individual were donated to Merced College by a private individual on behalf of Howard Egling, the son of the man who collected them. No associated funerary objects are present.

In or before September 1976, human remains, representing at least two individuals, were uncovered during agricultural operations at an unknown location labeled as the “Nelson site,” presumed to be on or near the Nelson Ranch. The Nelson Ranch straddles Mariposa and Merced Counties. No associated funerary objects are present.

Beginning in or before 1982 through at least 1987, Merced College, at the behest of the landowner, carried out surveys and excavations at CA-MER-214 along Bear Creek in Merced County. This site includes house pits, midden deposits, and hundreds of bedrock mortars. During these excavations, human remains representing at least eight individuals (including at least three adults and at least three juveniles) were removed and housed at Merced College. Of the 45 associated funerary objects listed in the records, 39 are present and accounted for in Merced College's collections, and six are currently missing or unidentifiable. The 39 present associated funerary objects are: one lot of shell beads; one lot of steatite beads; one lot of polished bone awl fragments; one lot of chert and obsidian bifacial tool fragments; one incised bone fragment; one polished bone fragment; one lot of charcoal; one possible charmstone; one lot of stone cobbles; one lot of chert, quartz, and other stone cores; one lot of quartz and other stone crystal; one lot of clay daub; one lot of modified clay daub; two bags of soil matrix flotation samples; one lot of faunal remains of bone and shell; one lot of fire-cracked rock; one lot of basalt, obsidian, quartz, and other unworked stone flakes; one lot of obsidian and quartz worked flake tools; one lot of historic glass bottle sherds; one lot of historic ceramic pottery sherds; one lot of historic square nails; one lot of other historic materials (including can lids, shell casings, metal fragments, and wire); one lot of basalt, chert, obsidian, quartz, and other stone debitage; one lot of basalt and other stone mano and metate fragments; one lot of unidentified minerals; one lot of mixed fine shell, bone, stone and other materials; one lot of oblong serpentine and other stone objects; one possible obsidian tool; one lot of red ochre fragments; one quartz and other stone pebbles; one lot of possible plant remains; one lot of possible petrified wood; one lot of chert and obsidian projectile points and point fragments; one lot of basalt, quartz, and other stone rocks; one lot of naturally-occurring shell fragments; one lot of polished stones; one lot of unknown material; and one lot of welded tuff stone. The six missing or unidentifiable associated funerary objects are: one possible stone abrading tool; one quartzite anvil; one lot of shell beads; one lot of polished bone awl fragments; one stone mano; and one lot of mano fragments.

Before or during 1970 to 1973, human remains, representing at least three individuals, were removed from a gravel pit along Bear Creek, thought to be somewhere near CA-MER-214. These include a cranium from the same or nearby location. All were brought to Merced College. No associated funerary objects are present.

In June of 1968, human remains and one associated funerary object were removed from two burials at the Cunningham Ranch site (CA-MER-92 in Merced County near the border of Mariposa County) by Charles Ostrander and Dorothy Cowper of Merced College, along with other materials from the broader site area. In the spring of 1987, additional human remains were acquired, excavated, or newly recognized by Merced College from Cunningham Ranch. The remains represent at least two individuals, one adult and one infant. All six possible associated funerary objects are currently missing or unidentifiable, including one mortar bowl; one lot of very small portable mortars; one lot of lithic debitage; one lot of mixed obsidian material and seeds; one lot of stone manos; and one lot of fire-cracked rock.

On an unknown date, human remains, representing at least one individual, were surface collected from an unrecorded site labeled “Hopeton (Gallo)”, believed to be on or near the E.J Gallo Ranch along Hopeton Gulch, west of the town of Hopeton, Merced County. No associated funerary objects are present.

On an unknown date, human remains, representing at least one individual, and associated funerary objects were removed from the surface of an unrecorded site located on the Flying M Ranch. On a later unknown date, they were brought to Merced College. The six associated funerary objects are one lot of shell beads; one lot of steatite beads; one glass bottle sherd; one lot of faunal bone; one mortar bowl fragment; and one lot of chert, quartz, and other stone lithic debitage.

In the 1940s, human remains, representing one individual, were found on private Favier family property between Mariposa Road and Le Grand Road in the city of Le Grand in Merced County. On an unknown date, the human remains were donated to Merced College by Dorothy Favier. No associated funerary objects are present.

On an unknown date or dates, human remains, representing at least four individuals, were surface collected from a site or sites labeled “Planada”, presumably near Planada in Merced County. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1977, human remains were exposed in an irrigation ditch at the Wilson farm, CA-MER-383, along Highway 99 in the community of Lingard, Merced County. In the fall of 1977 and spring of 1978, Merced College conducted salvage excavations, recovering human remains and cultural items. Three fragments of probable human bone, representing at least one individual and possibly associated with a set of associated funerary objects, are present at Merced College. The six associated funerary objects are one lot of fired clay daub; one lot of faunal bone; one lot of lithic debitage; one obsidian projectile point tip; one lot of quartz crystalline fragments; and one lot of naturally-occurring shell.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

Merced College has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 24 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 63 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Bishop Paiute Tribe; Bridgeport Indian Colony; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and, if joined to a request from one or more of the Indian Tribes, the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation (aka American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc.), a non-federally recognized Indian group.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Merced College must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. Merced College is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the National Forests in Mississippi and additional information on the cultural items in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the identifications in this notice.

Based on the information available, 37 boxes of material that includes 25 boxes of artifacts and 12 boxes of soil samples have been identified as unassociated funerary objects coming from the Owl Creek Mounds/Shiloh Mounds/22Cs502 site that is located on the Trace Unit of the Tombigbee National Forest (NFMS) in Chickasaw County, Mississippi. This collection was the results of a series of Mississippi State University archaeological field schools in 1991 and 1992 that reexamined the site. A large portion of the 25 boxes of artifacts include fine mesh artifacts including ceramic sherds, lithic flakes and projectile points, some wood and seed charcoal, and a limited collection of faunal remains.

The Owl Creek Mound Site is located within the historical and ancestral lands of the Chickasaw. This site is located within several miles of Tokshish, a historic Chickasaw village; and the Monroe Mission, a Presbyterian mission to the Chickasaw. Both were located on the old Natchez Trace. Several Chickasaw families also lived within two miles of the Owl Creek Site. Additionally, a known historical removal route, the Memphis to Cotton Gin Port Road, has been identified within the boundary of the site. This adds another layer of cultural significance for the Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Muscogee Creek who traveled this road during the removal period.

The National Forests in Mississippi has determined that:

• The 37 boxes of unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

• The Chickasaw Nation has priority for disposition of the cultural items described in this notice.

Written claims for disposition of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the appropriate official identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . If no claim for disposition is received by September 14, 2026, the cultural items in this notice will become unclaimed cultural items. Claims for disposition may be submitted by:

1. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they have priority for disposition.

Disposition of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing claims for disposition are received, the National Forests in Mississippi must determine the most appropriate claimant prior to disposition. Requests for joint disposition of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The National Forests in Mississippi is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3002, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.7.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UTK, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation by the Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California. The one object of cultural patrimony is a handmade waterfowl decoy. Records indicate the decoy present at UTK is one of six made by a Paiute artist and is similar in style to others recovered from Lovelock Cave, NV. The McClung Museum acquired one of these six decoys from a donor in 2003. This donor acquired the decoy in a `trade' with another collector based in Pullman, WA at an unknown date prior to 1975. Lovelock Cave is located in Churchill County, NV and is part of the ancestral homelands of the Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California. The duck decoy present at UTK was made with materials and a construction style similar to other objects of Cultural Patrimony belonging to the Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California. UTK has not identified any known hazardous substances from available records and will use non-invasive testing methods to confirm this as directed by the requestor.

Archaeologists, ethnographers and educational institutions continue to classify Native Americans as “prehistoric” or “hunters and gatherers”. Propagation of these labels continue to marginalize the value of our ancestors and diminishes the ability of Tribes to “own” their place in history. Collections and looting have created the need for mechanisms such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to serve as a process to return cultural items to their homes. It is also a process that puts all those involved at emotional, spiritual and physical risk.

The repatriation process is a time for Tribes to exercise Cultural Sovereignty. It is an opportunity to reclaim our history that ethnographers, institutions, and archaeologists have appropriated and taken away from our people. It is also a forum to teach people about the effects of generational trauma that has occurred as a result of genocide, colonization, assimilation and the long-lasting effects of industrialization.

All of these eras have worked to erase and dilute tribal histories and cultures. Resilience has brought us to a point in time when we can bring ancestors and cultural items home in an attempt to restore balance and heal past wounds. Cultural Patrimony provides the construct necessary for Tribes to make their own determination about the significance of cultural items held in collections.

As the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Fort Independence Indian Reservation in Eastern California it is an honor to work towards restoring my ancestral history by bringing cultural items home to my valley and people.

The decoy duck being repatriated speaks to a conversation of sophisticated craftmanship, thoughtful hunting skill, selection and harvesting of materials, and a special relationship with the Traditional Cultural Landscape. The decoy duck is also a powerful story of generational knowledge that has been handed down and shared with generations of people who lived in harmony with land in order to ensure generational survival.

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville NAGPRA Coordinator Kelsey Nordine and Ellen Lofaro deserve special recognition for their attention to detail, exemplary respect and responsiveness during this difficult process. Their professionalism and care cannot be overstated.

UTK has determined that:

• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UTK must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. UTK is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the YUAG, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is an engraved silver armband. The armband was made by Joseph Richardson Jr. (1752-1831) and was removed from a burial mound in or near Cross Village, Emmet County, in Michigan, by the blacksmith of the village, by 1898. The item subsequently passed into the collections of Philip H. Dilg, in Chicago, Illinois, and Cornelius Titus Geesey, who sold the cultural item to the YUAG in 1948. A relationship of shared group identity can be clearly and reasonably traced between the cultural item and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.

The YUAG has determined that:

• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary object has been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the YUAG must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The YUAG is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Human remains representing, at least, 10 individuals have been identified (Accession 511). The 125 associated funerary objects are groundstone objects, shellfish remains, animal bones, shell beads, glass beads, stone beads, fire-affected rock, lithic tools, asphaltum and other cultural materials removed from this burial site. On an unknown date, possibly in September 1987, the individuals were removed from CA-VEN-506 in Ventura County, CA. In 1985, a cemetery was encountered and excavated by Robert Wlodarski; however, those individuals were left in place or reburied. Therefore, it is unknown when or why these additional individuals were removed and brought to UCSB. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified (Accession 616). The one associated funerary object is a single lot of processed material including animal remains, shellfish remain, asphaltum tools, groundstone, chipped stone, stone beads, shell beads, ochre, plant remains, charcoal, and other cultural materials found within the burial site. As of 2025, there are at least 98 cataloged items missing. The individual and associated cultural materials were removed from CA-VEN-139 in Ventura County, CA. The collection was excavated by Paul Aiello of Ventura Community College in 1979-1981 as part of an archaeological field class. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified (Accession 632). The 59 associated funerary objects are shell beads, shellfish remains, animal remains, chipped stone, groundstone, tarring pebbles, and other processed material. The ancestor and cultural materials were collected from the surface of CA-VEN-139 in Ventura County, CA by an unknown individual. In April 2000, the collection was anonymously donated to the Ojai Valley Museum who then transferred possession to UCSB. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been identified (Accession 248.42). The three associated funerary objects are one rock, one bird bone, one fish bone. Accession 248.42 was reportedly removed from Ventura County, CA although the exact location and date of removal is unknown. On an unknown date after 1983, the individuals were donated to UCSB. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, 12 individuals have been identified (Accession 248.48-62). The 129 associated funerary objects are animal remains, shellfish remains, shell beads, unidentified organic objects, and stone tools. These individuals are believed to have been removed from CA-VEN-789 in 1988. On an unknown date prior to 1997 they were brought to UCSB. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified (Accession 248.51). No associated funerary objects are present. These individuals are believed to have been removed from Ojai, CA or other parts of Ventura County. On an unknown date, they were brought to UCSB. There is no associated documentation. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified (Accession 576.VEN4). The five associated funerary objects are animal remains. On an unknown date, the individual was removed from CA-VEN-4 in Ventura County, CA. At this time, there is no available documentation regarding the collection history. The individual was acquired by R.O. Browne, a Ventura County resident known for collecting archaeological and cultural materials from various regions, with a particular focus on Ventura County. Following Mr. Browne's passing, the remains were donated to UC Santa Barbara in 1995 on his behalf. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified (Accession 576.VEN13). No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, the individual was removed from CA-VEN-13 in Ventura County, CA. At this time, there is no available documentation regarding the collection history. The individual was acquired by R.O. Browne, a Ventura County resident known for collecting archaeological and cultural materials from various regions, with a particular focus on Ventura County. Following Mr. Browne's passing, the remains were donated to UC Santa Barbara in 1995 on his behalf. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified (Accession 576.VEN58). The eight associated funerary objects are animal bone, shellfish remains, and a chert core; however, as of 2025, five shell fragments are missing. The individual was removed from CA-VEN-58 in Ventura County, CA. Roberta Greenwood and R.O. Browne removed burials from this site in 1962. These individuals are most likely associated with that project. In 1995 they were donated to UCSB on behalf of R.O. Browne, who was a resident known for collecting archaeological and cultural materials from various regions, with a particular focus on Ventura County. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified (Accession 576.VEN150). The 17 associated funerary objects are stone tools fragments, charcoal, shell, ochre, wood, and clay fragments; however, as of 2025, 11 objects are missing. The individuals were removed from CA-VEN-150 in Ventura County, CA. R.O. Browne had a home located on top of CA-VEN-150. From 1957 to 1963, Browne and colleagues excavated many portions of the site and removed burials. These individuals are most likely associated with one of those projects. In 1995 they were donated to UCSB on behalf of R.O. Browne. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified (Accession 576.VEN168). The 38 associated funerary objects are animal and shellfish remains; however, as of 2025, six objects are missing. On an unknown date, the individuals were removed from CA-VEN-168 in Ventura County, CA. At this time, there is no available documentation regarding the collection history. The individuals were acquired by R.O. Browne, a Ventura County resident known for collecting archaeological and cultural materials from various regions, with a particular focus on Ventura County. Following Mr. Browne's passing, the remains were donated to UC Santa Barbara in 1995 on his behalf. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been identified (Accession 576.CL). No associated funerary objects are present. The individuals were removed from a location referred to as “Canada Larga” which is believed to be CA-VEN-58 in Ventura County, CA. Roberta Greenwood and R.O. Browne removed burials from this site in 1962. These individuals are most likely associated with that project. In 1995 they were donated to UCSB on behalf of R.O. Browne, who was a resident known for collecting archaeological and cultural materials from various regions, with a particular focus on Ventura County. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified (Accession 576.B155). The one associated funerary is a single elasmobranchii centrum. These ancestral remains were removed from a site believed to have been located in Ventura County, California. The individuals were acquired by R.O. Browne, a Ventura County resident known for collecting archaeological and cultural materials from various regions, with a particular focus on Ventura County. Following Mr. Browne's passing, the remains were donated to UC Santa Barbara in 1995 on his behalf. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, four individuals have been identified (Accession 576.MU). The 92 associated funerary objects are animal remains, shellfish remains, and soapstone; however, as of 2025, 52 objects are missing. Accession 576.MU is a collection of ancestral human remains likely removed from a location near Point Mugu in Los Angeles County, California. Point Mugu ( Muwu ) is a location in Ventura County, CA known for several important Chumash historic villages. The identity of the original collector and the date of removal are unknown. The individuals were acquired by R.O. Browne, a Ventura County resident known for collecting archaeological and cultural materials from various regions, with a particular focus on Ventura County. Following Mr. Browne's passing, the remains were donated to UC Santa Barbara in 1995 on his behalf. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Human remains representing, at least, 24 individuals have been identified (Accession 576.UNK). The one associated funerary is a single lot of processed material. The individuals were likely removed from a location in Ventura County, CA. There is no associated documentation. The individuals were acquired by R.O. Browne, a Ventura County resident known for collecting archaeological and cultural materials from various regions, with a particular focus on Ventura County. Following Mr. Browne's passing, the remains were donated to UC Santa Barbara in 1995 on his behalf. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 69 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 479 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UTK, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Human remains representing, at least, 31 individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. These individuals were recovered from the Woodruff Ossuary site, 14PH4, in Phillips County, Kansas, by J.M. Shippee and Martin F. Kivett of the River Basin Surveys (RBS) and A.T. Hill of the Nebraska State Historical Society between October 17th and November 11th, 1946. This site dates to the Early Woodland Keith Phase in northern Kansas with a radiocarbon dated range of 1343 +/−240 years BP or A.D. 611 +/−240. These individuals were moved to the RBS laboratory in Lincoln, Nebraska, and then transferred to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History where William Bass examined them in 1957. These individuals were either retained by Bass and brought with him when he began working at UTK in 1971 or borrowed by him at a later date and not returned. To our knowledge, no potentially hazardous substances have been used to treat any of the Ancestral remains.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.

UTK has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 31 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; and the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UTK must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. UTK are responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the BLM, Arizona State Office, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified from a site in Cochise County, AZ. The 88 associated funerary objects consist of plain and decorated sherds, chipped stone, flaked tools, a projectile point, a bone awl, burned wood, mineral samples, pollen samples, flotation samples and Carbon-14 samples.

The archaeological site AZ BB:12:9 (ASM) was intentionally excavated as part of the All-American Pipeline Survey Project, undertaken by New Mexico State University. The survey sought to locate cultural resources impacted by a right-of-way for an oil pipeline extending from Texas to California.

The materials from the 1986 excavations at AZ BB:12:9 (ASM) were transferred to the University of New Mexico for analysis and documentation. On December 12, 1990, the collection was conveyed to Arizona State Museum (ASM) for curation.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The BLM has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• The 88 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ak-Chin Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona.; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; and the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant or Indian Tribe not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the BLM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The BLM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, and additional information on the human remains or cultural items in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the identifications in this notice.

The two objects of cultural patrimony identified by The Osage Nation are an articulated hawk leg and a worked strip of cedar. The articulated hawk leg was removed during excavations from site 3PP0402 in Pope County, Arkansas in 1993. Based upon diagnostic artifacts found at the site, 3PP0402 was occupied from A.D. 700 to 1500. The worked strip of cedar was removed from site 3NW0408 in Newton County, Arkansas in 2005. Occupation of site 3NW0408 reportedly dates from 2000 B.C. to A.D. 1600.

The Ozark-St. Francis National Forests has determined that:

• The two objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

• The Osage Nation has priority for disposition of the cultural items described in this notice.

Written claims for disposition of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the appropriate official identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . If no claim for disposition is received by September 14, 2026, the cultural items in this notice will become unclaimed cultural items. Claims for disposition may be submitted by:

1. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they have priority for disposition.

Disposition of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing claims for disposition are received, the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests must determine the most appropriate claimant prior to disposition. Requests for joint disposition of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Ozark-St. Francis National Forests is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3002, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.7.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the FLMNH, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Bayshore Homes (8PI41) is a mound and midden complex. This site consisted of three mounds: Mound A was a pyramid mound while Mound B and C were both burial mounds. When excavated by Willaim H. Sears during museum expeditions, Sears noted looting and destruction on the mounds. Further analysis of the mounds (2014) found that the earliest occupation date to between cal. A.D. 140 and cal. A.D. 565, which is associated with the Manasota culture. The site was then reoccupied beginning around A.D. 890 to 1390. The FLMNH has acquired numerous collections from donations, transfers, and expeditions over the years. Bayshore Homes was previously reported in the 2003 inventory as culturally unaffiliated with an MNI of 115 and did not report any associated funerary objects. This notice provides an updated MNI, AFO, and cultural affiliation for the collection. Human remains representing at least 190 individuals have been identified. There are 240 associated funerary objects that include 233 shell, pottery, lithics, and other concretions from the North Florida Archaeology collections and seven bags of unanalyzed fauna as associated funerary objects from the Environmental Archaeology collections.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The FLMNH has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 190 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 240 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the FLMNH must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The FLMNH is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the ISMHS, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. These human remains are noted as being from “Rayme Farm” in St. Clair County, IL near East St. Louis, IL. Consultation determined that these are from the Ramey Farm portion of the Cahokia site (site number 11-MS-2/5), which spans both Madison and St. Clair Counties, IL. These remains came to the Indiana State Museum in 1981 after being collected from the surface circa 1950 by John C. “Jack” Householder, an avocational archaeologist. The Museum is not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.

The ISMHS has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Quapaw Nation; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; and The Osage Nation.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the ISMHS must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The ISMHS is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Ancestor remains representing one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Archaeological site 1Lo91 is located in Lowndes County, AL, along Dry Cedar Creek in a cultivated field. The collection from the site was removed by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Anthropology staff member Larry Shaffield in 1975. Work at the site included surface collection only in cultivated areas of the site. Site occupation at 1Lo91 dates to the Middle/Late Woodland Period (A.D. 1-1000). No known hazardous substances were used to treat the ancestor.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.

The University of Alabama at Birmingham has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Alabama at Birmingham must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of Alabama at Birmingham is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A total of two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two objects of cultural patrimony are a grinding stone and a lithic core.

In 1989 one metate fragment and one lithic were collected from archaeological site CA-RIV-4066 as part of a graduate student's dissertation project and were assigned UCR accession number 176. The site, located in the Elsinore Mountains, is described by archaeologists in site records as “a campsite that has a volcanic outcrop that was probably used to quarry material to make milling stones”. A bedrock mortar and concentrations of lithic debitage were noted in the site records. This area is known to the Pechanga Band of Indians as part of their ancestral lands and any cultural objects removed from this region are of importance to the tribe; the metate and lithic core were identified by tribal representatives as being objects of cultural patrimony.

The University of California, Riverside has determined that:

• The two objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Pechanga Band of Indians ( previously listed as Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California).

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The seven associated funerary objects are one carved frog effigy pipe, two lots of deer skin fragments or pieces, one lot of a copper plated, small iron ring, one lot of fiber, one lot of an iron tomahawk or trade hatchet, and one lot of metal fragments. The individual and associated funerary objects were removed from a burial place in Avon, Livingston County, NY, likely by Frederic Ward Putnam in 1889 as part of a Peabody Museum Expedition.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The one associated funerary object is one lot of bone and teeth fragments, worked bone, pipe stem. The individual and associated funerary objects were removed from the Ganada site in St. Johnsville, Montgomery County, NY, likely by Mark Raymond Harrington and Irwin Hayden in 1905 as part of a Peabody Museum expedition.

Human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been identified. The nine associated funerary objects are one lot of beaver tooth chisel, one lot of body and rim sherds, three lots of bone and teeth fragments, one lot of bone perforator, one lot of bones, one lot of bones and teeth, and one lot of potsherds. The individual and associated funerary objects were removed from the Garoga site in Ephrataha, Fulton County, NY, likely by Mark Raymond Harrington and Irwin Hayden in 1905 as part of a Peabody Museum expedition.

A total of nine associated funerary objects were removed from the Silverheels site in Brant, Erie County, NY, likely by Mark Raymond Harrington and Irwin Hayden in 1905 as part of a Peabody Museum expedition. These associated funerary objects were defined during consultation, in which either the location of the human remains is known but they are not present at the PMAE and/or the objects were made exclusively for burial purposes, according to Native American traditional knowledge. These nine associated funerary objects are one stone chipped primary flake, one stone chipped tool, one lot of antler arrow flakes, one lot of a bag of burnt acorns, one bag of burned nuts, possibly acorns, one lot of ceramic sherd, two lots of charred acorns, and one lot of a string of glass beads.

A total of 17 associated funerary objects removed from the Ripley site in Brant, Erie County, NY, likely by Mark Raymond Harrington and Irwin Hayden in 1905 as part of a Peabody Museum expedition. These associated funerary objects were defined during consultation, in which either the location of the human remains is known but they are not present at the PMAE and/or the objects were made exclusively for burial purposes, according to Native American traditional knowledge. These 17 associated funerary objects are one chipped stone, projectile point, stemmed, one adze, one coarse earthenware body sherd, undecorated, one faunal remain fragment, one scraper, one lot bird bone, one lot bones of animals, one lot burnt clay, one lot ceramic sherd, six lots of faunal bones, remains, and fragment, one lot of sherds, and one lot of rejects.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The PMAE has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 43 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cayuga Nation; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; and the Tuscarora Nation.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Merced College and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

On an unknown date, human remains representing at least one individual were removed from an unrecorded site labeled “Mariposa,” an unknown location presumably in or near the town of Mariposa in Mariposa County. No associated funerary objects are present.

In the 1920s, human remains representing at least one individual, were removed from a rock shelter in Indian Gulch, presumably somewhere along Indian Gulch Road, south of Hornitos and ten-to-thirty miles from the Don Pedro Reservoir in Mariposa County. These were said to have been removed by “an old timer, a former surveyor with an intimate knowledge of the area around Coulterville” and whose name may have been Maclean. In or before 1970, the human remains were donated to Merced College. No associated funerary objects are present.

On an unknown date, human remains representing at least one individual were removed from “Bagby Cove” (or possibly “Cave,” the written documentation is unclear), presumably near the town of Bagby on Lake McClure in Mariposa County. No associated funerary objects are present.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains.

Merced College has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.

• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Bishop Paiute Tribe; Bridgeport Indian Colony; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and, if joined to a request from one or more of the Indian Tribes, the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation (aka American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc.), a non-federally recognized Indian group.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Merced College must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. Merced College is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Grey Towers NHS, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

This notice follows publication of a notice of inventory completion in the Federal Register (90 FR 20490, May 14, 2025). Human remains representing at least one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The cranium, incomplete right femur, incomplete right tibia, and incomplete left tibia of an adult probable male was located at Grey Towers NHS. Geographical location of removal, date of removal, and acquisition history are unknown. There is no indication these remains were treated with potentially hazardous materials.

Invitations to consult were sent to the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin. Email correspondence followed between Grey Towers NHS and the Delaware Nation; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community. The tribal representatives agree that no lineal descendant or culturally affiliated Tribe can be identified.

The following types of information about the cultural affiliation of the human remains in this notice are available: biological and expert opinion. The information, including the results of consultation, identified:

1. No earlier group connected to the human remains.

2. No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization connected to the human remains.

3. No relationship of shared group identity between the earlier group and the Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that can be reasonably traced through time.

The Grey Towers NHS has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of probable Native American ancestry.

• No known lineal descendant who can trace ancestry to the human in this notice has been identified.

• No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation to the human remains in this notice has been clearly or reasonably identified.

• The Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin have requested transfer of the human remains described in this notice.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation, transfer, or reinterment of the human remains described in this notice may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If requests for repatriation are received, the Grey Towers NHS must evaluate the requests and respond in writing to the requestors. The Grey Towers NHS is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Denver Art Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A total of two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two sacred objects are wooden Prayer Sticks. In 1960, the museum purchased a single Prayer Stick from Willis Tilton of Topeka, Kansas. The object was identified at the time as a “typical prayer stick of the Kennekuk Church, ca. 1820.” According to museum records, it was originally collected as part of a larger group of Prayer Sticks by Floyd Schultz, a Clay Center, Kansas businessman and civic leader, who was also an amateur archeologist and ethnologist (catalog #E91D). Schultz described items E91A-F in his records as “Prayer sticks. Kickapoo. Obtained from Mae Shoptese, a Potawatomi Indian woman.” A second Prayer Stick was donated to the museum in 1985 by Dr. Charles J. Norton of Denver, Colorado. Museum records indicate that this Prayer Stick was purchased by Norton from Pat Read, an art dealer based in Lawrence, Kansas, around 1959-61. Consultation with representatives of the Kickapoo Tribe has confirmed that both objects are Prayer Sticks from the Kennekuk Church, which is located exclusively on the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas. Based on tribal consultation and a review of museum records, the Denver Art Museum has determined that these Prayer Sticks are ceremonial objects used by members of the Kennekuk Church in religious practices. They continue to hold active significance in the church's present-day services. The inscriptions on the sticks contain prayers specific to the Kennekuk religion and possess spiritual meaning for all members of the church. According to church tradition, these Prayer Sticks are intended either to remain with the Kennekuk Church or to be used in burial services. If not interred with individual members, the sticks are passed along to other church members. As such, they are considered inalienable and should not have left the community.

The Denver Art Museum has determined that:

• The two sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.

• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Denver Art Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Denver Art Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the FMNH, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Adamsville (8HI36) is a prehistoric shell mound that lies on the northern edge of a small community called Adamsville, Florida. The FLMNH houses artifacts from this site that were donated in 1965 and transferred from the Department of Anthropology of the University of Florida in 1971. Human remains representing at least, one individual has been identified. The 50 associated funerary objects are 49 pottery sherds and one lithic artifact.

East Side Tampa Bay (8HIxxxx) was presented to the FLMNH by Dr. Lyman O. Warren in 1967, likely part of a dredging operation. There is no information on the site's location or context. Human remains representing at least four individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The FMNH has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 50 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 14, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the FMNH must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The FMNH is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. (19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1)).

The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order directed to certain vehicle telematics, fleet management, and video-based safety systems, devices, and components thereof imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondent Motive Technologies Inc. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).

The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public and interested government agencies are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued on September 8, 2025. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third-party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 9, 2025.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1393”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. ( See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing and must be served in accordance with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A) (19 CFR 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)). All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2025).

Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on September 9, 2025, ordered that—

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-8 and 10 of the ’533 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “vaporizer devices, also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems (‘ENDS’), cartridges used therewith, and components of such devices and cartridges (cartridge housings, e-liquid nicotine salt formulations, heater components (sometimes referred to as atomizers), chargers, batteries), and subassemblies of the foregoing.”;

(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a) The complainant is: JUUL Labs, Inc., 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004.

(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.

Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 22, 2025, Fisher Clinical Services, Inc., 7554 Schantz Road, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18106-9032, 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 substances for clinical trials only. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

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

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 5, 2025, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 3159 Staley Road, Grand Island, New York 14072-2028, 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) as bulk active pharmaceutical ingredient to manufacture Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dosage forms. 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 FDA-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on August 7, 2025, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Inc., 50 Frontage Road, Andover, Massachusetts 01810-5413, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to synthetically bulk manufacture the controlled substance Tetrahydrocannabinols to produce analytical standards for distribution to its customers. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 7, 2025, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Inc., 50 Frontage Road, Andover, Massachusetts 01810-5413, 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 substances for preparation of analytical standards and formulations. In reference to drug code 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to import a synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

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

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 11, 2025, Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, 3031 Red Lion Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19114-1123, 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 substances as finished dosage unit products for clinical trials, research, and analytical activities. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

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

Coal mine operators who pay monthly benefits must notify the Department's Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation (DCMWC) of any change in payments and the reason for that change. DCMWC uses this notification to monitor payments and ensure that beneficiaries receive the correct benefit rate. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2025 (90 FR 23961).

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

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

Agency: DOL-OWCP.

Title of Collection: Notice of Termination, Suspension, Reduction, or Increase in Benefit Payments.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0030.

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

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 325.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 6,607.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 1,321 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $3,607.

The NRTL Program recognizes organizations that provide product-safety testing and certification services to manufacturers. These organizations perform testing and certification for purposes of the program, to U.S. consensus-based product-safety test standards. The products covered by the NRTL Program consist of those items for which OSHA safety standards require “certification” by a NRTL. The requirements affect electrical products and 36 other types of products. OSHA does not develop or issue these test standards, but generally relies on standards development organizations (SDOs), which develop and maintain the standards using a method that provides for input and consideration of views of industry groups, experts, users, consumers, governmental authorities, and others having broad experience in the safety field involved.

The NRTL Program regulations require that appropriate test standards be maintained and current (29 CFR 1910.7(c)). A test standard withdrawn by an SDO is no longer considered an appropriate test standard (CPL 01-00-004, NRTL Program Policies, Procedures and Guidelines Directive (NRTL Program Directive), Ch. 2.IX.C.1). It is OSHA's policy to remove recognition of withdrawn test standards by issuing a correction notice in the Federal Register for all NRTLs recognized for the withdrawn test standards (Id.). However, SDOs frequently will designate a replacement standard for withdrawn standards. OSHA will recognize a NRTL for an appropriate replacement test standard if the NRTL has the requisite testing and evaluation capability for the replacement test standard (NRTL Program Directive, Ch. 2.IX.C.2).

One method that NRTLs may use to show such capability involves an analysis to determine whether any testing and evaluation requirements of existing test standards in a NRTL's scope are comparable ( i.e., are completely or substantially identical) to the requirements in the replacement test standard (NRTL Program Directive, Ch. 2.IX.C.3). If OSHA's analysis shows the replacement test standard does not require additional or different technical capability than an existing test standard(s), and the replacement test standard is comparable to the existing test standard(s), then OSHA can add the replacement test standard to affected NRTLs' scope of recognition. If OSHA's analysis shows the replacement test standard requires an additional or different technical capability, or the replacement test standard is not comparable to any existing test standards, each affected NRTL seeking to have OSHA add the replacement test standard to the NRTL's scope of recognition must provide information to OSHA that demonstrates technical capability (NRTL Program Directive, Ch. 2.IX.D).

OSHA may choose to remove a test standard from the NRTL list of appropriate test standards based on an internal review in which NRTL Program staff review the NRTL list of appropriate test standards to determine if the test standards conform to the definition of an appropriate test standard defined in NRTL Program regulations and policy. There are several reasons for removing a test standard based on this review. First, a document that provides the methodology for a single test is a test method rather than an appropriate test standard (29 CFR 1910.7(c)). A test standard must specify the safety requirements for a specific type of product(s) (NRTL Program Directive, Ch. 2.VIII.C.1). A test method, however, is a specified technical procedure for performing a test. As such, a test method is not an appropriate test standard. While a NRTL may use a test method to determine if certain safety requirements are met, a test method is not itself a safety requirement for a specific product category.

Second, a document that focuses primarily on usage, installation, or maintenance requirements, and not safety requirements ( i.e., features, parts, capabilities, usage limitations, or installation requirements that would create a potential hazard in operating the equipment if not properly used), would also not be considered an appropriate test standard (NRTL Program Directive, Ch. 2.VIII.C.1). In some cases, however, a document may also provide safety test specifications in addition to usage, installation, and maintenance requirements. In such cases, the document would be retained as an appropriate test standard based on the safety test specifications.

Finally, a document may not be considered an appropriate test standard if the document covers products for which OSHA does not require testing and certification (NRTL Program Directive, Ch. 2.VIII.C.2). Similarly, a document that covers electrical product components would not be considered an appropriate test standard. These documents apply to types of components that have limitation(s) or condition(s) on their use, which are not appropriate for use as end-use products. These documents also specify that these types of components are for use only as part of an end-use product. NRTLs, however, evaluate such components only in the context of evaluating whether end-use products requiring NRTL approval are safe for use in the workplace. Accordingly, as a matter of policy, OSHA considers that documents covering such components are not appropriate test standards under the NRTL Program. OSHA notes, however, that it is not proposing to delete from NRTLs' scope of recognition any test standards covering end-use products that contain such components.

In addition, OSHA notes that, to conform to a test standard covering an end-use product, a NRTL must still determine that the components in the product comply with the components' specific test standards. In making this determination, NRTLs may (within the confines of the requirements of Annex B, Section 7.4 G and H of the NRTL Program Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines, OSHA Instruction CPL 01-00-004 (Oct. 1, 2019) (the NRTL Program Directive, available at https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CPL_01-00-004.pdf )) test the components themselves or accept the testing of a qualified testing organization that a given component conforms to the particular test standard. OSHA reviews each NRTL's procedures to determine which approach the NRTL will use to address components and reviews the end-use product testing to verify that the NRTL appropriately addresses that product's components.

In this notice, OSHA proposes to delete 16 test standards from the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards because they were all withdrawn by the SDO that issued them. As shown in Table 1, below, a replacement test standard (UL 121201, Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and II, Division 2 and Class III, Divisions 1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified) Locations) was designated for one of the test standards OSHA proposes to delete from the List of Appropriate Test Standards (ISA 12.12.01, Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and II, Division 2 and Class III, Divisions 1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified) Locations). UL 121201 is already contained in the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Therefore, OSHA is not proposing to incorporate that replacement test standard into the List of Appropriate Test Standards.

Table 1 lists the test standards that OSHA proposes to delete from the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards, as well as an abbreviated rationale for OSHA's proposed action. Additionally, Table 1 lists the replacement test standard that OSHA has already incorporated into the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards (for informational purposes only). OSHA seeks comment on the proposed deletion of these 16 test standards from the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

OSHA notes that Table 1 lists the subject test standards and the proposed action with regard to each of these test standards, without indicating how the proposed action will affect individual NRTLs. Section III of this notice discusses how the proposed action will affect individual NRTLs.

In this notice, OSHA additionally proposes to remove test standards ( i.e., those listed in Table 1, above) from the scopes of recognition of several NRTLs and to add to the scope of recognition of one of these NRTLs, QPS Evaluation Services Inc. (QPS), a replacement test standard (UL 121201). The tables in this section (Table 2 through Table 9) list, for each affected NRTL, the test standard(s) that OSHA proposes to remove from the scope of recognition of the NRTL. Table 3 lists the proposed replacement test standard for QPS.

OSHA notes that it has already added UL 121201 into the scopes of recognition for several NRTLs when the agency granted applications for expansion of those NRTL's recognition to include UL 121201. Therefore, OSHA is not proposing to add UL 121201 to the scopes of recognition of these NRTLs. For more information on OSHA's prior actions in adding UL 121201 to the scopes of recognition of these NRTLs, please see the relevant Federal Register notices granting these NRTLs' applications for expansion of recognition. Citations to these Federal Register notices are contained below, in Table 2 through Table 9, as applicable, which OSHA includes in those tables for informational purposes only.

I. Background

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 (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, 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 a minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining said 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 specified in the 4,4′-Methylenedianiline Standard for General Industry (the “MDA Standard”) (29 CFR 1910.1050) protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from their exposure to MDA, including cancer, liver, and skin disease. The major paperwork requirements specify that employers must perform initial, periodic, and additional exposure monitoring; notify each worker in writing of their results as soon as possible but no longer than five (5) days after receiving exposure monitoring results; and routinely inspect the hands, face, and forearms of each worker potentially exposed to MDA for signs of dermal exposure to MDA. Employers must also establish a written compliance program; institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134); and to develop a written emergency plan for any construction operation that could have an MDA emergency ( i.e., an unexpected and potentially hazardous release of MDA).

Employers must label any material or products containing MDA, including containers used to store MDA contaminated protective clothing and equipment. They also must inform personnel who launder MDA contaminated clothing of the requirement to prevent release of MDA, while personnel who launder or clean MDA-contaminated protective clothing or equipment must receive information about the potentially harmful effects of MDA. In addition, employers are to post warning signs at entrances or access ways to regulated areas, as well as train workers exposed to MDA at the time of their initial assignment, and at least annually thereafter.

Other paperwork provisions of the MDA standard require employers to provide workers with medical examinations, including initial, periodic, emergency and follow-up examinations. As part of the medical surveillance program, employers must ensure that the examining physician receives specific written information, and that they obtain from the physician a written opinion regarding the worker's medical results and exposure limitations.

The MDA standard also specifies that employers are to establish and maintain exposure monitoring and medical surveillance records for each worker who is subject to these respective requirements, make any required record available to OSHA compliance officers and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for examination and copying, and provide exposure monitoring and medical surveillance records to workers and their designated representatives. Finally, employers who cease to do business within the period specified for retaining exposure monitoring and medical surveillance records, and who have no successor employer, must notify NIOSH at least 90 days before disposing of the records and transmit the records to NIOSH if so requested.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues: