81108 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Notices 

not a delegation or grant of government 

authority; however, recognition enables 

employers to use products approved by 

the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that 

require product testing and certification. 

The agency processes applications by 

a NRTL for initial recognition, as well 

as for an expansion or renewal of 

recognition, following requirements in 

Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This 

appendix requires that the agency 

publish two notices in the Federal 

Register in processing an application. In 

the first notice, OSHA announces the 

application and provides the 

preliminary finding. In the second 

notice, the agency provides the final 

decision on the application. These 

notices set forth the NRTL’s scope of 

recognition or modifications of that 

scope. OSHA maintains an 

informational web page for each NRTL, 

including PTL, which details that 

NRTL’s scope of recognition. These 

pages are available from the OSHA 

website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/ 

otpca/nrtl/index.html. 

PTL currently has one facility (site) 

recognized by OSHA for product testing 

and certification, with the headquarters 

located at: SolarPTL, LLC, 1107 West 

Fairmont Drive, Tempe, Arizona 85282. 

A complete listing of PTL’s scope of 

recognition is available at https:/

www.osha.gov/nationally-recognizedtesting-laboratory-program/solarptl. 

II. General Background on the 

Application 

PTL submitted an application, dated 

December 21, 2018 (OSHA–2010–0013– 

0007) to request one additional standard 

to the NRTL scope of recognition. The 

standard requested UL 61730 was 

referenced in the application as a single 

standard, however this standard has two 

parts. This application was amended on 

October 30, 2023 (OSHA–2010–0013– 

0008), clarifying that the expansion 

request was for both parts of the 

standard. OSHA staff performed a 

detailed analysis of the application 

packets and reviewed other pertinent 

information. OSHA performed an onsite assessment related to this 

application on August 16–17, 2022, 

where OSHA found nonconformances 

with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910. 

PTL has addressed the 

nonconformances adequately. OSHA 

has no objection to the addition of this 

standard to the NRTL scope of 

recognition. 

Table 1 shows the test standards 

found in PTL’s amended application for 

expansion for testing and certification of 

products under the NRTL Program. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED APPROPRIATE

TEST STANDARD FOR INCLUSION IN

PTL’S NRTL SCOPE OF RECOGNITION

Test 

standard Test standard title 

UL 

61730.

Photovoltaic (PV) Module Safety 

Qualification—Part 1: Requirements for Construction; and 

Photovoltaic (PV) Module Safety 

Qualification—Part 2: Requirements for Testing. 

III. Preliminary Finding on the 

Application 

PTL submitted an acceptable 

application for expansion of the scope 

of recognition. OSHA’s review of the 

application file and pertinent 

documentation, together with the results 

of the on-site assessment and follow-up 

information, preliminarily indicate that 

PTL can meet the requirements 

prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for 

expanding its recognition to include the 

addition of the test standard shown in 

Table 1, above, for NRTL testing and 

certification. This preliminary finding 

does not constitute an interim or 

temporary approval of PTL’s 

application. 

OSHA seeks public comment on this 

preliminary determination. 

V. Public Participation 

OSHA welcomes public comment as 

to whether PTL meets the requirements 

of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of 

recognition as a NRTL. Comments 

should consist of pertinent written 

documents and exhibits. 

Commenters needing more time to 

comment must submit a request in 

writing, stating the reasons for the 

request by the due date for comments. 

OSHA will limit any extension to 10 

days unless the requester justifies a 

longer time period. OSHA may deny a 

request for an extension if it is not 

adequately justified. 

To review copies of the exhibits 

identified in this notice, as well as 

comments submitted to the docket, 

contact the Docket Office, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor. These materials 

also are generally available online at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. OSHA–2010–0013 (for 

further information, see the ‘‘Docket’’ 

heading in the section of this notice 

titled ADDRESSES). 

OSHA staff will review all comments 

to the docket submitted in a timely 

manner. After addressing the issues 

raised by these comments, staff will 

make a recommendation to the Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health on whether to grant 

PTL’s application for expansion of the 

scope of recognition. The Assistant 

Secretary will make the final decision 

on granting the application. In making 

this decision, the Assistant Secretary 

may undertake other proceedings 

prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 

1910.7. 

OSHA will publish a public notice of 

the final decision in the Federal 

Register. 

VI. Authority and Signature 

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, 

authorized the preparation of this 

notice. Accordingly, the agency is 

issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 

8–2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), 

and 29 CFR 1910.7. 

Signed at Washington, DC. 

James S. Frederick, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25691 Filed 11–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To 

Establish an Information Collection 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, the Evaluation 

and Assessment Capability (EAC), 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 

Office of Integrative Activities (OIA) is 

inviting the general public or other 

Federal agencies to comment on this 

proposed information collection. 

DATES: Written comments on this notice 

must be received by January 22, 2024 to 

be assured consideration. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

Send comments to the address below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance 

Officer, National Science Foundation, 

2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite E7400, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone 

(703) 292–7556; or send email to 

splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Notices 81109 

800–877–8339, which is accessible 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a 

year (including federal holidays). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments: Comments are invited on: 

(1) whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Foundation, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) the accuracy of the Foundation’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; (3) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(4) ways to minimize the burden of 

collecting the information on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Title of Collection: Generic Clearance 

for the Evaluation of the National 

Science Foundation’s (NSF) Broader 

Impacts Review Criterion. 

OMB Number: 3145–NEW. 

Expiration Date of Approval: Not 

applicable. 

Type of Request: New information 

collection. 

Description: NSF is conducting an 

evaluation to assess (1) how NSF’s 

Broader Impacts review criterion is 

applied across the Foundation and (2) 

its effectiveness in meeting the goals 

established in section 526 of the 

America Creating Opportunities to 

Meaningfully Promote Excellence in 

Technology, Education, and Science 

Reauthorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 

1862p-14) (America COMPETES 

Reauthorization Act of 2010). This 

evaluation is congressionally directed in 

section 10341 of the Creating Helpful 

Incentives to Produce Semiconductors 

[CHIPS] for America Fund Act 2022. As 

part of the evaluation, NSF is 

conducting a literature review, 

document analysis, extant data analysis, 

interviews with NSF staff, and focus 

groups with NSF principal investigators 

(PIs) and reviewers. NSF will map 

findings from the evaluation activities to 

current NSF policies and practices to 

identify strategies for improving how 

NSF applies the review criterion. 

The subject of this request is related 

to the planned focus groups with PIs 

and reviewers. The focus groups will 

answer the following research questions 

(RQs): 

• RQ1. In what ways do the 

interpretations of the Broader Impacts 

review criterion among PIs and 

reviewers vary, and what factors might 

contribute to these variations? 

• RQ2. How do external reviewers 

assess the Broader Impact review 

criterion? 

• RQ3. In what ways do PIs and 

reviewers perceive that variations in 

interpretation and assessment can 

advance or hinder the merit review of 

proposals? 

Findings from the focus groups 

described in this request will be used to 

inform interpretation of other evaluation 

activities within the larger project 

(including informing interpretation of 

interviews with NSF staff, document 

review analyses, and interpretation of 

extant data analysis of review analyses). 

For example, we anticipate that 

participants in these focus groups may 

raise issues around their understanding 

and interpretation of Broader Impacts, 

which can be compared to perceptions 

that NSF staff report during interviews. 

Background: 

NSF sets forth an ambitious vision for 

the United States: a nation that leads the 

world in science and engineering 

research and innovation, to the benefit 

of all, without barriers to participation. 

Toward this end, NSF promotes the 

progress of science by investing in 

research and capacity-building activities 

that expand knowledge in science, 

engineering, and education. In fiscal 

year (FY) 2022, NSF evaluated almost 

40,000 proposals for research and 

education activities, making nearly 

11,000 new awards totaling more than 

$8.5 billion. 

At the cornerstone of NSF’s mission 

and its investments is its merit review 

process. NSF program directors with 

technical and programmatic expertise 

lead this process, with support from 

external experts who help evaluate 

submitted proposals for two main 

criteria: (1) Intellectual Merit—the 

potential to advance knowledge; and (2) 

Broader Impacts—the potential to 

contribute to society and achieve 

specific, desired societal outcomes. 

With these two criteria, NSF has 

established a commitment to projects 

that provide tangible benefits to society 

beyond advancing knowledge. 

It is critically important that NSF 

implement its merit review process in a 

way that is fair, thorough, competitive, 

and transparent, and that those internal 

and external to NSF recognize the 

process as such. However, as NSF 

noted, PIs and reviewers might lack 

clarity about the Broader Impacts 

criterion, despite NSF’s efforts to 

provide additional guidance. NSF has 

also noted a lack of consistency in how 

NSF implements the criterion across 

directorates, divisions, and programs. 

Specific challenges related to the 

understanding and application of 

Broader Impacts include a lack of 

consensus on how to define Broader 

Impacts, and a disconnect between the 

Broader Impacts requirements stated in 

the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & 

Procedures Guide and how panelists 

review these activities (National 

Alliance for Broader Impacts 2018). The 

purpose of this work, then, is to ‘‘assess 

how the Broader Impact review criterion 

is applied across the Foundation and 

make recommendations for improving 

the effectiveness for meeting the goals 

established in section 526 of the 

America Creating Opportunities to 

Meaningfully Promote Excellence in 

Technology, Education, and Science 

Reauthorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 

1862p-14)’’ (America COMPETES 

Reauthorization Act of 2010). This 

evaluation is congressionally directed in 

section 10341 of the Creating Helpful 

Incentives to Produce Semiconductors 

[CHIPS] for America Fund Act 2022. 

Methodology: Focus groups will be 

conducted with two types of 

respondents: Pls and reviewers. 

The evaluation will include three PI 

focus groups of up to seven people each. 

Participants in these groups will be PIs 

who submitted a proposal within the 

last five years. The study team will 

select participants via a stratified 

random sample by NSF directorate, 

institutional characteristics (such as 

Carnegie classification, MSI status, and 

locale), and participant characteristics 

(such as race/ethnicity, gender, years 

since terminal degree, and new 

investigator status). PIs have firsthand 

experience addressing the Broader 

Impacts review criterion in their 

proposals. Among this group, key 

insights include the following: 

1. Questions they have about how to 

address the Broader Impacts review 

criterion in their research and 

proposals. 

2. Strategies they have employed as a 

PI in addressing the Broader Impacts 

review criterion in their research and 

proposals. 

3. Resources or supports received 

from their respective institutions for 

developing well-thought-out proposals 

that address the Broader Impacts review 

criterion. 

Reviewer focus groups will consist of 

three focus groups of up to seven people 

each. Participants in these groups will 

be people who served on a review panel 

within the last five years. The study 

team will select participants via a 

stratified random sample by directorate 

and participant characteristics (such as 

how long they have been reviewing NSF 

proposals). Reviewers have firsthand 

knowledge about applying the Broader 

Impacts review criterion. Among this 

group, key insights include the 

following: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
81110 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Notices 

1. Interpretating and applying the 

criterion as a reviewer (and compared 

with as a PI). 

2. Reviewer training and guidance. 

Affected Public: NSF reviewers and 

PIs. 

AVERAGE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES

Collection method 

Estimated 

lower bound 

(number of 

responses) 

Estimated 

upper bound 

(number of 

responses) 

Estimated 

average 

response time 

(min) 

Approximate 

lower bound 

response burden 

(hours) 

Approximate 

upper bound 

response burden 

(hours) 

Focus groups ............................................... 4*6=24 7*6=42 90 (24*90)/60=36 (42*90)/60=72 

Respondents: Lower-bound estimate 

of 24 individuals and upper-bound 

estimate of 48 individuals. 

Average Minutes per Response: 90. 

Burden Hours: Lower- and upperbound estimates of approximately 36 

and 72 hours. 

Dated: November 16, 2023. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25718 Filed 11–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2023–0118] 

Information Collection: Domestic 

Licensing of Special Nuclear Material 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Renewal of existing information 

collection; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) invites public 

comment on the renewal of Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for an existing collection of 

information. The information collection 

is entitled, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of 

Special Nuclear Material.’’ 

DATES: Submit comments by January 22, 

2024. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject); however, the NRC 

encourages electronic comment 

submission through the Federal 

rulemaking website: 

• Federal rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2023–0118. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 

telephone: 301–415–0624; email: 

Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individual listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• Mail comments to: David C. 

Cullison, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, Mail Stop: T–6 A10M, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David C. Cullison, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2023– 

0118 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publicly 

available information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2023–0118. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, at 

301–415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The supporting 

statement and burden spreadsheet are 

available in ADAMS under Accession 

Nos. ML23249A195 and ML23249A196. 

• NRC’s PDR: The PDR, where you 

may examine and order copies of 

publicly available documents, is open 

by appointment. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern 

time (ET), Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

• NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of 

the collection of information and related 

instructions may be obtained without 

charge by contacting the NRC’s 

Clearance Officer, David C. Cullison, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–2084; email: 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov. 

B. Submitting Comments 

The NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website (https://

www.regulations.gov). Please include 

Docket ID NRC–2023–0118, in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information in 

comment submissions that you do not 

want to be publicly disclosed in your 

comment submission. All comment 

submissions are posted at https://

www.regulations.gov and entered into 

ADAMS. Comment submissions are not 

routinely edited to remove identifying 

or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that comment 

submissions are not routinely edited to 

remove such information before making 

the comment submissions available to 

the public or entering the comment into 

ADAMS. 

II. Background 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the NRC is requesting 

public comment on its intention to 

request the OMB’s approval for the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1