This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 15, 2020. 1 We selected Ningbo Daye Garden Machinery Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Daye) as the mandatory respondent. 2 On August 11, 2020, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation, and the revised deadline is now December 22, 2020. 3 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

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

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, 5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 6 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation within the allotted time period. However, on November 6, 2020, Commerce solicited comments from interested parties regarding the overlap in the scope of the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of lawn mowers from China and the AD investigation of lawn mowers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam with the scope of the AD and CVD investigations of certain vertical shaft engines and parts thereof from China. 7 Certain interested parties submitted comments and rebuttal comments. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this investigation, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Determination Memorandum. 8 As a result of our analysis of comments received, we have preliminarily revised the scope of the investigation. See Appendix I.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a). Because China is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

In addition, Commerce has relied on facts available under section 776(a) of the Act to determine the cash deposit rate assigned to the China-wide entity. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, because the China-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Commerce's request for data, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, Commerce stated that it would calculate producer/exporter combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. 9 Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice. 10 In this investigation, we calculated producer/exporter combination rates for respondents eligible for separate rates.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise, as described in the scope of the investigation section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) For the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese producers/exporters of subject merchandise that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all third-county exporters of subject merchandise not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese producer/exporter combination (or China-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter.

To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). Any such adjusted rates may be found in the Preliminary Determination section's chart of estimated weighted-average dumping margins above.

Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting cash deposits at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated in this preliminary determination unadjusted for the passed-through domestic subsidies or for export subsidies at the time the CVD provisional measures expire. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

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

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.

Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be provided to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs. 11 Note that Commerce has modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

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

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On December 7, 2020, and December 9, 2020, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), MTD Products, Inc. (the petitioner)  13 and respondent Ningbo Daye, 14 respectively, requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months. In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) the preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 22, 2020. 1 We selected Ducar Technology Co., Ltd. (Ducar) as the mandatory respondent. 2 On August 11, 2020, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation, and the revised deadline is now December 22, 2020. 3 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The products covered by this investigation are certain walk-behind lawn mowers and parts thereof from Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, 5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 6 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation within the allotted time period. However, on November 6, 2020, Commerce solicited comments from interested parties regarding the overlap in the scope of the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of lawn mowers and the scope of the AD and CVD investigations of certain vertical shaft engines and parts thereof from China, and certain interested parties submitted comments and rebuttal comments. 7 For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this investigation, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Determination Memorandum. 8 As a result of our analysis of comments received, we have preliminarily revised the scope of the investigation. See Appendix I.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act and constructed export prices in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

In addition, Commerce has relied on facts available under section 776(a) of the Act to determine the cash deposit rate assigned to the Vietnam-wide entity. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, because the Vietnam-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to Commerce's request for data, Commerce has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the Vietnam-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, 9 Commerce stated that it would calculate producer/exporter combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice. 10

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise, as described in the scope of the investigation section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) For the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Vietnam producers/exporters of subject merchandise that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the Vietnam-wide entity; and (3) for all third-county exporters of subject merchandise not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Vietnam producer/exporter combination (or Vietnam-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter.

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

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments on non-scope issues will be announced on a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs. 12 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 13 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

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

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On November 30, 2020, and December 7, 2020, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), the respondent Ducar  14 and MTD Products, Inc. (the petitioner), 15 respectively, requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed 6 months. In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

Article 10.12 of Chapter 10 of USMCA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to provide judicial review of the trade remedy determination being challenged and then issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established Rules of Procedure for Article 10.12 (Binational Panel Reviews), which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 10.12(2) of USMCA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 40. For the complete Rules, please see https://can-mex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/agreement-accord-acuerdo/usmca-aceum-tmec/rules-regles-reglas/article-article-articulo_10_12.aspx?lang=eng.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 44 no later than 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is December 29, 2020);

(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person who does not file a Complaint but who intends to participate in the panel review must file a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 45 no later than 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is January 11, 2021); and

(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

On April 3, 2020, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this review. 1 On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days. 2 On July 21, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by an additional 60 days, 3 thereby extending the deadline for these final results until November 19, 2020. On November 5, 2020, Commerce postponed the final results of this review by 33 days until December 22, 2020. 4

The merchandise covered by this order is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF). For a complete description of the scope of this order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the interested parties' case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Results, as well as 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 http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the issues raised by interested parties and responded to by Commerce in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is provided in the Appendix to this notice.

Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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. 6

For a description of the methodology underlying Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties and record information, we made certain changes to the net subsidy rate calculated for Reliance. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(B)(5), we find the net countervailable subsidy rate for the period November 6, 2017 through December 31, 2018 to be as follows:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise. We will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Reliance entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 6, 2017 through December 31, 2018, at the ad valorem assessment rate listed above for Reliance.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, we intend also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, Commerce 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 deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed for these final results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 7

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 315.305(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 the 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).

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

On June 28, 2018, NMFS published a notice of our issuance of an IHA authorizing take of five species of marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment incidental to the SPE project (83 FR 30406). Species authorized for take included killer whale ( Orcinus orca ), harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), California sea lion ( Zalophus californianus ), Steller sea lion ( Eumetopias jubatus ), and harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ). The effective dates of that IHA were July 16, 2019 through July 15, 2020. On February 4, 2019, the Navy informed NMFS that the project was being delayed by one full year. None of the work identified in the initial IHA had occurred and no marine mammals had been taken during the effective dates of the initial IHA (July 16, 2018 through July 1, 2019). Therefore, the Navy submitted a formal request for reissuance of the initial IHA with new effective dates of July 16, 2020 through July 15, 2021. NMFS re-issued this IHA on July 3, 2019 (84 FR 31844). The IHA covered construction work identical to what was analyzed and authorized through the initial IHA.

On October 14, 2020, NMFS received a request from the Navy for a modification to the current IHA due to an elevated harbor seal take rate. The Navy felt that without an increase in authorized take of harbor seal they would be forced to repeatedly shut down whenever animals entered into specified Level A harassment zones. This would likely prolong the duration of in-water construction activities and add increased costs to the project.

Therefore, the Navy requested a modification of the IHA to increase authorized take of harbor seal by Level A harassment. NMFS published the notice of the proposed IHA modification in the Federal Register on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 74989). The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures remain the same as prescribed in the initial IHA with minor revisions to mitigation requirements. No additional take is authorized for species other than harbor seal. Moreover, the IHA would still expire on July 15, 2021.

The modified IHA would include the same construction activities ( i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal) in the same locations that were described in the initial IHA, The monitoring and reporting measures remain the same as prescribed in the initial IHA, while minor revisions to the required mitigation measures have been authorized. NMFS refers the reader to the documents related to the initial IHA issued on June 28, 2018 (83 FR 30406), for more detailed description of the project activities. Other relevant documents include the notice of proposed IHA and request for comments (83 FR 10689; March 12, 2018), notice of reissued IHA (84 FR 31844, July 3, 2019), and notice of proposed IHA modification (85 FR 74989; November 24, 2020).

A detailed description of the construction activities is found in these previous documents. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of piles and methods of installation and removal are identical to those described in the previous notices.

A notice of proposed IHA modification was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 74989). During the 15-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). NMFS has posted the comments online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. A summary of the comments as well as NMFS' responses are below.

Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS reduce all shut-down zones for phocids during vibratory and impact pile driving and removal to at least 25 m or even 10 m.

Response: NMFS does not concur with the Commission's recommendation of decreasing shutdown zones beyond what NMFS had proposed in the Federal Register notice of a modified IHA. While multiple shutdowns are problematic due to habituated seals entering shutdown zones, the Navy is equally concerned about the possibility of exceeding authorized take of seals. Additional measures authorized under this IHA will decrease shutdowns to a level that is practicable for the Navy while also increasing authorized take to avoid exceeding authorized limits. When any of the three most-habituated seals enters into Level A harassment zones during either impact or vibratory driving, they will be recorded as Level A harassment takes. However, pile driving operations will be allowed to continue since the three habituated seals are responsible for most of the work stoppages and recorded takes during both impact and vibratory driving. These seals can be individually identified and monitored in order to avoid repeated takes of a single animal. Additionally, a smaller phocid Level A harassment and shutdown zone will be established and monitored based on in situ sound source verification (SSV) testing for impact driving. The SSV testing showed a Level A harassment isopleth of 92 m compared to a 217 m isopleth authorized in the existing IHA, resulting in lower takes of seals.

NMFS notes that the reduction in shutdown zones recommended by the Commission would not have any effect on take of harbor seals by Level A harassment. The Level A harassment zones (92 m for impact driving and 30 m for vibratory with the exception of habituated seals) would remain unchanged and takes would occur in those zones even if smaller shutdown zones were established and monitored. There could be some decrease in the number of shutdowns, but since most shutdowns are caused by the three most-habituated seals, who are exempted from the shutdowns at 92 m and 30 m under the modified IHA, any reduction would likely be minor. Furthermore, establishment and monitoring of the larger shutdown zones proposed by NMFS will limit exposure to sound levels that could result in permanent threshold shift (PTS) for seals other than the three highly-habituated animals.

Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS increase the number of Level A harassment takes from 445 to 509 to account for the incidental taking of all harbor seals known to occur in the project area on the 48 remaining in-water work days.

Response: The Commission's recommendation is based on data that was collected near the time when the notice of proposed IHA was published (85 FR 74989; November 24, 2020). When NMFS was drafting the notice of proposed IHA, the Navy had recorded 58 takes of harbor seal by Level A harassment. The most up-to-date information regarding take of harbor seals after submission of the notice of proposed IHA to the Federal Register was provided by the Navy on November 21, 2020. The Navy reported that there had been 85 takes of harbor seal by Level A harassment up to that date with 48 days of in-water work remaining. NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendation that eight harbor seal takes by Level A harassment should be authorized for each remaining day of in-water work resulting in 384 takes. This value has been added to the 125 takes by Level A harassment originally authorized resulting in a total of 509 Level A harassment takes. The total number of takes by both Level A harassment and Level B harassment has not changed (5,725) because the new Level A takes are assumed to occur to animals that would have previously been counted as taken by Level B harassment. Therefore, NMFS has reduced authorized Level B harassment take of harbor seal from 5,600 in the initial IHA to 5,216 in the modified IHA. The total numbers of incidental takes by Level A and Level B harassment as a percentage of population remains the same as shown in Table 2.

Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS reassess the number of Level A harassment takes authorized for harbor seals during the Navy's Transit Protection Program (TPP) Year 1 activities and whether to authorize Level A harassment takes for Year 2 activities. The Commission also recommended that NMFS modify the Navy's TPP authorizations to reduce all shut-down zones for phocids during vibratory and impact pile driving and removal and increase the number of Level A harassment takes to account for the eight harbor seals known to occur in the project area on each day of activities.

Response: NMFS will consider the Commission's input regarding existing and future IHA's pertaining to Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor.

NMFS has increased authorized take of harbor seals by Level A harassment from 445 in the proposed IHA to 509 in the modified IHA while take by Level B harassment has been reduced from 5,280 to 5,216. The rationale for this change is provided in the Estimated Take section.

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities is found in the notice of proposed IHA and request for comments (83 FR 10689; March 3, 2018); notice of initial IHA issued on June 28, 2018 (83 FR 30406); notice of reissued IHA (84 FR 31844, July 3, 2019); and notice of proposed IHA modification (85 FR 74989; November 24, 2020), which remain applicable to this modified IHA as well. In addition, NMFS has reviewed recent Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and recent scientific literature, and determined that no new information affects our original analysis of impacts under the initial IHA.

A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat may be found in the documents supporting the initial IHA (83 FR 30406; June 28, 2018) which remains applicable to the issuance of this modified IHA. There is no new information on potential effects.

For harbor seals, observations indicate that eight identified individuals are often observed in relatively close proximity to the pile driving operations. Three of the eight animals occur more frequently, often on a daily basis. Given this, there is a higher likelihood than initially considered that these animals may incur PTS at a low-moderate level due to the repeated, longer-duration exposure to higher levels of sound.

A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the notice of IHA for the initial authorization (83 FR 30406; June 28, 2018). The pile installation and removal equipment that may result in take, as well as the source levels, marine mammal stocks taken, marine mammal density data and the methods of take estimation applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. The number of authorized takes is also identical with the exception of harbor seals.

The in-water work window (when ESA-listed salmonids are least likely to be present) runs from July 16, 2020 through January 15, 2021. Pile installation started September 4, 2020 with both vibratory and impact pile drivers being employed. After in-water work commenced, protected species observers (PSOs) began recording a specific group of harbor seals that consistently entered and remained in the Level A harassment zone. (Note that the term PSO has replaced marine mammal observer (MMO) in this notice as well as the draft modified IHA, although the functions and duties of each are identical). This has resulted in excessive shutdowns. Due to these frequent shutdowns the pile installation project is behind schedule. PSOs have identified at least eight harbor seals that frequent the project area and have become habituated to the in-water construction work. These seals include four pups and four adults which have all been individually identified. Three of the pups are seen in the project area on almost a daily basis. The pups approach the work site repeatedly during the day and stay in the work area for up to 90 minutes. Two of the pups and all of the adults have had occasional behavioral reactions to pile driving activity. For example, PSOs have recorded seals occasionally exhibiting behaviors such as startled response and fast swimming away from the activity.

On October 14, 2020, NMFS received a request from the Navy for a modification to the current IHA due to an elevated harbor seal take rate. NMFS concurred that under the current take rate, the Navy would likely exceed authorized take prior to the effective end data of the IHA.

The Navy utilized NMFS' User Spreadsheet to calculate the Level A harassment isopleths associated with project activities which was developed as part of the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds. Inputs to the model for the initial IHA are shown in Table 1. This model calculated a 217-m Level A harassment isopleth for phocids ( i.e., harbor seals) during impact driving of 36-in steel piles. The size of this PTS harassment zone for 36-steel pile impact driving is relatively large compared to PTS zones for both impact and vibratory driving of other pile types and sizes. The large zone size and habituation of a limited number of seals has contributed to a greater phocid take rate than was initially calculated.

The Navy conducted SSV testing in September 2020 and compared the results to values generated by the NMFS User Spreadsheet in the initial IHA. Due to some of assumptions built into the model, the User Spreadsheet generates PTS isopleths that are potentially overestimates. Testing was conducted during impact driving of four 36-in steel piles both with and without bubble curtains and recorded values were inserted into the use spreadsheet. The acoustic data for each pile strike were frequency weighted for phocidae following NMFS guidance (2016) and then averaged. This resulted in an average phocid weighted single strike SEL of 177 dB re 1μPa2s at 10 m. Using the measured transmission loss of 25 (far field) and an assumption of 1,600 strikes per day, the resulting isopleth for phocids was 92 meters (Wood et al. 2020).

With NMFS' approval, the Navy retroactively utilized the revised Level A harassment isopleth of 92 m and recalculated the harbor seal take. Distances to each taken animal were recorded as part of the marine mammal monitoring plan. This reduced the total take count by 29, bringing the revised total from 87 to 58 takes. Approximately 33 percent of total takes occurred during impact driving outside the 92 m zone. The Navy reduced the shutdown zone size based on SSV data and retroactively recalculated take to allow for continuation of in-water construction while public comments were being solicited through this Federal Register notice (85 FR 74989; November 24, 2020) and the modified IHA was being finalized.

While vibratory is the preferred method of installation, impact driving has been needed daily due at the project site, largely due to sediment conditions. Additionally, there is a 30-m shut down zone (26-m injury zone) during vibratory driving. The PSOs reported that three habituated individuals frequently approach in close proximity to the piles within the 30-m shutdown zone during vibratory driving. Given these factors, the Navy concluded that would still be needed, even if the Level A harassment isopleth during impact driving is reduced from 217 m to 92 m.

PSOs report that up to eight animals frequent the project site and are believed to be habituated by varying degrees to in-water construction activities. Some of them regularly enter and remain within Level A harassment and shutdown zones. Three of these individuals already noted above appear daily in the Level A harassment zone, while the remainder of the group of eight are observed less frequently (every other or every third day). All eight seals have been observed in the previous Level A harassment zone (217 m) on some occasions, with an average of five to six seen on each day. The Navy requested that NMFS authorize an additional four takes by Level A harassment per day. This would allow for one take per day by Level A harassment for each of the three daily visitors (three takes per day), as well as one additional Level A harassment take per day that could be incurred by any of the other five individuals if one of them entered the shutdown zone each day prior to detection, or if a few of them entered every few days. Based on the information provided, NMFS proposed that average of four harbor seal takes per day by Level A harassment would occur.

Based on the Commission's recommendation, NMFS has authorized increased take of harbor seal by Level A harassment as a precautionary measure. For example, one or more of the five less-habituated seals could become more habituated and join the three most habituated animals on daily incursions into a Level A harassment zone. If this occurred the Navy would likely exceed the authorized take limit NMFS put forth in the modified IHA proposal.

Based upon pile installation rates achieved to date as reported by the Navy, all of the days remaining within the in-water work window (48) will be needed to complete this segment of the project before the current work window closes. As described above and based on the Commission's recommendation, NMFS has authorized increased harbor take to eight per day by Level A harassment for an additional 384 takes (8 takes/day * 48 days) between now and January 15, 2021 when the in-water work window ends. The 384 takes are added to the initial 125 authorized takes for a total of 509 takes by Level A harassment. Most of these takes will occur to a smaller number of habituated individuals identified by the Navy.

The total numbers of incidental takes by Level A and Level B harassment, including proposed updated harbor seal Level A harassment and as a percentage of population, is shown in Table 2 below. The total number of takes (Level A and Level B harassment combined) has not changed because the new Level A takes are assumed to occur to animals that would have previously been counted as taken by Level B harassment. Therefore, NMFS has reduced authorized Level B harassment take of harbor seal from 5,600 in the initial IHA to 5,216.

Since the total number of combined takes by Level A and Level B harassment remains unchanged (5,725) from the number authorized in the existing IHA, the rationale supporting our small numbers determination for the Hood Canal stock of harbor seal is applicable here and remains valid.

With the exception of the revised shutdown provisions for harbor seals discussed below, the monitoring, and reporting measures described here are identical to those included in the Federal Register notice announcing the initial IHA (83 FR 30406; June 28, 2018).

Use of Vibratory Installation —The Navy will employ vibratory installation to the greatest extent possible when driving steel piles to minimize high sound pressure levels associated with impact pile driving. Impact driving of steel piles will only occur when required by geotechnical conditions or to proof load-bearing piles driven by vibratory methods.

Timing Restrictions —To minimize the number of fish exposed to underwater noise and other construction disturbance, in-water work will occur during the in-water work window previously described when ESA-listed salmonids are least likely to be present (USACE, 2015), July 16-January 15.

All in-water construction activities will occur during daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) except from July 16 to September 15, when impact pile driving will only occur starting 2 hours after sunrise and ending 2 hours before sunset, to protect foraging marbled murrelets during the nesting season (April 15-September 23).

Use of Bubble Curtain —A bubble curtain will be employed during impact installation or proofing of steel piles where water depths are greater than 0.67 m (2 ft). A noise attenuation device is not required during vibratory pile driving. If a bubble curtain or similar measure is used, it will distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column. Any other attenuation measure must provide 100 percent coverage in the water column for the full depth of the pile. The lowest bubble ring shall be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring. The weights attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline contact.

A performance test of the bubble curtain shall be conducted prior to initial use for impact pile driving. The performance test shall confirm the calculated pressures and flow rates at each manifold ring. The contractor shall also train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers. The contractor shall submit an inspection/performance report to the Navy for approval within 72 hours following the performance test. Corrections to the noise attenuation device to meet the performance stands shall occur prior to use for impact driving.

Soft-Start —During impact driving the Navy is required to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a 30 second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets.

A soft-start procedure will be used for impact pile driving at the beginning of each day's in-water pile driving or any time impact pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes.

Establishment of Shutdown Zones and Disturbance Zones —For all impact and vibratory driving of piles, shutdown and disturbance zones will be established and monitored. All shutdown and disturbance zones remain the same as those included in the initial IHA, except for the shutdown zone for harbor seals during impact driving of steel piles for which the modifications are described below. The Navy will focus observations within 1,000 m for all species during these activities but will record all observations. During impact driving of concrete piles the Navy will focus on monitoring within 100 m but will record all observations. The Navy will monitor and record marine mammal observations within zones and extrapolate these values across the entirety of the Level B zone as part of the final monitoring report. To the extent possible, the Navy will record and report on any marine mammal occurrences, including behavioral disturbances, beyond 1,000 m for steel pile installation and 100 m for concrete pile installation.

The shutdown zones are based on the distances from the source predicted for each threshold level. Although different functional hearing groups of cetaceans and pinnipeds were evaluated, the threshold levels used to develop the disturbance zones were selected to be conservative for cetaceans (and therefore at the lowest levels); as such, the disturbance zones for cetaceans were based on the high frequency threshold (harbor porpoise). The shutdown zones are based on the maximum calculated Level A harassment radius for pinnipeds and cetaceans during installation of 36-inch steel and concrete piles with impact techniques, as well as during vibratory pile installation and removal. These actions serve to protect marine mammals, allow for practical implementation of the Navy's marine mammal monitoring plan and reduce the risk of a take. The shutdown zone during any non-pile driving activity will always be a minimum of 10 m (33 ft) to prevent injury from physical interaction of marine mammals with construction equipment.

During impact pile driving of steel piles, the shutdown, Level A, and Level B zones as shown in Table 3 will be monitored out to the greatest extent possible with a focus on monitoring within 1,000 m for steel pile and 100 m for concrete pile installation.

The Navy's IHA allows for the modification of shutdown zones if hydroacoustic monitoring is conducted. The Navy conducted a SSV test since the initial IHA was issued and it indicates that the Level A harassment isopleth for harbor seals occurs at 92 m instead of 217 m. Therefore, at the Navy's request and with concurrence from NMFS, the shutdown zone has been reduced from 220 m to 95 m during impact driving of all steel piles ( i.e. , both 36-in and 24-in steel piles). This is the only change to Level A or Level B harassment zone authorized as part of this modified IHA.

The shutdown, Level A, and Level B isopleths for all other impact driving remains unchanged from the notice of the issuance of the initial IHA (83 FR 30406; June 28, 2018).

The reduced size of the shutdown zone for harbor seals along with the increase in authorized take by Level A harassment should preclude the Navy from exceeding its authorized take limit for this species. However, even with a 95-m shutdown zone during impact driving and a 30-m shutdown zone during vibratory driving, it is highly likely that the Navy will continue to experience frequent work stoppages due to frequent visits by habituated harbor seals. This will result in continued schedule delays and cost overruns and may potentially require an extra year of in-water construction activities. Given this information, it is not practicable for the Navy to shut down or delay pile driving activities every time a harbor seal is observed in a shutdown zone.

Therefore, shutdowns will be initiated for harbor seals when observed approaching or entering the Level A harassment zones as described above, except when one or more of the three habituated harbor seals identified as daily visitors approaches or enters an established shutdown zone. In such cases, a single take by Level A harassment shall be recorded for each individual seal for the entire day and operations will be allowed to continue without interruption. The behavior of these three daily visitors will be monitored and recorded as well as the duration of time spent within the harassment zones. This information will be recorded individually for each of the three seals. If any other seals, including the five habituated seals identified as frequent visitors, approaches or enters into a Level A harassment zone, shutdown must occur.

The minimum shutdown zone during any pile driving activity will always be a minimum of 10 m. Shutdown is mandatory whenever an animal is within 10 m of pile driving location regardless of the exception noted above. In such instances, in-water pile driving operations may only continue after 15 minutes have passed or the animal is seen heading away from the 10-m shutdown zone.

The revisions in the mitigation, including the shutdown exception for habituated harbor seals, are necessary to allow for the practicable completion of the Navy's specified activities. Although the predicted Level A harassment take numbers are higher than initially projected because of the behavior of the eight habituated animals, the likelihood of take by Level A harassment is lower than initially expected because the Level A harassment zone is smaller than initially predicted based on the new SSV. NMFS has considered the new take numbers and revised mitigation measures for harbor seals and determined that they will effect the least practicable adverse impact on harbor seals and their habitat. Nothing has changed since the initial IHA for other species or stocks and our analysis and conclusions remain the same.

Visual Monitoring —Monitoring must be conducted by qualified protected PSOs with minimum qualifications described in the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the initial IHA (83 FR 30406; June 28, 2018). During pile driving, there will be three-five PSOs working depending on the location, site accessibility and line of sight for adequate coverage.

Reporting —PSOs must record specific information as described in the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the initial IHA (83 FR 30406; June 28, 2018). Within 90 days after completion of pile driving and removal activities, the Navy must provide NMFS with a monitoring report which includes summaries of recorded takes and estimates of the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

In the unanticipated event that: (1) The specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality; (2) an injured or dead animal is discovered and cause of death is known; or (3) an injured or dead animal is discovered and cause of death is not related to the authorized activities, the Navy will follow the protocols described in the Section 3 of Marine Mammal Monitoring Report (Appendix D of the application).

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures in consideration of the increased estimated take for harbor seals, as well as the modified shutdown provisions for harbor seals, NMFS has re-affirmed the determination that the required mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on harbor seals and their habitat.

With the exception of the revised harbor seal shutdown provisions, the Navy's in-water construction activities as well as monitoring and reporting requirements are unchanged from those covered in the initial IHA. The effects of the activity, taking into consideration the added mitigation and related monitoring measures, remain unchanged, notwithstanding the increase to the authorized amount of harbor seal take by Level A harassment. The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of serious injury or mortality. While injury could occur in a small group of habituated animals (eight or fewer), it would likely be limited to PTS at lower frequencies where pile driving energy is concentrated, and unlikely to result in significant impacts to individual fitness, reproduction, or survival of these individuals.

With approximately 48 in-water construction days remaining, NMFS has authorized an increase in harbor seal take by Level A harassment to 509. Even in consideration of the increased numbers of take by Level A harassment, the impacts of these exposures, as noted above, may result in moderate injury to a limited number of harbor seals but are not expected to accrue to the degree that the fitness of any individuals is markedly impacted. Further, given the small number of individuals potentially impacted in this manner, no impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival are likely to result.

Separately, as described previously, the increase in Level A harassment take corresponds to a commensurate decrease in the predicted number of Level B harassment and the total number of takes remains unchanged. Therefore, we re-affirm that small numbers of harbor seals will be taken relative to the population size of the Hood Canal stock of harbor seal.

In conclusion, there is no new information suggesting that our effects analysis or negligible impact finding for harbor seals should change.

Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has reaffirmed the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the proposed authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the proposed authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) the Navy's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the modification of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the modified IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

NMFS has issued a modified IHA to the for in-water construction associated with the SPE project on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington effective until July 15, 2021. The only change is an increase in the authorized take of harbor seal take by Level A harassment from 125 to 509.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.

We published a notice of proposed priority and definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on September 8, 2020 (85 FR 55439). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular administrative priority and definitions.

We have made minor revisions to paragraphs (b) and (f) of the priority and to the definition of “interoperable credentials,” which we explain in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 16 parties submitted comments.

We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority and definitions.

Analysis of the Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority and definitions since publication of the NPP follows.

Comments: A few commenters asked for clarity on how the priority would be used and encouraged the Department to prioritize certain applicants, such as institutions of higher education, for eligibility.

Discussion: As discussed in the NPP, the priority is intended to build State and local capacity to support remote learning and instruction. The Department may elect to use this priority when inviting applications for a discretionary grant program. The Department has the discretion to choose whether the priority and definitions are appropriate for the competition after considering program purpose, feasibility, and scope. The Department also has the discretion to choose how the priority would apply; for example, the priority may be used as an absolute priority (applicants must address the priority in order to be eligible to receive grant funds) or a competitive preference priority (applicants may receive additional points depending on how well they address the priority). We will only use the priority and definitions for a particular grant competition when it is relevant and appropriate. Furthermore, the Department is not required to use the priority and definitions for any particular program.

In any competition in which this priority and definitions are used, eligible entities are determined by the program statute; therefore, we cannot specify eligibility for a particular type of entity as part of the final priority.

Changes: None.

Comments: A few commenters proposed revisions to, or additional language for, the background section that accompanied the proposed priority to emphasize the impact of school closures for in-person instruction on different populations, such as students with disabilities, as well as specifics related to learning losses discussed in the cited study.

Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the NPP background section, which explains our rationale for this priority and definitions. We agree with comments that emphasized the impact of school closures for in-person instruction on students with disabilities and other groups of students and believe the commenters' concerns are sufficiently addressed through paragraph (f) of the priority. Moreover, we are revising paragraph (f) so that a program may choose to focus on a specific subgroup. Additionally, we added language in parentheticals clarifying that where the commonly used terms used for the subgroups of students in paragraph (f) or similar terms are defined in the applicable authorizing program statute, these terms take on the statutory definition that applies to the particular program. For example, this priority could be used in the Alaska Native Education (ANE) program to encourage projects that provide high-quality remote learning to students who are Alaska Natives, as defined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA), through the use of paragraph (f)(iv) of the priority, pertaining to Native American students.

Changes: We are modifying paragraph (f) so that a program may choose to focus on specific subgroups and have clarified that the definitions of listed subgroups may be based on the program's statutory authority, as applicable.

Comments: Multiple commenters requested that we reference Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act in the accessibility requirement paragraph that concludes the priority.

Discussion: We agree that accessibility is important in ensuring all students can access remote learning effectively, and we have indicated so in various paragraphs of the priority. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act applies only to Federal agencies, so recipients of Federal financial assistance are not required to comply with that law; consequently, inclusion of Section 508 in the accessibility requirement has limited applicability and is therefore unnecessary.

Changes: None.

Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns about the impact of remote learning for students with disabilities, including a concern that the priority did not take into account the individual needs of students identified for services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

In addition, multiple commenters expressed support for paragraph (f) of the priority to target the needs of specific subgroups, including students with disabilities. However, one commenter recommended the Department remove the requirement that paragraph (f) of the priority be used only in conjunction with another paragraph of the priority.

Discussion: Students with disabilities throughout the country who may be eligible for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) or the IDEA must have their individual learning needs met from wherever they are learning. Educators also need training and support to provide effective remote instruction. Through this priority, we will promote strategies and practices for delivering remote learning and competency-based education that effectively meet the individual needs of students with disabilities, including: Identifying the appropriate technologies, assistive technologies, or accessible educational materials needed to ensure students with disabilities have access to core or alternate curricula; enhancing communication and collaboration with parents and families to identify the most effective methodology and supports that will meet the unique and individual needs of students with disabilities; and ensuring Individualized Education Program teams and teams determining services under Section 504 collaborate with parents to identify the program, related services, accommodations, and supports the individual student will require in order to derive an educational benefit and achieve academic, functional, and behavioral educational outcomes.

Lastly, paragraph (f) of the priority is designed to target the work carried out under paragraphs (a)-(e) of the priority to a particular subgroup or subgroups of students and leverage that work to focus efforts. As such, paragraph (f) on its own would not address fully the improvements that would be supported with this remote learning priority.

Changes: None.

Comments: Multiple commenters suggested adding language on the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in all the paragraphs of the priority.

Discussion: The priority currently refers to UDL in paragraph (a) of the priority as an example. As written, the language in the other paragraphs of the priority could be inclusive of UDL as a strategy for meeting the needs of students with disabilities.

Further, the priority offers the flexibility for applicants to address UDL and similar strategies in their grant applications. There is nothing in the priority that would prohibit the use of UDL. For these reasons, it is not necessary to revise the priority to include explicit references to the strategy in all paragraphs of the priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter raised concerns that the priority did not address all student populations most impacted by remote learning, that remote learning is not culturally responsive, and that the assessments need to be research-based. This commenter also raised concern about inequitable access to technology, stating that the priority will further exacerbate the “digital divide.” A second commenter recommended removing the 10 percent limitation on technology costs, citing concerns about access to technology and the variance in that access across the country.

Discussion: We appreciate the concern that the remote learning priority must consider the needs of all students. We include paragraph (f) of the priority which requires “high-quality” remote learning for specific subgroups of students, and we think that the concept of high-quality remote learning would include considerations about what is culturally responsive, as appropriate. We also generally defer to applicants on how best to meet their communities' needs. Furthermore, the intent of the remote learning priority is to ensure that the Department provide incentives to applicants that would implement robust, effective, and engaging remote learning strategies that meet the needs of all students. In addition, while we do not explicitly require performance-based assessments to be supported by research, in paragraph (d) of the priority we do require that the assessments obtain valid and reliable results.

Paragraph (c) of the proposed priority allowed for providing access to technologies needed to serve learners. The intent of proposed paragraph (c) was to reduce the differences in access to technology. We understand that setting a limit on technology costs could be prohibitive to successfully implementing the remote learning priority and understand that applicants are best positioned to determine the sufficient amount of resources needed to invest in technology to support project objectives. As such, we are removing the cap on technology costs in paragraph (c) of the proposed priority.

Changes: We are removing the last sentence of paragraph (c) of the proposed priority.

Comments: Multiple commenters supported the priority, emphasized the need for professional learning and the usage of paragraph (b), and noted the important role institutions of higher education play in professional development. One commenter asked that the Department use paragraph (b) in all competitions as an absolute priority.

Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priority. We agree that professional learning is an important part of effective remote learning and agree that institutions of higher education, along with a number of other entities, can support professional learning for educators. With respect to using paragraph (b) as an absolute priority across all discretionary grant programs, the Department has discretion in choosing whether and how to use the priority based on its applicability to a given program's purpose, and those decisions are best made on a program-by-program basis.

Changes: None.

Comment: A couple of commenters requested that the Department expand paragraph (b), which is focused on professional learning. One commenter wanted paragraph (b) to align with the definition of “professional development” under the ESEA. Another commenter said the examples in the parenthetical for paragraph (b) should be expanded with additional examples to emphasize professional development focused on student engagement and not just professional development in technology use.

Discussion: We appreciate the interest in clarity and consistency in terminology in this priority and other statutes. However, the language about professional development being “sustained and intensive” from the definition of “professional development” in ESEA is not appropriate for this remote learning priority. Our intent for this priority is to help the Department's grantees pivot between in-person and remote learning as needed. While remote learning in response to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been in place for an extended period, not all remote learning under this priority will be for similar time frames, and professional learning may not need to be ongoing to address educator capacity for remote learning.

In regard to the comment recommending additional examples to highlight professional learning activities beyond technology, paragraph (b) already includes a focus on professional learning with the intent of advancing student engagement and learning, but we recognize the paragraph may appear to highlight technology primarily. As such, we are reorganizing the sentence for paragraph (b) to clearly emphasize increasing student engagement, including through the use of technology.

Changes: We are revising paragraph (b) so that it more clearly states that the professional learning under this priority is focused on student engagement and learning through technology, rather than emphasizing technology.

Comments: Multiple commenters sought revisions to paragraph (d) of the priority to clarify that performance-based assessments are important, regardless of the connection to competency-based education; that the assessments must show true competency; and that assessments should not require seat time. Commenters also asked the Department to provide additional examples of assessments.

Discussion: We agree that performance-based assessments are important and purposefully highlight these kinds of assessments and seek their development under paragraph (d) of the priority. We agree that performance-based assessments can be separate from competency-based education; however, we want to emphasize competency-based education in this paragraph of the remote learning priority. Moreover, we want to encourage assessments that demonstrate competency, in keeping with the recommendation from one commenter, and we want to support assessments that accurately document students' skills. The examples included in paragraph (d) do not need to be exhaustive and are sufficient for the purposes of the priority. Lastly, we do not consider the priority or the definition of “competency-based education,” as written, to require a particular amount of instruction or seat time; rather, the definition of “competency-based education” specifically calls for assessments that demonstrate progression “based on demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge) and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.”

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter stated that the “valid and reliable assessments” piece of paragraph (d) of the priority that focused on assessments and competency-based education should not be limited to just summative assessments.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's interest in not limiting assessments to summative assessments and focusing on formative assessments as well. We do not consider the inclusion of “valid and reliable” in describing the assessments to mean that they must only be summative assessments. Rather, paragraph (d) focuses on performance-based assessments that document students' skills and, under the definition of “competency-based education,” progression is based on demonstrated mastery rather than seat time. However, we want to clarify that the intent is for performance-based assessments to yield valid and reliable results and are therefore changing “obtain” in proposed paragraph (d) to “yield.”

Changes: We are revising “obtain” in paragraph (d) of the proposed priority to “yield.”

Comment: One commenter recommended that we clarify the terms “hybrid/blended learning” and “linked open data formats” used in the priority.

Discussion: We appreciate the interest in providing clarity in the priority and the terminology used. We decline to further define “hybrid/blended learning,” as this term has various meanings in the field depending on specific contexts of a particular community, and we do not think it is necessary to define the term for purposes of the priority. We also decline to define “linked open data formats.” We think “open data” is a term widely used at the Federal, State, and local levels, and by “linked” we emphasize the accessibility of the data. We do not consider a separate definition to be necessary and believe programs using this priority will clarify how these terms fit within their specific context.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter asked whether, under paragraph (f), the Department should require applicants to provide both high-quality remote learning and competency-based education in response to this paragraph, or whether applicants should have the flexibility to choose between remote learning or competency-based education, as provided in the proposed priority.

Discussion: The proposed priority would have offered applicants a choice between providing remote learning or competency-based education to specific student subgroups. While a project could support both remote learning and competency-based education, in further reviewing paragraph (f), we think “competency-based education” can be removed from proposed paragraph (f) because the broader priority is focused on building capacity for remote learning.

Changes: We are removing “or competency-based education” from paragraph (f) of the proposed priority.

Comment: One commenter proposed limiting the definition of “remote learning” to K-12 education given the recent publication of the higher education distance education regulations, citing concern that existing definitions in the higher education context, including the definition for “distance education,” that include remote learning concepts may spark confusion. Specifically, “distance education” is defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), as well as in the Distance Education and Innovation regulations published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2020 (85 FR 54742).

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's consideration of whether this priority and the “remote learning” definition is applicable in the higher education context, as our intent is to establish a priority that could be used in grant programs across the Department, including those for higher education. We recognize that there are definitions for “distance education” in section 103(7) of the HEA and “distance learning” in section 8101(14) of the ESEA. The definition of “remote learning” is not meant to contradict or supersede these definitions or the definition of “distance education” in the HEA or the higher education Distance Education and Innovation regulations; rather, it is meant to provide context for those definitions and clarify what is meant by remote learning in the context of this priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter supported the priority but asked that the definition for “remote learning” also reference non-technology models, such as service learning, internships, and other programs.

Discussion: We agree that remote learning can include non-technology models and highlight some of those as examples in the “remote learning” definition. Given that the list of examples is not exhaustive, nothing in the definition prohibits other activities in addition to the activities identified. We, therefore, do not think adding additional examples is necessary.

Changes: None.

Comments: Multiple commenters supported the inclusion of competency-based education in the priority, with one commenter recommending a stand-alone priority focused on competency-based education, arguing that competency-based education, while it can be used in conjunction with technology, does not require technology.

Discussion: We appreciate the support for inclusion of competency-based education in the priority and definitions. We agree that competency-based education is important, and the Department previously included “competency-based learning” in Priority 3—Fostering Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining Knowledge and Skills in the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities) published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096). As such, we do not need to create an additional, separate priority for competency-based education. Further, we decline to remove the reference to “competency-based education” in paragraph (a) because our intent is to encourage competency-based education in remote learning environments.

Changes: None.

Comments: Multiple commenters recommended changes to the definition of “competency-based education,” including adding references to credentials that are inclusive of all students, include appropriate pacing, and are student focused. An additional commenter proposed limiting the definition for “competency-based education” to K-12 education given the recent publication of the higher education Distance Education and Innovation regulations and concern about confusion when used in the higher education context, especially since competency-based education was not defined in those regulations.

Discussion: We appreciate comments suggesting that we revise the definition of “competency-based education.” We proposed to define the term as “competency-based education,” which was included as an example in paragraph (a) of the priority and is central to the performance-based assessments piece of paragraph (d). The definition as written is inclusive of all students, allows for demonstration of mastery as a result of self-paced learning, and provides a broad understanding of competency-based education for operationalizing within the context of the remote learning priority. The definition of “competency-based education” for the remote learning priority is consistent with other Department usage and definitions of “competency-based education,” including the Rural Tech Project ( https://www.ruraltechproject.com/ ).

As to the concern about usage of the priority and the “competency-based education” definition in higher education, the Department has the discretion for each grant program to choose if the priority should be used in a given competition considering the program's purpose, feasibility, and scope, and, if so, how the priority would apply; for example, a program may choose to use only paragraph (a) of the priority. As noted above, competency-based education is part of an illustrative list in paragraph (a), and an applicant is not required to address all items in that list. Competency-based education is more central to paragraph (d), but the Department may choose whether to use paragraph (d) when including the remote learning priority in a particular grant competition, taking into consideration the program's statute and other relevant regulations. As noted earlier, the Department will make program-by-program decisions about when and how to use the remote learning priority, including in the higher education context. Moreover, the definition of “competency-based education” does not contradict or supersede any of the Distance Education and Innovation regulations; rather, it is meant to clarify what is meant by “competency-based education” in the context of this priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter supported the inclusion of interoperable credentials in the priority and definitions and recommended that the Department include interoperable credential requirements in all discretionary grant competitions. In the definition, the commenter proposed that we change “common standardized frameworks” to “nationally recognized and widely used educational or professional learning standards.”

Discussion: We agree that interoperable credentials are important and appreciate the support for paragraph (e) of the priority. The Department has discretion in choosing whether and how to use the priority for all of our grant competitions. We decide to use a particular priority based on careful consideration of whether the priority and definitions are appropriate for each competition with regard to program purpose, feasibility, and scope.

In regard to the recommendation to refer to “nationally recognized and widely used educational or professional learning standards” rather than “common standardized frameworks,” we appreciate the interest in ensuring clarity in terminology. We note the white papers hosted on the U.S. Department of Commerce website designed to provide clarity regarding, among other things, “credentials,” which include a focus on “common standardized frameworks”: “White Paper on Interoperable Learning Records” ( www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_EBOOK.pdf ) and “Learning and Employment Records: Progress and the path forward” ( www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf ). Moreover, we do not think the Department should endorse specific national standards related to credentialing, and, as such, we do not consider it appropriate to revise the definition as the commenter suggested. Though there are many standards that could apply to credentials, we expect applicants and grantees will choose standards that are widely accepted and meet the needs of their projects. Therefore, we are not making any changes to the reference to, or definition of, “interoperable credentials.”

Changes: None.

Comment: In reference to competency-based education and interoperable credentials, one commenter recommended adding specific references to “short-term credentials,” such as micro-credentials, to clearly demonstrate that credentials are broader than traditional, time-bound programs.

Discussion: We agree that the intent behind inclusion of competency-based education and interoperable credentials in the priority and definitions is to broaden practitioners' use of credentials. As such, we are adding examples of some of these short-term credentials to highlight other less traditional credential types.

Change: In the definition for “interoperable credentials,” we have added references to micro-, stackable, and other types of short-term credentials.

Comment: One commenter proposed limiting the definition of “interoperable credentials” to K-12 education, stating that the term is not one used in the higher education context.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's consideration of whether the “interoperable credentials” definition is applicable in the higher education context, as our intent is to have a priority that could be used in grant programs across the Department, including those for postsecondary education. Credentials are more than specific postsecondary degrees; they can be smaller units and time bound. Examples of these types of credentials include micro-credentials and stackable credentials, which can be used for professional development, and we think it is important for all education sectors to think more broadly about credentials and their interoperability.

Changes: None.

Comment: A few commenters asked whether the definition of “interoperable credentials” creates two sets of requirements, for the credentials themselves and for data and information sharing relating to the credentials. The commenters suggested clarifying revisions. Given that the term included two distinct points, the commenters had concerns about confusion when defining “interoperable credentials.” The commenters proposed edits to clarify the distinction.

In addition, one of the commenters also expressed the importance of transparency related to interoperable credentials and proposed a new definition for “credential transparency.”

Discussion: Through this definition, the Department is establishing requirements both with respect to the credentials generally and with respect to their interoperability. Although there are many types of credentials, including some that may not be interoperable, we intentionally use the term “interoperable credentials” in this priority because we are especially interested in promoting recognizable, transferrable, and transparent evidence of mastery. Defining the term “interoperable credentials” does not imply that other forms of credentials do not exist.

Credential transparency is embedded in the definition, particularly through the requirement of “open standards,” and, as the commenter points out, there are many organizations focused on making credentials transparent and available to users. We note the white papers hosted on the U.S. Department of Commerce website as examples of the efforts to promote credential transparency and interoperability, in this case in the context of learner employment records: “White Paper on Interoperable Learning Records” ( www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_EBOOK.pdf ) and “Learning and Employment Records: Progress and the path forward” ( www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf ). We, thus, do not think a separate definition or additional clarification of the definition is needed.

Changes: None.

Under this priority, an applicant must propose a project that is designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:

(a) Adopting and supporting models that leverage technology ( e.g., universal design for learning, competency-based education (as defined in this notice), or hybrid/blended learning) and provide high-quality digital learning content, applications, and tools.

(b) Providing personalized and job-embedded professional learning to build the capacity of educators to create remote learning experiences that advance student engagement and learning through effective use of technology ( e.g., synchronous and asynchronous professional learning, professional learning networks or communities, and coaching).

(c) Providing access to any of the following, in particular to serve learners without access to such technologies: Reliable, high-speed internet, learning devices, or software applications that meet all students' and educators' remote learning needs while inside the school building and in remote learning environments.

(d) Developing performance-based assessments that promote competency-based education and can be delivered remotely or in-person to students and yield valid and reliable results that accurately document students' skills ( e.g., inquiry/game-based assessment or data visualization tools for monitoring ongoing learning).

(e) Supporting the development of digital interoperable credentials (as defined in this notice) that make transparent the competencies achieved through remote learning experiences and allow students to access, control, and share their achievements across a variety of education and training processes (formal or informal, classroom-based, remote, or workplace-based). Information on these credentials must be publicly accessible using linked open data formats to ensure their transferability and the continuity of learning for students.

(f) Providing high-quality remote learning specifically for one or more of the following student subgroups:

(i) Students from low-income (as may be defined in the program's authorizing statute) families;

(ii) Children or students with disabilities (as may be defined in the program's authorizing statute);

(iii) English learners (as may be defined in the program's authorizing statute);

(iv) Native American (as may be defined in the program's authorizing statute) students;

(v) Homeless (as may be defined in the program's authorizing statute) students ; or

(vi) Students attending schools in rural (as may be defined in the program's authorizing statute) areas.

The remote learning environment must be accessible to individuals with disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as applicable. The remote learning environment must also provide appropriate remote learning language assistance services to English learners.

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any Department discretionary grant competition in which the final priority is used:

Competency-based education (also called proficiency-based or mastery-based learning) means learning based on knowledge and skills that are transparent and measurable. Progression is based on demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge) and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.

Interoperable credentials are those credentials built using open standards so that they are shareable, verifiable, portable, and secure. The credentials describe the specific achievements, such as credential type, skill level, or other information, using common, standardized frameworks so that the data are machine readable, exchangeable, and actionable across technology systems and, when appropriate, on the web. When credentials are interoperable, a full range of an individual's skills and achievements, earned through formal and informal learning experiences or workplace-based training, can be collected together and verified, regardless of available technology systems, reducing challenges as individuals transition between education and employment. These credentials include traditional academic credentials, as well as micro-, stackable, and other types of short-term credentials earned through short-term, professional development, or non-credit bearing educational experiences.

Remote learning means programming where at least part of the learning occurs away from the physical building in a manner that addresses a learner's education needs. Remote learning may include online, hybrid/blended learning, or non-technology-based learning ( e.g., lab kits, project supplies, paper packets).

Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2021, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 13771 does not apply to “transfer rules” that cause only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those regarding discretionary grant programs. Because the priority and definitions would be used in connection with one or more discretionary grant programs, Executive Order 13771 does not apply.

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this final priority and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The Department believes that this regulatory action will not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in our programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with grant funds. As a result, the priority and definitions will not impose any particular burden except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. The benefits of the priority and definitions will outweigh any associated costs because they will help ensure that the Department's discretionary grant programs select high-quality applicants to implement activities that are designed to address critical remote learning needs.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000.

Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the number of applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the final priority and definitions will significantly impact small entities beyond the potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, competitive grants from the Department.

These final priority and definitions contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0009; the final priority and definitions do not affect the currently approved data collection.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for the Department's discretionary grant programs.

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

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

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

This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register document of November 6, 2020 (85 FR 71071) (FRL-10015-77), which opened a 60-day public comment period for the draft nationwide biological evaluations for the registration review of the pesticides atrazine, simazine, and propazine relative to the potential effects on threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitats. As noted in that document, the schedule for conducting the atrazine and simazine biological evaluations was negotiated as part of a partial settlement agreement pursuant to a joint stipulation filed on October 18, 2019 and entered by the court on October 22, 2019, in Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. EPA et al. (N.D. Ca) (3:11-cv-00293). EPA stated in this settlement that it would also include propazine in this group of effects determinations. EPA is hereby extending the public comment period, which was set to end on January 5, 2021, to February 19, 2021.

After considering a number of requests to extend the comment period received from various stakeholders, EPA is extending the comment period for the following reasons: (1) The length, complexity, and highly technical nature of the draft biological evaluations; (2) the need for some stakeholders to engage experts familiar with the subject matter to assist them with providing comments; (3) the large number of stakeholders potentially impacted by the draft biological evaluations; (4) the importance of soliciting feedback from stakeholders who may be affected; and (5) the stakeholders' need for additional time to review and develop constructive comments for these complex and lengthy documents.

To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of November 6, 2020. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0308, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by the registrant, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the registrant of the products in Table 1 of this unit. The EPA company number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

During the 30-day public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the August 6, 2020 Federal Register notice announcing the Agency's receipt of the request for voluntary cancellation of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellation of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is December 30, 2020. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of August 6, 2020 ((volume 85 number 152) (FRL-10012-80)). The comment period closed on September 8, 2020.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.

Hartz may not “release for shipment,” as that term is defined by 40 CFR 152.3, any product under EPA Reg. Nos. 2596-78 and 2596-79 (dust products) as of December 30, 2020 and may not sell or distribute existing stocks of its dust products after March 31, 2021, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal. Hartz may sell or distribute existing stocks of EPA Reg. No. 2596-63 (cat collar) until exhausted.

Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of canceled products until supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of interest to persons who are or may be interested in risk evaluations of chemical substances under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Since other entities may also be interested in this final risk evaluation, the EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations to “determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.” 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation. TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence and consider reasonably available information. 15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k). TSCA section 6(i) directs that a determination of “no unreasonable risk” shall be issued by order and considered to be a final Agency action, while a determination of “unreasonable risk” is not considered to be a final Agency action. 15 U.S.C. 2605(i).

The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) Integrate and assess available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through (v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other nonrisk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).

The statute requires that the risk evaluation process be completed within a specified timeframe and provide an opportunity for public comment on a draft risk evaluation prior to publishing a final risk evaluation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)

Subsection 5.1.1 of the final risk evaluation for NMP constitutes the order required under TSCA section 6(i)(1), and the “no unreasonable risk” determinations in that subsection are considered to be a final Agency action effective on the date of issuance of the order. In conducting risk evaluations, “EPA will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of use within the scope of the risk evaluation . . . .” 40 CFR 702.47. Under EPA's implementing regulations, “[a] determination by EPA that the chemical substance, under one or more of the conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation, does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment will be issued by order and considered to be a final Agency action, effective on the date of issuance of the order.” 40 CFR 702.49(d). For purposes of TSCA section 19(a)(1)(A), the date of issuance of the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order for NMP shall be at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time (standard or daylight, as appropriate) on the date that is two weeks after the date when this notice is published in the Federal Register , which is in accordance with 40 CFR 23.5.

EPA is announcing the availability of the risk evaluation of the chemical substance identified in Unit II. In this risk evaluation EPA has made unreasonable risk determinations on some of the conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation for this chemical. For those conditions of use for which EPA has found an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, EPA must initiate regulatory action to address those risks through risk management measures enumerated in 15 U.S.C. 2605(a).

EPA also is announcing the availability of the information required to be provided publicly with each risk evaluation, which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov in the dockets identified. 40 CFR 702.51. Specifically, EPA has provided:

• The scope document and problem formulation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743);

• Draft risk evaluation, and final risk evaluation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);

• All notices, determinations, findings, consent agreements, and orders (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);

• Any information required to be provided to the Agency under 15 U.S.C. 2603 (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);

• A nontechnical summary of the risk evaluation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);

• A list of the studies, with the results of the studies, considered in carrying out each risk evaluation (Risk Evaluation for N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP)) in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);

• The final peer review report, including the response to peer review and public comments received during peer review (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236); and

• Response to public comments received on the draft scope and the draft risk evaluation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236).

The risk evaluation process is the second step in EPA's existing chemical review process under TSCA, following prioritization and before risk management. As this chemical is one of the first ten chemical substances undergoing risk evaluation, the chemical substance was not required to go through prioritization (81 FR 91927, December 19, 2016) (FRL-9956-47). The purpose of conducting risk evaluations is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation. As part of this process, EPA must evaluate both hazard and exposure, not consider costs or other nonrisk factors, use reasonably available information and approaches in a manner that is consistent with the requirements in TSCA for the use of the best available science, and ensure decisions are based on the weight of the scientific evidence.

The specific risk evaluation process that EPA has established by rule to implement the statutory process is set out in 40 CFR part 702 and summarized on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluations-existing-chemicals-under-tsca. As explained in the preamble to EPA's final rule on procedures for risk evaluation (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017) (FRL-9964-38), the specific regulatory process set out in 40 CFR part 702, subpart B is being followed for the first ten chemical substances undergoing risk evaluation to the maximum extent practicable.

Prior to the publication of this final risk evaluation, a draft risk evaluation was subject to peer review and public comment. EPA reviewed the report from the peer review committee and public comments and has amended the risk evaluation in response to these comments as appropriate. The public comments, peer review report, and EPA's response to comments is in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236. Prior to the publication of the draft risk evaluation, EPA made available the scope and problem formulation, and solicited public input on uses and exposure. EPA's documents and the public comments are in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743. Additionally, information about the scope, problem formulation, and draft risk evaluation phases of the TSCA risk evaluation for this chemical is available at EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-n-methylpyrrolidone-nmp-0.

n-Methylpyrrolidone (CASRN 872-50-4), also called n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, or 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, is a water-miscible, organic solvent that is often used as a substitute for halogenated solvents. NMP is widely used in the chemical manufacturing, petrochemical processing and electronics industries, and in semiconductor fabrication and lithium ion battery manufacturing {FMI, 2015, 3827469}. In the commercial sector, NMP is primarily used for producing and removing paints, coatings and adhesives. Other applications include use in solvents, reagents, sealers, inks and grouts, industrial, commercial and consumer uses and disposal. CDR data shows that the total aggregate production volume for NMP decreased slightly from 164 to 160 million pounds between 2012 and 2015.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above.

Report title: Capital Assessments and Stress Testing Reports.

Agency form number: FR Y-14A/Q/M.

OMB control number: 7100-0341.

Frequency: Annually, quarterly, and monthly.

Respondents: These collections of information are applicable to bank holding companies (BHCs), U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs), and savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs)  1 with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets, as based on: (i) The average of the firm's total consolidated assets in the four most recent quarters as reported quarterly on the firm's Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C); or (ii) if the firm has not filed an FR Y-9C for each of the most recent four quarters, then the average of the firm's total consolidated assets in the most recent consecutive quarters as reported quarterly on the firm's FR Y-9Cs. Reporting is required as of the first day of the quarter immediately following the quarter in which the respondent meets this asset threshold, unless otherwise directed by the Board.

Estimated number of respondents: FR Y-14A/Q: 36; FR Y-14M: 34. 2

Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-14A: 1,186 hours; FR Y-14Q: 2,203 hours; FR Y-14M: 1,072 hours; FR Y-14 On-going Automation Revisions: 480 hours; FR Y-14 Attestation On-going Attestation: 2,560 hours.

Estimated annual burden hours: FR Y-14A: 42,696 hours; FR Y-14Q: 317,232 hours; FR Y-14M: 437,376 hours; FR Y-14 On-going Automation Revisions: 17,280 hours; FR Y-14 Attestation On-going Attestation: 33,280 hours.

General description of report: This family of information collections is composed of the following three reports:

• The annual FR Y-14A collects quantitative projections of balance sheet, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic scenarios and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop internal projections of capital across scenarios. 3

• The quarterly FR Y-14Q collects granular data on various asset classes, including loans, securities, trading assets, and PPNR for the reporting period.

• The monthly FR Y-14M is comprised of three retail portfolio- and loan-level schedules, and one detailed address-matching schedule to supplement two of the portfolio and loan-level schedules.

The data collected through the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports (FR Y-14 reports) provide the Board with the information needed to help ensure that large firms have strong, firm‐wide risk measurement and management processes supporting their internal assessments of capital adequacy and that their capital resources are sufficient given their business focus, activities, and resulting risk exposures. The reports are used to support the Board's annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) exercises, which complement other Board supervisory efforts aimed at enhancing the continued viability of large firms, including continuous monitoring of firms' planning and management of liquidity and funding resources, as well as regular assessments of credit, market and operational risks, and associated risk management practices. Information gathered in this data collection is also used in the supervision and regulation of respondent financial institutions. Respondent firms are currently required to complete and submit up to 17 filings each year: One annual FR Y-14A filing, four quarterly FR Y-14Q filings, and 12 monthly FR Y-14M filings. Compliance with the information collection is mandatory.

Current actions: On July 8, 2020, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register , 4 which temporarily revised and requested public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the FR Y-14 reports. The temporary revisions captured data pertaining to certain aspects of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, information on firm activity associated with various Federal Reserve lending facilities, and information regarding emerging risks arising from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID) event. In addition to a proposal to extend these temporary revisions, the notice proposed revisions to the FR Y-14 reports intended to address questions related to the reporting of certain current expected credit losses (CECL) and capital data. The comment period for this notice expired on September 8, 2020. The Board received two comment letters from banking industry groups and one comment letter from a banking organization.

On September 17, 2020, the Board published another notice in the Federal Register , 5 which temporarily revised and requested public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the FR Y-14 reports. The temporary revisions implemented changes necessary to collect information used to conduct additional analysis in connection with the resubmission of firms' capital plans, including consideration of the global market shock (GMS) component, using data as of June 30, 2020. In addition to these temporary revisions, the notice proposed revisions to the FR Y-14 reports that would have allowed the Board to require the submission of additional FR Y-14A and FR Y-14Q data in connection with a firm's resubmission of its capital plan. The comment period for this notice expired on November 16, 2020. The Board did not receive any comments on this notice.

The Board has approved the extension of the FR Y-14 reports for three years, with revision. These revisions include adopting most of the temporary revisions announced in the July 8, 2020, with minor changes in response to public comments, for three additional months. The temporary revisions will automatically expire following the March 31, 2021, as of date. In addition, the Board has adopted the revisions related to CECL and capital data that were proposed in the July 8, 2020, notice, as well as the revisions related to FR Y-14 submission requirements in connection with a firm's resubmission of its capital plan that were proposed in the September 17, 2020, notice. All revisions are effective beginning with the December 31, 2020, as of date.

The Board solicited comment on a proposal to extend the temporary revisions included in the July 8, 2020, notice for three years, while noting that the temporary revisions would automatically expire following the December 31, 2020, as of date, unless explicitly reauthorized by the Board. Two commenters recommended that the Board only reauthorize specific temporary revisions to the extent those revisions are critical, and to keep in mind firm resource constraints during the COVID event when deciding whether to reauthorize any temporary revisions. Additionally, two commenters recommended the Board provide reporting firms and the public as much notice as possible, preferably at least three months, before requiring firms to continue to report any reauthorized revisions, in order to ease the reporting burden.

Given ongoing economic uncertainty surrounding the COVID event, the Board has adopted the proposal to extend the FR Y-14 reports with most of these revisions with certain changes that are effective for the December 31, 2020, as of date. However, in order to reduce reporting burden, temporary revisions associated with Federal Reserve lending facilities that are set to expire at the end of December 2020, including the Main Street Lending Program (MSLP), will only remain in place through the December 31, 2020, as of date. All other temporary revisions will remain in place through the reports as of March 31, 2021.

The Board temporarily revised the FR Y-14Q instructions to indicate that in times of crisis, the Board may temporarily request submissions of schedules more frequently than firms are generally required to submit the schedules. One commenter stated that requiring FR Y-14Q schedules more frequently would cause reporting burden on firms, and requested that any more frequent submission of schedules be required only if firms are given at least 60 days' notice and if possible, an opportunity to provide comments.

The Board notes that requiring any FR Y-14Q schedules more frequently than firms generally are required to submit them would only be done in times of crisis, and the Board would provide firms with as much notice as possible given the circumstances.

The Board did not temporarily revise or propose to revise its current process for responding to FR Y-14 reporting questions. One commenter requested that the Board expedite its responses to reporting questions associated the FR Y-14 temporary revisions given that the temporary revisions were implemented prior to the public comment period.

The Board strives to respond to all FR Y-14 reporting questions it receives from firms as soon as possible. Some questions require significant time to research. The Board notes that it has responded promptly to many questions regarding the temporary revisions to the FR Y-14.

At times, the Board has requested that certain firms submit supplemental collections that provide alternative breakouts of FR Y-14 data that are not available from other sources in conjunction with the FR Y-14 data submitted for use in the DFAST and CCAR exercises. One commenter requested that the Board incorporate all supplemental collections into the FR Y-14 report so firms can adequately plan for the data requirements surrounding a given FR Y-14 submission.

The Board has incorporated several supplemental collections into the FR Y-14 report. For example, as finalized on September 14, 2020, 6 the Board incorporated three supplemental collections into the FR Y-14Q report (two were incorporated into Schedule F (Trading) and one was incorporated into Schedule M (Balances)). Where appropriate, the Board will continue to incorporate supplemental collections into the FR Y-14 report.

The Board temporarily revised FR Y-14Q, Schedule H (Wholesale) to be reported monthly instead of quarterly for firms subject to Category I-III standards. Two commenters stated that certain items on Schedule H are not available or are not collected by firms from third parties on a monthly basis, and that firm resources are already constrained as a result of the COVID event. Per the commenter, firms have not been able to make permanent technological changes and have not been able to put adequate resources towards a more streamlined solution to obtain and verify data on a monthly basis due to the fact that this reporting frequency change went into effect prior to the public comment period, as well as the fact that this revision could have expired following the December 31, 2020, as of date ( i.e., Schedule H would revert to being reported quarterly for all firms).

As indicated in the Schedule H instructions, the Board has identified certain items that are not required for the monthly Schedule H submissions that do not coincide with quarter ends ( e.g., as of July 31). The remaining items are needed on a monthly basis in order to assess the current economic status and to better understand potential shifts in the risk profiles of firms. The Board acknowledges that some items are not collected by third parties or are not available on a monthly basis. In those cases, firms should report the information available to the firm on a given as of date. In addition, the instructions for several items allow firms to report the most recently updated data or “NA” if updated information is not available.

The Board performs quality checks on data submitted through regulatory reports, such as the FR Y-14 reports. Two commenters suggested that the Board should exclude certain quality checks for FR Y-14Q, Schedule H (Wholesale) data submitted on a monthly basis, as certain quality checks are tied to other regulatory reports that are submitted quarterly ( e.g., FR Y-9C). The commenters went on to say that responding to these quality checks on a monthly basis is particularly challenging as firm resources are constrained by the COVID event. One commenter stated that in some cases, values reported in certain “Obligor Financial Data” items (items 52 through 82) of Schedule H.1 (Corporate) do not factor into the credit decision for a given exposure, such as in cases of startup companies with limited or no available financial data. In these cases, the commenter recommends that in order to reduce burden, firms should be allowed to report “NA” for certain “Obligor Financial Data” items and not be required to address any associated data quality checks.

In order to facilitate the monthly Schedule H submission process, the Board has reduced the number of edit responses required for non-quarter end submissions. For example, the Board has not been running data quality checks for non-quarter end monthly Schedule H submissions that compare values to the FR Y-9C.

The Board temporarily revised FR Y-14Q, Schedule H (Wholesale) to require firms to report only their exposures to loans associated with the MSLP ( i.e., not include the amount participated to third parties or the unused portion of loan commitments). For other exposures reported on Schedule H, firms are required to include the amount participated to third parties, as well as the unused portion of loan commitments, as part of the reporting firm's total lending commitment. One commenter expressed concern that this divergence would cause an issue when comparing commitments on Schedule H to those reported on the FR Y-9C, which is referenced in the instructions for several Schedule H items. The commenter stated that this different treatment for commitment reporting is causing operational burden for firms, and recommends that loans associated with the MSLP be reported consistently with other loans reported on Schedule H.

The Board did not intend to require different treatment for loans associated with the MSLP compared to other commitments reported on Schedule H. In light of the concerns raised by the commenter, the Board has revised the Schedule H instructions to align the reporting of commitments to loans associated with the MSLP with other commitments reported on the schedule, effective for the December 31, 2020, as of date.

The Board did not temporarily revise or propose to revise FR Y-14Q, Schedule H.4 (Internal Risk Rating). One commenter suggested that the Board expand Schedule H.4 to require additional items, such as probability of default information, which would provide the Board with better context for understanding firms' internal risk ratings. The commenter also suggested that the Board revise Schedule H.4 to correspond with FR Y-14Q, Schedule L (Counterparty), as both schedules require an internal and external rating equivalent factor.

The Board notes that firms are currently allowed to provide as much detail as possible in the free text description of Schedule H.4, item 1 (“Internal Risk Rating”). For example, firms can provide information that would provide a better understanding their internal ratings, such as external rating equivalent data points. The Board intends to consider adding items to Schedule H.4 that would provide more context to the data submitted as part of a future notice. However, the Board has not expanded Schedule H.4 to correspond with Schedule L, as the data between the two schedules does not readily align.

The current FR Y-14Q, Schedule H.1 (Corporate), item 93, “Collateral Market Value,” instructions require firms to report the market value of collateral as of the reporting date, and to report “NA” if the value of the collateral has not been updated since reported on the previous Schedule H.1 submission. The Board did not temporarily revise or propose to revise Schedule H.1, item 93. One commenter pointed out that the instructions for Schedule H.1, item 93 do not specify how to report the value of collateral that is typically recorded at book value, such as receivables and inventory comprising a borrowing base for asset-based lending. To ensure consistent reporting across firms, the commenter recommended that the Board clarify how item 93 should be reported for types of collateral that not typically recorded at market value.

For consistency across exposures, firms should continue to report in line with the current instructions. The Board has not revised the Schedule H.1, item 93 instructions to allow for reporting at book value.

The Board did not temporarily revise or propose to revise the reporting of past due exposures in the “# Days Principal or Interest Past Due” items (Schedule H.1, item 32; Schedule H.2, item 37). One commenter noted that while Schedule H is reported at the facility level, there could be cases where only some of the multiple loans under a given facility are past due. Per the commenter, this creates ambiguity for reporting the number of days past due for an entire facility. The commenter recommended that the Board revise Schedule H to add more granular delinquency buckets or an item to capture the total balance past due within a given facility.

Per the instructions for the “# Days Principal or Interest Past Due” items, firms are required to report the longest number of days principal or interest are past due for any loan within the facility. Given the different uses of the collected data on the FR Y-14 and FR Y-9C, the Board has not revised the FR Y-14 to have similar delinquency buckets as the FR Y-9C. In addition, the Board does not currently need to capture the total balance of loans past due within a facility to conduct its analysis, and so has not added an item to collect this information.

The Board did not temporarily revise or propose to revise the reporting of capital call subscriptions on FR Y-14Q, Schedule H (Wholesale). One commenter noted that the Board previously revised Schedule H.1 (Corporate), items 20 (“Credit Facility”) and 22 (“Credit Facility Purpose”) to require firms to indicate which facilities are capital call subscriptions, effective for the September 30, 2020, as of date. 7 Per the commenter, the Board should also revise Schedule H.1 item 36 (“Security Type”) to allow firms to identify the collateral associated with capital call subscriptions. The commenter noted that this additional collateral information would enable the Board to better capture information regarding a firm's ability to require a fund manager to inject capital into a fund that is declining in value, which would more accurately reflect the true risk of these exposures. Relatedly, one commenter requested that the Board provide definitions for the allowable values to be reported in Schedule H.1, items 20 and 22, as there could be a divergence in practice across firms.

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: State Permissions for Enrollment in Qualified Health Plans in the Federally-Facilitated Exchange & Non-Exchange Entities; Use: On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA; Pub. L. 111-148) was signed into law and on March 30, 2010, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) was signed into law. The two laws implement various health insurance policies.

This information collection request (ICR) serves as the renewal of the data collection clearance related to the ability of states to permit agents and brokers, as well as Web-brokers, to assist qualified individuals, qualified employers, or qualified employees enrolling in Qualified Health Plans in the Federally Facilitated Exchange (45 CFR 155.220) and data collection requirements related to non-exchange entities. (45 CFR 155.260). [All references to § 155.220 shall mean 45 CFR 155.220.] Form Number: CMS-10650; Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Business, and Not-for Profits; Number of Respondents: 55,148; Number of Responses: 55,148; Total Annual Hours: 272,707. (For questions regarding this collection, contact Michele Oshman at (301-492-4407).

2. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Transparency in Coverage; Use: The final rules titled “Transparency in Coverage,” published November 12, 2020 (85 FR 72158), establish requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered coverage in the individual and group markets to disclose to a participant, beneficiary, or enrollee (or an authorized representative on behalf of such individual) the consumer-specific estimated cost-sharing liability for covered items or services from a particular provider, thereby allowing a participant, beneficiary, or enrollee to obtain an accurate estimate and understanding of their potential out-of-pocket expenses and to effectively shop for covered items and services. Plans and issuers are required to make such information available for covered items and services through an internet-based self-service tool, and, if requested, in paper form. The internet-based self-service tool must allow participants, beneficiaries, or enrollees to search for cost-sharing information for a covered item or service by inputting the name of a specific in-network provider in conjunction with a billing code or descriptive term, as well as other relevant factors such as location of service, facility name, or dosage. In addition, the final rules require that the tool allow the user to refine and reorder search results based on geographic proximity of in-network providers. For covered items and services provided by out-of-network providers, the tool must provide the out-of-network allowed amount, percentage of billed charges, or other rates that provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the amount a plan or issuer will pay by allowing consumers to input a billing code, descriptive code, or other relevant factor, such as location.

The final rules also require plans and issuers to publicly disclose applicable rates with in-network providers, including negotiated rates; historical data outlining the different billed charges and allowed amounts a plan or issuer has paid for covered items or services, including prescription drugs, furnished by out-of-network providers; and negotiated rates and historical net prices for covered prescription drugs furnished by in-network providers through three machine-readable files (an In-network Rate File, Allowed Amount File, and Prescription Drug File). The machine-readable files must be posted publicly on an internet website and updated on a monthly basis. Form Number: CMS-10715 (OMB control number 0938-1372); Frequency: Frequently; Affected Public: Public and Private sectors; Number of Respondents: 908; Total Annual Responses: 74,460; Total Annual Hours: 28,618,546. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Russell Tipps at 301-492-4371).

Description: The SYSIL evaluation includes an implementation study and an impact study, which will use a rigorous quasi-experimental design that includes a comparison group. This new information collection request includes the baseline and follow-up survey instruments for the impact study (a single instrument administered four times), and discussion guides for interviews and focus groups and the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) for the implementation study. The data collected from the baseline and follow-up surveys will be used to describe the characteristics of the study sample of youth, develop models for estimating program impacts, and determine program effectiveness by comparing outcomes between youth in the treatment (youth receiving the Pathways program) and control groups. Data from the interviews and focus groups will provide a detailed understanding of program implementation. The study will also use administrative data from the child welfare system, homelessness management information system, and program providers. Administrative data will be used in its existing format and does not impose any new information collection or recordkeeping requirements on respondents.

Respondents: The baseline and follow-up surveys will be administered to youth in the treatment group (youth receiving the Pathways program) and youth in the control group who consent to participate in the study. Interviews will be conducted with program leadership and staff. Focus groups will be conducted with a subset of youth who are participating in the study. The WAI will be completed by Pathways youth and their caseworkers.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 485.

Comments: The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

Following issuance of the 2014 guidance document entitled “Immediately in Effect Guidance Document: Product Labeling for Laparoscopic Power Morcellators,” FDA has continued to consider new scientific information and the input of stakeholders. Additional scientific information is available that stratifies the risks of an undetected uterine cancer in women with presumed fibroids based on age.

FDA also considered scientific information pertaining to the risk of spreading benign uterine tissue beyond the uterus during gynecologic surgeries when LPMs are used. Parasitic myomas and disseminated peritoneal leiomyomatosis, while benign, have been associated with the need for additional surgery due to symptoms such as abdominal pain and distension. Finally, FDA considered additional available mitigations for the spread of uterine tissue. Since 2014, FDA has provided marketing authorization for LPM containment systems intended to isolate and contain tissue that is considered benign. These products have been shown, through bench testing and simulated use testing, to contain such tissue during morcellation.

For these reasons, FDA is updating its recommendations, as originally described in the 2014 guidance document, concerning the content and format of certain labeling information for LPMs. Specifically, FDA is recommending that manufacturers incorporate into the labeling for these devices information providing greater specificity regarding the risks of use as it relates to age, information regarding the risk of spreading benign uterine tissue, and information regarding the use of LPM containment systems.

A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the Federal Register of February 26, 2020 (85 FR 11093). FDA considered comments received and revised the guidance as appropriate in response to the comments, including revisions to further discuss shared decision making that should occur between a physician and patient prior to undergoing the procedure, to elaborate on the benefits and risks of LPM containment systems, and to refine one of the sample warning statements.

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 product labeling for laparoscopic power morcellators. 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.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products. This guidance document is also available at https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Product Labeling for Laparoscopic Power Morcellators” may send an email request to CDRH-Guidance@fda.hhs.gov to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1400052 and complete title to identify the guidance you are requesting.

While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in the following FDA regulations have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:

FDA is requesting nominations for voting members to serve on TEPRSSC that include five general public representatives and five government representatives.

The committee provides advice and consultation to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) on the technical feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of performance standards for electronic products to control the emission of radiation from such products, and may recommend electronic product radiation safety standards to the Commissioner for consideration.

The committee consists of a core of 15 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of science or engineering, applicable to electronic product radiation safety. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Terms of more than 2 years are contingent upon the renewal of the committee by appropriate action prior to its expiration.

Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the committee. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete résumé or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including current business address and/or home address, telephone number, and email address if available and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES ). Nominations must also specify the advisory committee for which the nominee is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters related to financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

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

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

In Revenue Ruling 2020-28, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2021, and ending on March 31, 2021. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (0%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of three percent (3%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (0%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of two percent (2%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (0%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of three percent (3%). These interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties remain the same from the previous quarter. These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2021, and ending on June 30, 2021.

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

Effective June 30, 2021, international standards require that all international air cargo carried by commercial air carriers (passenger and all-cargo) be screened or received from an entity that has applied security controls and/or screened the cargo. On April 10, 2020, TSA published a Request for Information (RFI): Air Cargo Security Options to Mitigate Costs of Compliance with International Security Requirements. 1 The RFI requested information from the public, specifically the air cargo industry, relating to compliance with international security standards for the transport of air cargo. 2 TSA extended the comment period for the RFI and held a public meeting on July 29, 2020, to provide information to assist the public in submitting comments and obtain feedback from the industry. 3 Through the RFI, TSA specifically sought information regarding options to reduce the burden on U.S. and foreign all-cargo aircraft operators in complying with the international standards, such as security controls implemented throughout the supply chain that provides a level of security commensurate with the screening of cargo before air transport.

On January 13, 2021, TSA will hold a closed meeting to present a new program that e-commerce fulfillment centers, manufacturers, shippers, suppliers, warehouses, and third-party logistics providers who ship international air cargo could voluntarily choose to participate in as an alternative to having their air cargo screened by a TSA-regulated commercial air carrier. This discussion requires participants to speak freely about issues that would be detrimental to transportation safety and security if disclosed.

Pursuant to the requirements in Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) sections 114(r) and 44912(d), and implementing regulations in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1520, this meeting will be closed to the public to protect against disclosure of SSI. SSI protections apply to information related to development of procedures and facilities “to protect passengers and property against acts of criminal violence, aircraft privacy, and terrorism and to ensure security.”  4 All participants must either be “covered persons” as defined in 49 CFR 1520.7, or otherwise designated by TSA as a “covered person” for purposes of this event. Participants will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which includes acknowledgment of TSA's SSI requirements, and ensure that any information received or otherwise communicated is properly protected. The responsibilities of participants to safeguard all SSI disclosed during or related to this meeting will continue after the conclusion of the industry day event.

In addition to providing invitations to relevant associations and corporate representatives known to TSA through its regular stakeholder engagements, TSA also invites representatives of manufacturers, shippers, suppliers, warehouses, e-commerce fulfillment centers, third-party logistics providers that rely on international air cargo transportation for commercial purposes. Participants will be encouraged to share their feedback about TSA's proposed alternate framework to assist industry in implementing the new ICAO standards.

Persons within these industries are encouraged to contact the individual noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice for additional information. Participation in the meeting is limited to individuals that TSA determines represent industry entities potentially and directly affected by the international standards. TSA will limit participation to no more than two individuals per association or company. All participants must be approved by TSA for access to SSI and must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement in advance of the meeting. Further attendance information will be provided to qualified participants.

The meeting on January 13, 2021, is scheduled to be a full-day meeting beginning at 9:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time) but may end earlier if the discussion has concluded.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on October 30, 2020 at 85 FR 68911.

Title of Information Collection: HUD Environmental Review Online System (HEROS).

OMB Approval Number: 2506-0202.

Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

Form Number: None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: 24 CFR part 58, “Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities” requires units of general local government receiving HUD assistance to maintain a written environmental review record for all projects receiving HUD funding documenting compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, related federal environmental laws, executive orders, and authorities, and Part 58 procedure. Various laws that authorize this procedure are listed in 24 CFR 58.1(b). 24 CFR part 50, “Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality,” implements procedures for HUD to perform environmental reviews for projects where Part 58 is not permitted by law. Under Part 50, HUD staff complete the environmental review records, but they may use any information supplied by an applicant or contractor, provided HUD independently evaluates the information and is responsible for its accuracy and prepares the environmental finding. HEROS allows users to complete, store, and submit their environmental review records and documents online. HEROS is currently optional for Responsible Entity and other non-HUD users, who may continue to use paper-based environmental review formats.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(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;

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

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

(5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

In accordance with the PRA 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.

A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on September 25th, 2020 (85 FR 60488). No comments were received.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. 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: This collection is authorized by Section 101(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (54 U.S.C. 302301), which specifies the role of States, Tribes, and Local governments in the Historic Preservation Program (HPP). This information collection has an impact on State, Tribal, and local governments that wish to participate formally with the National Park Service in the HPP. Information is also requested to meet grant management and monitoring of responsibilities for States, Tribes, local government, and other eligible grant recipients under 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. and 2 CFR 200.

Each year Congress directs the NPS to use part of the annual appropriation from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) for the State grant program and the Tribal grant programs to assist States and Tribes in carrying out their statutory role in the HPP. Through competitive grant programs, Congress also directs NPS to provide financial assistance to a variety of eligible grant recipients to support the broad cultural resource mandates of the National Historic Preservation Act and for other purposes.

The information from this collection is required to evaluate if State, Tribal, and local governments meet minimum standards and requirements for participation in the HPP; and to meet program specific requirements as well as government- wide requirements for Federal grant programs.

The NPS uses the information collected to ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as government-wide grant requirements issued and implemented through 43 CFR part 12 and 2 CFR 200.

Title of Collection: Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs.

OMB Control Number: 1024-0038.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Tribal, local governments, and grant applicants or recipients who wish to participate formally in the National Historic Preservation Program and/or who wish to apply for Historic Preservation Fund grant assistance.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 2,229.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 43,108.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from .25 hours to 166 hours depending on activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 40,761.

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

Frequency of Collection: On occasion, depending on the grant program.

Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: None.

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

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

The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before December 12, 2020. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

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.

Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:

Additional documentation has been received for the following resources:

Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:

The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.

Scope. —For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.00) is excluded from the scope of this investigation.

Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.

Background. —The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of silicon metal from Kazakhstan are being subsidized by the government of Kazakhstan, and that imports of silicon metal from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Iceland are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of § 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). These investigations were requested in petitions filed on June 30, 2020, by Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., Beverly, Ohio, and Mississippi Silicon LLC, Burnsville, Mississippi.

For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

Participation in the investigations and public service list. —Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https://edis.usitc.gov. ) No in-person paper-based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. —Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report. —The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 9, 2021, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing. —The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on February 22, 2021. Information about the place and form of the hearing, including about how to participate in and/or view the hearing, will be posted on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/calendarpad/calendar.html. Interested parties should check the Commission's website periodically for updates. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before February 17, 2021. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on February 19, 2021. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions. —Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of § 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is February 16, 2021. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in § 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of § 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is March 1, 2021. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before March 1, 2021. On March 18, 2021, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before March 22, 2021, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's procedures with respect to filings.

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

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

The Commission instituted this investigation on September 13, 2018, based on a complaint, as amended, filed by FCA US LLC of Auburn Hills, Michigan (“Complainant”). See 83 FR 46517 (Sept. 13, 2018). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) (“section 337”) based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain motorized vehicles and components thereof by reason of: (1) Infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4,272,873; 2,862,487; 2,161,779; 2,794,553; and 4,043,984 (collectively, “the Asserted Trademarks”); (2) trademark dilution and unfair competition in violating the complainant's common law trademark rights; and (3) trade dress infringement. See id. The notice of investigation names Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. of Mumbai, India and Mahindra Automotive North America, Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan (collectively, “Respondents”) as respondents in this investigation. See id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also a party to this investigation. See id.

On November 8, 2019, the ALJ issued a final initial determination (“FID”) finding a violation of section 337. Specifically, the FID determined that Respondents' Roxor vehicle (2018-2019 model) infringes FCA's asserted trade dress but not its Asserted Trademarks. The FID also determined that Complainant did not establish trademark dilution.

On June 11, 2020, the Commission determined to affirm the FID's determination of a violation of section 337. See 85 FR 36613-14 (June 17, 2020). The Commission issued an LEO barring entry of articles that infringe the asserted trade dress and CDOs against both Respondents. The Commission declined to adjudicate Respondents' proposed redesigned vehicles and required Respondents to obtain a ruling (via an advisory opinion or a modification proceeding) from the Commission prior to any importation of redesigned vehicles or components thereof.

On June 18, 2020, Respondents filed a petition for an expedited modification proceeding. On July 20, 2020, the Commission determined to institute a modification proceeding under section 337(k) (19 U.S.C. 1337(k)) and Commission Rule 210.76 (19 CFR 210.76) to adjudicate trade dress infringement with respect to respondents' redesigned vehicle (“the Post-2020 ROXOR”). See 85 FR 44923-24 (July 24, 2020).

On October 20, 2020, the ALJ issued his RD finding no trade dress infringement by Respondents' Post-2020 ROXOR vehicle. On October 30, 2020, Complainant filed comments on the RD requesting that the Commission decline to adopt the RD's findings. On November 6, 2020, Respondents and the Commission's Investigative Attorney filed responses in opposition to Complainant's comments.

Having reviewed the record of the underlying violation investigation, as well as the record of the modification proceeding, including the RD and the parties' comments and responses thereto, the Commission has determined to modify the LEO and CDOs to include an explicit exemption with respect to Respondents' Post-2020 ROXOR vehicle adjudicated in this modification proceeding. As explained in the Commission Opinion issued concurrently herewith, the Commission adopts the RD's findings with modification and affirms the RD's conclusion that the Post-2020 ROXOR vehicle does not infringe Complainant's asserted trade dress. The modification proceeding is terminated.

The Commission's vote on this determination took place on December 22, 2020.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 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).

The following changes have occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the States' EB status:

• Based on the data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on November 20, 2020, the seasonally-adjusted total unemployment rate for Alaska, Connecticut, Ohio, Oregon and Washington fell below the 8.0% threshold necessary to remain “on” a high unemployment period in EB, and starting December 13, 2020, the maximum potential entitlement for claimants in these states in the EB program will decrease from 20 weeks to 13 weeks.

• Based on the data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on November 20, 2020, the seasonally-adjusted TUR for Kansas and South Carolina fell below the 6.5% threshold necessary to remain “on” in EB. The payable period in EB will end on December 12, 2020.

• It has been determined that Massachusetts' Unemployment Compensation law provides for the temporary adoption of the optional TUR trigger during periods of 100 percent Federal financing of EB, and Public Law 116-127 authorized 100 percent Federal funding through December 31, 2020. As such, based on data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on June 19, 2020, the seasonally-adjusted total unemployment rate for Massachusetts rose above the 8.0 percent threshold to trigger “on” to a high unemployment period in EB. Therefore a payable period for Massachusetts under the high unemployment period is retroactive to July 5, 2020, and eligibility for claimants has been extended from up to 13 weeks of potential duration to up to 20 weeks of potential duration in the EB program.

• Based on the data submitted by New Hampshire for the week ending November 14, 2020, New Hampshire's 13-week insured unemployment rate (IUR) was 4.77 percent, falling below the 5.00 percent threshold necessary to remain “on” EB. Therefore, the EB period for New Hampshire ends on December 5, 2020. The state will remain in an “off” period for a minimum of 13 weeks.

The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EB program can be found at: http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims_arch.as.

The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13 (c) (1)).

Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their State Workforce Agency.

The following changes have occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the States' EB status:

• Delaware completed the mandatory 13-week “on” period for a High Unemployment Period (HUP) stipulated by 20 CFR 615.11 on December 19, 2020, and based on the most recent data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the state no longer meets the criteria for the HUP. As such, beginning December 20, 2020, the maximum potential entitlement for claimants in the EB program will decrease from 20 weeks to 13 weeks.

• Based on the data submitted by Minnesota for the week ending November 28, 2020, Minnesota's 13-week insured unemployment rate (IUR) was 4.80 percent, falling below the 5.0 percent IUR threshold necessary to remain “on” EB. Therefore, the EB period for Minnesota ends on December 19, 2020. The state will remain in an “off” period for a minimum of 13 weeks.

• Based on the data submitted by Mississippi for the week ending November 28, 2020, Mississippi's 13-week IUR was 4.70 percent, falling below the 5.0 IUR percent threshold necessary to remain “on” EB. Therefore, the EB period for Mississippi ends on December 19, 2020. The state will remain in an “off” period for a minimum of 13 weeks.

• Based on the data submitted by Vermont for the week ending November 28, 2020, Vermont's 13-week IUR was 4.90 percent, falling below the 5.0 percent IUR threshold necessary to remain “on” EB. Therefore, the EB period for Vermont ends on December 19, 2020. The state will remain in an “off” period for a minimum of 13 weeks.

The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EB program can be found at: http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims_arch.as

The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)).

Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their State Workforce Agency.

The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.