Title: Information Collection Clearance for the Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP).

OMB Number: 0596-0240.

Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2021.

Type of Request: Extension without revisions.

Abstract: Local environmental stewardship groups are essential for ensuring the vibrancy of natural areas in cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas, including National Forest lands and the surrounding areas. Natural areas provide a range of benefits and services including storm water management, air pollution removal, urban heat island mitigation, carbon storage, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, stress reduction, aesthetic beauty, noise reduction, increased property values, and reduced energy use. The work of civic environmental stewards leverages the efforts of governments in maintaining these resources, especially in lean budget times. Civic stewardship organizations, including nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, formal and informal community groups, and coalitions, are often involved in environmental stewardship efforts. For example, these groups often plant trees, organize community gardens, offer environment-themed classes, engage with local officials on behalf of the environment, monitor plants or animals, and clean up nearby parks and/or natural areas. People who do this work are stewards of their local environments, even if they do not normally use the word “steward” or think of what they do as “stewardship.”

The roles of civic environmental stewards and their levels of engagement and commitment are often not understood by land managers and other decision makers. This means that the valuable services they provide may not be recognized and built on to full advantage. In addition, stewards themselves may not be aware of others doing similar work in their area so there may be lost opportunities for collaboration between groups.

The purpose of this research is to gather information on civic stewardship groups and their efforts such as where they work, the types of projects they focus on, and how they are organized. This information will be summarized and made publicly available online for use by policy makers, land managers, environmental professionals, the general public, stewards themselves, and other natural resource management stakeholders.

There are three phases to a STEW-MAP project:

• Phase One (Census) is a census of stewardship groups in the target region, generating a master list of known stewardship groups and their contact information.

• Phase Two (Survey) is a survey which is distributed to all of the organizations identified in Phase One to collect information about what they work on, how their group is structured, where they work, and what other groups they collaborate with.

• Phase Three (Follow-Up Interviews) is follow-up interviews with key responding organizations identified during Phase Two to collect more detailed information about the organizations and their histories.

A primary goal of STEW-MAP is to visualize stewardship activities, which can span across the urban to rural landscape. The geographic information provided by stewardship groups in Phase Two (Survey) will allow the researchers to do a spatial analysis of where stewardship groups are working, identify “gaps” where little to no stewardship is being done, and provide locally relevant geographic information like what kinds of stewardship groups are working in particular places. This geographic information will be displayed on maps to show stewards, local land managers, policy makers, and other interested stakeholders how stewardship work is distributed across the region with the goal of encouraging collaboration, building innovative partnerships, increasing organizational capacities, and making stewardship efforts more effective.

Information from STEW-MAP will help planners, natural resource decision makers, land managers, and the general public work across property jurisdictions, management regimes and political boundaries to conserve, protect, and manage natural resources effectively. It will also be used to enhance local resource management efforts by helping public officials, land managers, and civic stewards connect to local stewardship groups.

STEW-MAP is being led by Forest Service researchers in partnership with researchers from universities and nongovernmental organizations. The exact makeup of the research team will vary from location to location where STEW-MAP is conducted. The Forest Service Research and Development branch is authorized to conduct basic scientific research to improve the health of forests and rangelands involving State, Federal, Tribal agencies, and private landowners across multiple jurisdictions including in urban areas. The study is aligned with various collaborative approaches to landscape-scale resource management that work across jurisdictions and land-use types, viewing forests as social-ecological systems. Our project goals are also consistent with the Forest Service's Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) program, which focus on urban forest ecosystems and the role of stewardship and trail connections to parks and public lands that promote health and sustainability for urban residents. This study seeks to identify opportunities for stewardship organizations to better collaborate and, thus, be more effective in the stewardship of natural areas.

Due to local geographical and/or cultural differences, and to meet the needs of any particular collaborative effort, we may tailor the survey and interview questions to accommodate the unique requirements of individual communities.

Affected Public: Representatives from civic environmental stewardship groups, and from State, local, or Tribal Governments.

Estimate of Burden per Response: 15 to 60 minutes.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:

Phase One (Census): 600.

Phase Two (Survey): 15,000.

Phase Three (Follow-up Interviews): 300.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 7,925 hours.

Comment is Invited: Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses if provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1612(a) and 36 CFR part 216, Public Notice and Comment for Standards, Criteria and Guidance Applicable to Forest Service Programs, the Forest Service publishes for public notice and comment Agency directives that formulate standards, criteria, or guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs. Agency procedures for providing public notice and opportunity to comment are specified in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1109.12, Chapter 30, Providing Public Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Directives.

The Forest Service has no proposed or interim directives planned for publication for public comment from July 1, 2021 to September 30, 2021.

The following proposed or interim directives have been published for public comment but not yet finalized:

1. Proposed Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2200, Rangeland Management, Chapters Zero Code; 2210, Rangeland Management Planning; 2220, Management of Rangelands (Reserved); 2230, Grazing Permit System; 2240, Rangeland Improvements; 2250, Rangeland Management Cooperation; and 2270, Information Management and Reports; Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Grazing Permit Administration Handbook, Chapters 10, Term Grazing Permits; 20, Grazing Agreements; 30, Temporary Grazing and Livestock Use Permits; 40, Livestock Use Permits; 50, Tribal Treaty Authorizations and Special Use Permits; 60, Records; 70, Compensation for Permittee Interests in Rangeland Improvements; 80, Grazing Fees; and 90, Rangeland Management Decision Making; and Forest Service Handbook 2209.16, Allotment Management Handbook, Chapter 10, Allotment Management and Administration.

2. Interim Forest Service Manual 2719, Special Use Authorizations Involving Storage and Use of Explosives and Magazine Security, and Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, Special Uses Handbook, Chapter 50, Standard Forms and Supplemental Clauses.

3. Forest Service Manual 7700, Travel Management, Chapters Zero and 10, Travel Planning.

4. Forest Service Manual 2400, Timber Management, Chapters Zero, 2430, Commercial Timber Sales; 2440, Designating, Cruising, Scaling, and Accountability; 2450, Timber Sale Contract Administration; and 2460, Uses of Timber Other Than Commercial Timber Sales; Forest Service Handbook 2409.15, Timber Sale Administration, Chapters Zero, 10, Fundamentals of Timber Sale Contracting; 30, Change in Status of Contracts; 50, Specified Transportation Facilities; and 70, Contract Claims and Disputes; Forest Service Handbook 2409.18a, Timber Sale Debarment and Suspension Procedures, Chapters Zero, 10, Non-procurement Debarment and Suspension; and 20, Debarment and Export Violations.

5. Forest Service Manual 3800, Landscape Scale Restoration Program.

6. Forest Service Manual 2700, Special Uses Management, Chapter 40, Vegetation Management Pilot Projects, and Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, Special Uses Handbook, Chapter 50, Standard Forms and Supplemental Clauses.

7. Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, Special Uses Handbook, Chapter 80, Operating Plans and Agreements for Powerline Facilities.

8. Forest Service Manual 2400, Timber Management, Chapter 2420, Timber Appraisal; Forest Service Handbook 2409.19, Renewable Resources Handbook, Chapters 10, Knutson-Vandenberg Sale Area Program Management Handbook; 20, Knutson-Vandenberg Forest and Regional Program Management; 60, Stewardship Contracting; and 80, Good Neighbor Authority.

9. Forest Service Manual 1820, Public Lands Corps and Resource Assistants Program.

10. Forest Service Handbook 5509.11, Chapter 20, Section 21, Small Tracts Act Adjustments.

11. Forest Service Manual 2720, Alaska Region Supplement, Section 2721.53, Outfitting and Guiding Service.

1. Closure of National Forest System Lands to Hunting, Fishing, or Recreational Shooting, Forest Service Handbook 5309.11, Law Enforcement Handbook, Chapter 30, Violations, Section 34. This directive implements, in part, the John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to facilitate access to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on National Forest System lands. These updates include a greater role for public participation, codification of the national policy that federal lands are open unless closed to hunting, fishing or recreational shooting, and establish a process for temporarily or permanently closing areas on National Forest System lands to hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting. The revisions also include a new definition for emergency closures, which are exempt from the procedural requirements for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting closure orders. The 30-day comment period for this directive began August 17, 2021, and closed September 16, 2020. Thirty public comments were received, which can be viewed at https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-2312 . The final directive and a document summarizing public comments and the agency's responses are included in the list of documents below. The final directive was issued April 8, 2021 and can be viewed at https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/5309.11/wo_5309.11_30_Amend-2021-1%20-%20Violations.doc .

2. Providing Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Directives, Forest Service Handbook 1109.12, Directive System, Chapter 30. This directive sets forth direction for providing public notice of and opportunity to comment on Forest Service directives. Specifically, this chapter provides direction for determining whether a directive requires public notice and opportunity for comment, procedures for providing public notice and opportunity to comment on directives, strategies for engaging the public in development of Forest Service directives, interagency and intergovernmental communication, including tribal consultation, consideration of public comments, and finalizing directives.

The comment period for the proposed directive began January 16, 2020, and closed March 16, 2020. The Forest Service received 10 comments on the proposed directive. The comments can be viewed at https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-2016 . The directive was designated as significant by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and was reviewed by OMB prior to publication for public comment and issuance as a final directive. The final directive was issued April 15, 2021, and can be viewed at https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/1109.12/1109.12-ch30%20(216%20Directive)-final%20(004).docx .

3. Operation and Maintenance of Developed Recreation Sites, Forest Service Handbook 2309.13, Chapter 50. This directive establishes a new chapter and revised direction for Forest Service operation and maintenance of developed recreation sites in the Recreation Site Handbook. The new chapter contains direction that was previously set out in Forest Service Manual 2330 and new direction governing national quality standards for Forest Service operation and maintenance of developed recreation sites. The comment period for the directive began July 9, 2020 and ended August 10, 2020. The Forest Service received 5 comments, which can be viewed at https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-2572 . The final directive was issued June 25, 2021, as amended, and can be viewed at https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/2309.13/wo%202309.13_50_FS%20OM%20of%20Developed%20Recreation%20Sites-PUP.docx .

On May 20, 2021, Commerce published its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of lawn mowers from China. 1 Respondent company, Ningbo Daye Garden Machinery Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Daye) submitted a timely allegation on the record that Commerce made a ministerial error in the final CVD determination on lawn mowers from China. 2 Section 705(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define ministerial errors as errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which Commerce considers ministerial. We reviewed the allegation and determined that we made a ministerial error in the final CVD determination on lawn mowers from China. See “Amendment to the Final Determination” section below for further discussion.

On July 6, 2021, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative final determination that, pursuant to sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from China. 3

The products covered by this order are lawn mowers from China. For a complete description of the scope of this order, see the appendix to this notice.

On May 24, 2021, Ningbo Daye submitted a timely ministerial error allegation regarding the Final Determination . 4 Commerce reviewed the record and on June 17, 2021, issued a memorandum acknowledging that the error alleged by Ningbo Daye constituted a ministerial error within the meaning of section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). 5 Specifically, Commerce found that it had incorrectly transcribed certain data pertaining to Ningbo Daye's outstanding loans, which resulted in an error in the subsidy rate calculation. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce is amending the Final Determination to reflect the correction of the ministerial error described in the Ministerial Error Memorandum. Based on the correction, the subsidy rate for Ningbo Daye changed from 14.17 percent to 13.67 percent ad valorem . Because the all-others rate is calculated using a weighted average of the individual estimated subsidy rates calculated for mandatory respondents, including Ningbo Daye's ad valorem subsidy rate, the all-others rate also changed from 16.29 percent to 15.95 percent.

On July 6, 2021, in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of lawn mowers from China. 6 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing this CVD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of lawn mowers from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of CVDs.

Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, CVDs for all relevant entries of lawn mowers from China which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 30, 2020, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination, 7 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before the publication of the ITC's final injury determination under section 705(b) of the Act, as further described in the “Provisional Measures” section of this notice.

Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures” section of this notice, in accordance with section 706(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of lawn mowers from China. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the net countervailable subsidy rates indicated in the table below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP must require, at the same time as importers would deposit estimated normal customs duties on subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates listed in the table below.

Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the Preliminary Determination on October 30, 2021. 9

The provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination, ended on February 26, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act and our practice, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to CVDs, unliquidated entries of lawn mowers from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after February 26, 2021, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register .

This notice constitutes the CVD order with respect to lawn mowers from China pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of CVD orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

This amended final determination and order is issued and published in accordance with sections 705(d) and 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b) and 351.224(e).

On May 20, 2021, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of lawn mowers from China and Vietnam. 1 On July 6, 2021, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations, pursuant to section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of LTFV imports of lawn mowers from China, and is threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of lawn mowers from Vietnam. 2

The products covered by these orders are lawn mowers from China and Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of these orders, see the appendix to this notice.

On July 6, 2021, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of lawn mowers from China, and is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of lawn mowers from Vietnam. 3 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of lawn mowers from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry and imports of lawn mowers from Vietnam are threatening material injury to a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China and Vietnam, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of lawn mowers from China and Vietnam.

With respect to China, antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of lawn mowers from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 30, 2020, the date of publication of the China Preliminary Determination . 4

With respect to Vietnam, because the ITC's final determination is based on the threat of material injury, other than threat of material injury described in section 736(b)(1) of the Act, duties shall be assessed on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination, pursuant to section 736(b)(2) of the Act. In addition, section 736(b)(2) of the Act requires CBP to release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit made of estimated antidumping duties posted since Commerce's preliminary antidumping duty determination.

Accordingly, Commerce will direct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for entries of lawn mowers from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to the publication of the ITC final determination in the Federal Register . Commerce will also instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits made with respect to entries of lawn mowers from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 30, 2020, (the date of publication of the Vietnam Preliminary Determination   5 ), but before June 28, 2021 (the date suspension of liquidation was discontinued in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act).

In accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of lawn mowers from China, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register . Commerce will also instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of lawn mowers from Vietnam, effective the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register , and to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, pursuant to section 736(a)(1) of the Act, antidumping duties for each entry of the subject merchandise equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the tables below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates listed below.

Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of lawn mowers from China and Vietnam, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in each of these investigations. Commerce published the preliminary determinations in these investigations on December 30, 2020. 6

The extended provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations, ended on June 27, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, 7 Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of lawn mowers from China and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after June 27, 2021, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determinations in the Federal Register .

The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to lawn mowers from China and Vietnam pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html .

These antidumping duty orders are published in accordance with sections 735(e) and 736(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on May 17, 2021, Commerce published its Final Determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of methionine from France in which it found that sales of methionine from France were at LTFV and that critical circumstances existed for the mandatory respondent in the investigation but did not exist for all other producers and exporters. 1 On June 30, 2021, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of methionine from France, and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to methionine from France subject to Commerce's partial affirmative critical circumstances determination on May 17, 2021. 2

The product covered by this order is methionine from France. For a full description of the scope of the order, see the appendix to this notice.

On June 30 2021, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of the ITC Final Determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of methionine from France and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from France that are subject to Commerce's affirmative critical circumstances finding. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing this AD order on methionine from France. Because Commerce has determined that sales of methionine from France were made at LTFV, and the ITC determined that imports of methionine from France are materially injuring the U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from France entered, or withdrawn, for consumption are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise for all relevant entries of methionine from France. As further described below, antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of methionine entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after March 4, 2021, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination, 3 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination, as further described below.

Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures” section of this notice, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of methionine from France. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the table below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, 4 CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated customs duties on subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates listed in the table below. The all-others rate applies to producers and exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

With regard to instances in which entries of subject merchandise were produced and exported by Adisseo France S.A.S. and Commentry (collectively, Adisseo), or produced by Adisseo and exported by a company not specified in the table below, within 90 days prior to the publication of the Preliminary Determination, then, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, Commerce had instructed CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of subject merchandise at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for Adisseo.

However, with regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of methionine from France, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund all cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise attributed to all parties entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 4, 2020 ( i.e., 90 days prior to the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination ), but before March 4, 2021 ( i.e., the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination ).

The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. For this investigation, Commerce decided not to extend the four-month period to six months. Commerce published the Preliminary Determination in this investigation on March 4, 2021. 5

The provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determination, ended on July 1, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation, to refund all cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties, and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of methionine from France entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after July 1, 2021, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register ( i.e., through July 6, 2021). 6 Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register ( i.e., July 7, 2021).

This notice constitutes the AD order with respect to methionine from France, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

The meeting will take place on Monday, August 2, 2021; Tuesday, August 3, 2021; and Wednesday, August 4, 2021; from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT. The general meeting is open to the public, and time will be permitted for public comment on Wednesday, August 3, 2021, from 3:40 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting are required to register in advance. Those interested in attending must provide notification by Friday, July 23, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. EDT, via the contact information provided above. This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to OEEI at Victoria.Yue@trade.gov or (202) 482-3492 no less than one week prior to the meeting. Requests received after this date will be accepted, but it may not be possible to accommodate them.

Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received by Friday, July 23, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. EDT to ensure transmission to the members before the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.

Topics to be considered: During the August 2-4 meeting, which is the first meeting of the current charter term, the Committee, with officials from the U.S. Department of Commerce and other agencies, will discuss major issues affecting the competitiveness of the U.S. environmental technologies industry, determine subcommittee structure, and provide consultation on ETTAC leadership. An agenda will be made available one week prior to the meeting upon request to Victoria Yue.

Background: The ETTAC is mandated by Section 2313(c) of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4728(c), to advise the Environmental Trade Working Group of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, through the Secretary of Commerce, on the development and administration of programs to expand U.S. exports of environmental technologies, goods, services, and products. The ETTAC was most recently re-chartered through August 15, 2022.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion at the SEDAR 77 HMS Hammerhead Shark Stock ID Webinar 2 are as follows:

• Participants will use review genetic studies, growth patterns, and any other relevant information on hammerhead shark stock structure.

• Participants will make final recommendations on biological stock structure and define the unit stock or stocks to be addressed through this assessment.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 business days prior to the meeting.

Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

During this meeting, the Council and the ASMFC's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board will reconsider revisions to the commercial black sea bass state allocations previously approved through the Council's Black Sea Bass Commercial State Allocation Amendment and the Commission's Addendum XXXIII. Background materials will be posted to www.mafmc.org/meetings.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Collins at the Council Office, (302) 526-5253, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) seeks a highly-qualified contractor to organize and conduct an ageing study on Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus. The Term of Contract is 24 months and Maximum Funding Available for Work is $250,000. The contractor is tasked with evaluating and proposing new techniques to efficiently sample, process, and utilize different ageing structures ( i.e., spines and otoliths) for gray triggerfish in the Gulf. Proposal applicants are encouraged to develop work plans to collaborate with state and federal partners to collect representative samples across a range of age classes. Typically, the various Gulf state and federal creel and port samplers would be able to contribute to this work; however, otoliths are not currently taken at dockside intercepts under current sample collection protocols. Sampling gray triggerfish otoliths that are small, fragile, and difficult to extract may require obtaining filleted carcasses ( i.e., racks) from fishery-dependent intercepts. If additional samples are necessary, the proposal may consider an effective method for field collection of gray triggerfish otoliths and dorsal spines.

Gray triggerfish have historically been aged by counting translucent zones in the first dorsal spine since gray triggerfish otoliths are small, fragile, and difficult to extract. During the Data/Assessment workshop deliberations for SEDAR 62, it was noted that a study applying bomb radiocarbon validation to compare spine and otolith ages routinely resulted in lower age estimates from spines versus otoliths, and called into question the reliability of growth estimates derived from spine-based ages (Patterson et al. 2019: SEDAR62-WP-17).

During its January 2021 meeting, the Council identified unspent Council funds in 2020. These unspent funds were primarily due to limited travel during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council is considering funding a research study, on the ageing of gray triggerfish, that could be completed, available, and contributory to the scheduled SEDAR Research Track assessment of Gulf gray triggerfish to begin in 2024. The last assessment for Gulf gray triggerfish (SEDAR 62) was terminated because of irreconcilable data issues, with ageing of gray triggerfish being an outstanding concern.

Gray triggerfish have historically been aged by counting translucent zones in the first dorsal spines since gray triggerfish otoliths tend to be small, fragile, and difficult to extract. Allman et al. (2016) conducted an age validation study of gray triggerfish spines that revealed two peaks in translucent zone formation, which was interpreted as a doublet pattern (two closely spaced translucent zones) representing a single year in the life. However, during workshop deliberations for SEDAR 62, it was noted that a study applying bomb radiocarbon validation to compare spine and otolith ages resulted in otolith ages better aligning with known regional coral and otolith carbon-14 values compared to spines, which under-aged known records. Whereas, the comparison of vertebra versus otolith-derived ages indicated a close agreement (Patterson et al. 2019: SEDAR62-WP-17).

Shervette et al. (2021), conducted a study on gray triggerfish in Ghana and U.S. South Atlantic that compared ageing of spines and otoliths. They also developed a methodology for removing the otoliths from gray triggerfish. Whole otoliths were submerged in water and read against a black background with magnified stereoscope, and then each opaque zone was counted. Spines were also read and fish were aged by counting the number of translucent zones in the spine section. Two independent readers with ageing experience of 8 years  + , read the otoliths and spines. This study found age estimates for spines ranged from 1 to 8 years and for otoliths 3 to 13 years. An age bias plot indicating a potential ageing bias starting at age-3 between spines and otoliths of gray triggerfish. Therefore, the Council is interested in funding an age study for Gulf gray triggerfish to reconcile ageing differences in hard parts. The Council also seeks expert advice from funded work to determine whether it is possible to develop an algorithm to convert spine-based ages to the more accurate otolith-based ages for Gulf gray triggerfish.

The contractor will be responsible for all data products outlined below and is encouraged to contribute additional products and suggestions in the proposal for this work. The selected contractor is also responsible for a mid-term project summary report and a presentation of the final results to the Scientific and Statistical Committees and the Council. The proposed scope of work should include the following:

• Evaluating and proposing new techniques to efficiently sample, process, and utilize different ageing structures ( i.e., spines and otoliths) for gray triggerfish in the Gulf.

• Clearly define how representative gray triggerfish samples will be obtained from various fleets ( i.e., private recreational, for-hire, and commercial) and/or fishery-independent survey samples with the goal of constructing age-length keys from otolith-based ages. The proposal should include the methodology of the age validation work proposed with a clear rationale for that work, such as literature cited and the anticipated sample sizes of fish by age class (0-14 years).

• Typically, the various Gulf state and federal creel and port samplers would be able to contribute to this work; however, otoliths are not currently taken at dockside intercepts under current sample collection protocols. Thus, proposal applicants are encouraged to develop work plans to collaborate with state and federal partners to collect representative samples across a range of age classes.

• The proposal should include detailed methodology for extracting and processing otoliths and spines and a clear rationale for that scope, and the anticipated sample sizes of fish by age class.

• Compare gray triggerfish ages from otoliths and spines to determine whether it is possible to develop an algorithm to convert spine-based ages to the more accurate otolith-based ages. Describe the variance about these estimates for the conversion algorithm as appropriate.

• Proposals should provide information and rationale for the consideration of seasonal growth increment pattern validation.

Results and outcomes from this work will be provided to the Council and National Marine Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC).

Contractor Qualifications: The successful applicant or applicant team will have demonstrable experience in marine ecology.

How to Apply: Applicants should submit a proposal to Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council by email ( rfp.graytriggerfish@gulfcouncil.org ) by 11:59 p.m. on August 13, 2021. Additional information including funding specifications can be obtained through inquiry to this email address. Proposals should include the following elements:

Executive Summary: A summary of the work proposed, including a brief summary of the applicant's qualifications.

Proposed Scope of Work: See bulleted list above.

Qualifications of Applicant: A summary of the qualifications of the applicant and other team members, if applicable. A curriculum vitae should be included for each individual who is expected to work on the project.

Proposed Budget: A detailed budget, including the basis for the charges ( e.g., hourly rates, fixed fees, approved federally negotiated overhead rate and other costs consistent with federally allowable costs for sub-contractors).

Proposed Timeline: A detailed timeline of field and laboratory collections, processing of samples, data analysis, and mid-term and final reports should be provided.

Letters of Support: Letters demonstrating collaboration with state and federal partners and fishermen to obtain adequate samples across age classes are highly encouraged.

Applicant References: Names, titles, full addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers for three clients for whom the applicant has provided similar services to those requested or are familiar with the applicant's work and the quality of the applicant's work products.

Proposals will be evaluated based on methodology and scope outlined in the proposed work plan. An ability to deliver, in a timely manner, a quality work product as determined by qualifications including prior experience, references, budget, and timelines is paramount. The Council may request additional information as deemed necessary or negotiate modifications prior to providing support for a proposal. Once a proposal is selected for funding, a formal contract will be provided to the applicants.

1. This project is being funded by federal funding authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act through NOAA Fisheries Service and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council NOAA award number NA20NMF4410011. Compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Pub. L. 104-208 as amended), the current requirements of the Federal Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Commerce financial assistance standard terms and conditions, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric financial assistance administrative terms, all special award conditions specific to this award and all parts of the Uniform Guidance at Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations must be maintained.

2. The contractor is responsible for all costs conducting the work and presenting the final results to the Scientific and Statistical Committees and Council.

3. Proposals and their accompanying documentation will not be returned, but retained as part of the Councils administrative documents.

4. All applicants included in the proposal must disclose any conflicts of interest and/or pending civil/criminal/fishery legal actions.

5. The Council reserves the right to accept or reject any or all applications received, negotiate with all qualified applicants, cancel or modify this request for proposals in part or in its entirety, or change the application guidelines, when it is in the best interests of the Council.

The Scientific and Statistical Committee will meet to review information presented by the Council's Skate Plan Development Team (PDT) and develop acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for the Skate Complex for fishing years 2022-24. They will receive presentation on report of the SSC Social Science Subpanel Review of Groundfish and Scallops Specifications. They will discuss any comments on the document, NOAA/NMFS NS1 [National Standard 1] Technical Guidance Subgroup 3 Tech Memo. Also on the agenda is the discussion of approaches for modifying the acceptable biological catch control rules for the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Commission voted 3-1 to authorize issuance of this Complaint. Acting Chairman Adler, Commissioners Kaye and Feldman voted to authorize issuance of the Complaint. Commissioner Baiocco voted to not authorize issuance of the Complaint. The text of the Complaint appears below.

1. This is an administrative enforcement proceeding pursuant to Section 15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 2064, for public notification and remedial action to protect the public from the substantial risks of injury presented by various models of residential elevators (“Elevators”), which were manufactured and distributed by Thyssenkrupp Access Corp. (“Respondent”).

2. This proceeding is governed by the Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings before the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “Commission”), 16 CFR part 1025.

3. This proceeding is instituted pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 15(c), (d), and (f) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(c), (d), and (f).

4. Complaint Counsel consists of attorneys in the Division of Enforcement and Litigation within the Office of Compliance and Field Operations representing the staff of the Commission. 16 CFR 1025.3(d). The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to Section 4 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2053.

5. Respondent is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business located at P.O. Box 545, Clinton, Missouri 64735.

6. Upon information and belief, Respondent acquired Access Industries, Inc., a manufacturer of some of the Elevators, in or about 1999.

7. Upon information and belief, Respondent acquired National Wheel-O-Vator Company, Inc., a manufacturer of some of the Elevators, in or about 2008.

8. On or about January 31, 2013, ThyssenKrupp Access Manufacturing, LLC, a manufacturer of some of the Elevators, was merged into Respondent, with Respondent being the surviving entity.

9. Upon information and belief, Respondent is a “manufacturer” and “distributor” of a “consumer product” that is “distribute[d] in commerce,” as those terms are defined in Sections 3(a)(5), (7), (8), and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5), (7), (8), and (11).

10. The Elevators are various models of residential elevators that were manufactured and/or distributed in U.S. commerce and offered for sale to consumers for their personal use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, school, in recreation or otherwise.

11. Upon information and belief, the Elevators include, but are not limited to, the following models: Chaparral, Destiny, LEV, LEV II, LEV II Builder, Rise, Volant, Windsor, Independence, and Flexi-Lift.

12. Upon information and belief, the Elevators were manufactured and distributed by Access Industries, Inc., formerly of Missouri; ThyssenKrupp Access Manufacturing, LLC and National Wheel-O-Vator Company, Inc., both formerly of Roanoke, Illinois; and by Respondent.

13. Upon information and belief, at least 16,872 Elevators were manufactured and distributed in U.S. commerce from 1996 through 2012.

14. Upon information and belief, an undetermined number of Elevators were manufactured and distributed in U.S. commerce through 2012.

15. Upon information and belief, most, if not all, of the Elevators were installed by third parties based upon guidance and instructions contained in materials provided by Respondent.

16. These materials include engineering drawings and instructional materials, including installation, design, and planning guides (collectively herein, “Installation Materials.”).

17. Upon information and belief, the estimated price for a two-landing installation of the Elevators was between $15,000 to $25,000.

18. The Elevators have a passenger car that moves between the floors in an elevator shaft, or “hoistway.”

19. Access to an Elevator is restricted at each floor by a hoistway door, which often looks like a typical door installed in a consumer's residence.

20. Upon information and belief, when the Elevator is parked at a floor, the hoistway door is not locked from the exterior.

21. The Elevators also contain an interior door, the elevator car door, which is usually an accordion door or a scissor gate.

22. By design, accordion doors have v-shaped peaks and valleys that allow the door to collapse on one side of the car door and allow passengers to enter and exit the elevator.

23. This design leads to the creation of additional inches of space between the peak, which is closest to the hoistway door, and the valley, which is furthest away from the hoistway door.

24. Scissor gates are designed with metal grates and also collapse to the side of the car door to allow passengers to enter and exit the elevator.

25. Both accordion doors and scissor gates allow for deflection if pressure is exerted on the elevator car door.

26. Deflection creates additional space between the elevator car door and the hoistway door.

27. Upon information and belief, children 2-years-old and older can fit in the space between a hoistway and elevator car door if the space is greater than 4 inches.

28. The Elevators are commonly installed in homes, vacation rentals, and other premises where children are present.

29. Children are likely to use an Elevator.

30. Children are likely to play in or around an Elevator.

31. Children can fit and become entrapped in the space between the hoistway door and the elevator car door when the space is greater than 4 inches (“Hazardous Space”).

32. Parents or caregivers are not likely to appreciate the danger posed by a Hazardous Space between the hoistway door and elevator car door.

33. When the elevator is not operating, children can open the unlocked hoistway door, step into the Hazardous Space between the hoistway door and elevator car door, and close the hoistway door behind them.

34. Hoistway doors are designed with interlock devices, which automatically lock when the Elevator is in operation.

35. If a child is in the Hazardous Space between the hoistway and elevator car doors, and the elevator is called to another floor, the hoistway door locks, trapping the child.

36. In such a situation, a child cannot escape because the hoistway door is locked.

37. In such a situation, a parent or caregiver will likely be unable to open the hoistway door to free the child while the elevator is in operation.

38. A child entrapped in the Hazardous Space between the hoistway door and the passenger car door when an elevator is in operation can suffer serious injury or death.

39. Upon information and belief, children as young as 2 and as old as 16 have become entrapped in the Hazardous Space between the hoistway door and the elevator car door.

40. The Elevators are defective because they contain defects in the “contents, construction, finish, packaging, warnings, and/or instructions,” specifically through Respondent's Installation Materials, and the Elevators contain design defects. See 16 CFR 1115.4.

41. The Installation Materials are defective because they direct, cause, or fail to adequately prevent installation of the Elevators in a manner that creates a Hazardous Space greater than 4 inches between the hoistway door and the elevator car door.

42. The head breadths of some children can be less than 5 inches.

43. Upon information and belief, because of these dimensions, children can fit in, and become entrapped between, the hoistway and elevator car doors.

44. Certain Installation Materials are defective because they do not contain specific instructions on how to measure the space between the hoistway door and elevator car door based on the elevator car door type (accordion or scissor).

45. Measuring to the valley versus the peak of an accordion elevator door can result in significant space variances, creating spaces much larger than 4 inches.

46. Installers using Installation Materials that do not specify how to measure are more likely to install the Elevators with a Hazardous Space because they are unlikely to appreciate the importance of minimizing the space between the hoistway door and elevator car door by measuring to the valley of the accordion door.

47. The Installation Materials that do contain specific instructions on how to measure the space do so in a manner that will create a Hazardous Space of greater than 4 inches.

48. Specifically, some of the Installation Materials affirmatively direct installers to measure the distance to the elevator car itself, the lead post of the car door, or the peak of the accordion door; all points that are inches closer to the hoistway door than the valley of the accordion door.

49. Thus, such direction makes it highly likely that installers will fail to measure to the valley of an accordion door—all but ensuring installation with a Hazardous Space of greater than 4 inches.

50. The Installation Materials also are defective because they fail to state that these measurements are safety-critical and they fail to expressly warn about the entrapment hazard posed by the Hazardous Space.

51. The Installation Materials contain many fine print measurements; failure to identify the particular measurements as a critical safety element or identify the hazard means it is less likely that there will be strict adherence to these measurements, which may lead to the creation of a Hazardous Space.

52. The Installation Materials also are defective because they do not require the use of, or provide, a measurement tool.

53. Failure to require the use of or to provide a measurement tool to ensure precise measurements between the hoistway door and the elevator car door may lead to the creation of a Hazardous Space because installers may measure in a way to create such a space.

54. This is especially problematic when installing accordion doors, because of the additional space that can be created when measuring to the peaks of the doors and not the valleys.

55. Thus, failure to require the use of or provide a measuring tool may lead to installations where installers create a Hazardous Space by measuring to a part of the car door that would not minimize the space.

56. The Installation Materials also are defective because they fail to contain an elevator car door rigidity requirement to account for deflection of the elevator car door when minimal force is applied.

57. Deflection allows for the creation of an even larger Hazardous Space between the hoistway and elevator car doors.

58. The larger space created by deflection allows older and larger children to push against the elevator car door and become entrapped in the Hazardous Space.

59. The Elevators also are defective because they fail to provide and require use of available safety features to mitigate against the hazard.

60. Upon information and belief, Respondent sold safety features to consumers as optional items.

61. Upon information and belief, none of the Elevators come with a required safety feature that prevents a child from becoming entrapped in the Hazardous Space when the Elevator is called to another floor.

62. The design of the Elevators allows the Elevators to move from floor to floor when a child is entrapped in the Hazardous Space, putting the child at risk of serious injury or death.

63. Upon information and belief, none of the Elevators come with a required safety feature that would prevent the Elevator from moving from floor to floor if a child is entrapped in the Hazardous Space.

64. Upon information and belief, the potential for a Hazardous Space to exist between the hoistway door and elevator car door is present on all Elevator models manufactured and distributed by Respondent.

65. Upon information and belief, the potential for the Elevators to operate and move from floor to floor even if a child is entrapped in the Hazardous Space is present on all Elevator models manufactured and distributed by Respondent.

66. The defects associated with the Elevators have led to three incidents, including the death of one child and serious and permanent injuries to another.

67. Upon information and belief, on or about December 24, 2010, a 3-year-old boy became entrapped in the Hazardous Space between the doors of a Destiny model elevator.

68. The elevator car door was an accordion door.

69. Upon information and belief, the child suffered a catastrophic brain injury when the Elevator moved between floors, and as a result, is permanently disabled.

70. The child will require constant care for the remainder of his life.

71. The Elevator was manufactured on or about September 28, 2007.

72. Upon information and belief, there were between 4.875 inches and 5 inches from the hoistway door to the peak of the accordion door, and 7.5 inches from the hoistway door to the valley of the accordion door.

73. Respondent's Installation Materials for this specific Elevator installation instructed the installer to measure 5 inches from the hoistway door to the “outside” or peak of the accordion gate.

74. Upon information and belief, on or about February 1, 2017, a 2-year-old boy died when he became entrapped in the Hazardous Space between the hoistway and accordion door of an LEV Elevator that was moving between floors.

75. Upon information and belief, the Elevator was manufactured on or about January 6, 2010.

76. Upon information and belief, on or about November 28, 2019, a 4-year-old child was entrapped in the Hazardous Space between the hoistway and accordion door of a Destiny Elevator.

77. Upon information and belief, while in the Hazardous Space, the child fell to the basement and was pinned by the Elevator.

78. This Elevator was manufactured on or about May 4, 2000.

79. Upon information and belief, the space between the hoistway door and the elevator car sill was approximately 5 inches.

80. Upon information and belief, this child was deprived of oxygen for some period of time, was hospitalized as a result of the incident, and was later released.

81. Upon information and belief, Respondent knew of the deadly dangers of the Hazardous Space when it manufactured and distributed the Elevators.

82. Upon information and belief, on or about July 31, 2003, National Wheel-O-Vator Company, Inc. received an “Important Elevator Safety Information Bulletin” from the Otis Elevator Company.

83. Upon information and belief, this letter and a safety brochure that accompanied the letter, highlighted the importance of reducing the Hazardous Space by using space guards, which are safety devices that can be installed on the back of each hoistway door to eliminate some of the Hazardous Space.

84. The letter from Otis Elevator Company stated that, with space guards installed, “the likelihood of an entrapment between the door and gate and of serious injury or death is greatly reduced.”

85. Upon information and belief, by 2006, members of the American Society for Mechanical Engineers A17 Residence Elevator Committee (the “Committee”) publicly raised concerns regarding risks posed by the 5-inch space requirement between the hoistway door and the elevator car door found in the ASME A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators.

86. Upon information and belief, various representatives for Respondent and National Wheel-O-Vator Company, Inc. participated in the Committee, including the task group manager for this issue, the vice chairman of the committee, and several other employees.

87. Upon information and belief, some Committee members noted that 5 inches between an elevator door and hoistway door could present an entrapment hazard.

88. Upon information and belief, the Committee also discussed the potential for measuring discrepancies between peaks and valleys of accordion doors.

89. Upon information and belief, the Committee also discussed the ability for accordion doors to be significantly more flexible due to deflection.

90. Upon information and belief, Respondent nevertheless made no changes to the Elevators or any Installation Materials.

91. Upon information and belief, in or about 2014, Respondent launched an information campaign, known as homeSAFE (Safety Awareness For Elevators).

92. Upon information and belief, as part of the homeSAFE campaign, Respondent offered space guards to consumers.

93. Upon information and belief, consumers were required to pay for 75% of the cost of each space guard.

94. Upon information and belief, purchasing space guards for multiple landings would cost consumers hundreds of dollars.

95. Upon information and belief, Respondent distributed approximately 422 total space guards.

96. As part of the homeSAFE campaign, on or about June 24, 2014, Respondent began recommending that “to help prevent child entrapments, make sure the space between the hoistway door and the cab gate is no more than four inches . . . [and] taking measurements from the hoistway door to the back or rear post of the car gate.”

97. Upon information and belief, by the time that the homeSAFE campaign was launched, most, if not all, of Respondent's Elevators would have already been installed with the defective Installation Materials that allowed for a Hazardous Space greater than 4 inches and did not recommend a precise measurement to the valley of the accordion door.

98. Upon information and belief, in or about 2018, Respondent stopped supporting the homeSAFE website.

99. Despite knowing for many years about the potential hazards associated with its Elevators, Respondent took no action to correct defects in its Installation Materials or its Elevators.

100. Because of Respondent's inaction, two children were involved in incidents with Elevators manufactured after 2006; one child became permanently disabled in December 2010 and one child died in February 2017.

101. Further, two of the reported incidents occurred during or after Respondent's homeSAFE campaign; the death of a child in February 2017 and the hospitalization of a child in November 2019.

102. Upon information and belief, children, a vulnerable population, have sustained grievous bodily injuries and death after becoming entrapped in the Hazardous Space between the hoistway door and the elevator car door on Respondent's Elevators.

103. Upon information and belief, children are likely to interact with and playfully explore the Elevators, and it is foreseeable that children could become entrapped between the hoistway and elevator car doors.

104. Parents and caregivers are not likely to know about or appreciate the safety hazard to children posed by the Hazardous Space between the hoistway and elevator car doors.

105. Once a child enters the Hazardous Space and the elevator is called to another floor, the child cannot escape.

106. If a child is in that Hazardous Space when the elevator is called to another floor, the child is at risk of crushing injuries that can prove fatal or permanently debilitating, such as massive head trauma, compression of the torso, broken bones, and other grievous bodily injuries.

107. Children can also suffer long term complications from being crushed or dragged by an Elevator.

108. A child in the Hazardous Space when the elevator is called to another floor is also at risk of falling into the elevator shaft and suffering serious or fatal injuries.

109. Upon information and belief, at least three children have become entrapped in the Hazardous Space due to the defects associated with the Elevators.

110. The defects present in the Elevators create a substantial risk of injury to children who are entrapped in the hazardous space between the hoistway and elevator car doors when the elevator is called to another floor.

111. Death, grievous bodily injuries, and serious injuries, as defined in 16 CFR 1115.6(c) and § 1115.12(d), are likely to occur and have occurred when children become entrapped in the Hazardous Space and the Elevator is called to another floor.

112. Under the CPSA, the Commission may order a firm to provide notice to the public and take remedial action if the Commission determines that a product “presents a substantial product hazard.” 15 U.S.C. 2064(c) and (d).

113. Under CPSA Section 15(a)(2), a “substantial product hazard” is “a product defect which (because of the pattern of defect, the number of defective products distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk, or otherwise) creates a substantial risk of injury to the public.” 15 U.S.C. 2064(a)(2).

114. A product may contain a design defect even if it is manufactured exactly in accordance with its design and specifications if the design presents a risk of injury to the public. 16 CFR 1115.4.

115. A defect can also occur in a product's contents, construction, finish, packaging, warnings, and/or instructions.

116. A consumer product may contain a defect if the instructions for assembly or use could allow the product, otherwise safely designed and manufactured, to present a risk of injury. 16 CFR 1115.4.

117. Paragraphs 1 through 116 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

118. The Elevators are consumer products.

119. The Elevators contain defects because:

a. The Installation Materials direct, cause, or fail to adequately prevent installation of the Elevators in a manner that creates a Hazardous Space between the hoistway door and elevator car doors in which children can become entrapped, including by failing to:

i. Contain adequate and correct instructions on how to measure the space between the hoistway door and elevator car door to avoid creating the Hazardous Space based on the elevator car door type;

ii. contain adequate instructions on how to avoid the creation of a larger Hazardous Space based on the deflection of the elevator car door;

iii. state that the measurement between the hoistway door and the elevator car door is safety-critical or expressly warn about the entrapment hazard; and

iv. require the use of, or provide, a measurement tool to ensure precise measurement and avoid the creation of a Hazardous Space.

b. The design of the Elevators fails to require safety features that prevent a child from becoming entrapped in the Hazardous Space and that prevent the Elevator from moving between floors if a child is entrapped in the Hazardous Space.

120. These defects separately, and in combination, create a substantial risk of injury to the public because of the pattern of defect, the number of defective products distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk, or otherwise.

121. Therefore, the Elevators present a substantial product hazard within the meaning of Section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(a)(2).

Wherefore, in the public interest, Complaint Counsel requests that the Commission:

A. Determine that the Elevators present a “substantial product hazard” within the meaning of Section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(a)(2).

B. Determine that extensive and effective public notification under Section 15(c) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(c), is required to adequately protect the public from the substantial product hazard presented by the Elevators, and order Respondent under Section 15(c) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(c), to:

(1) Notify all persons who distribute the Elevators, or to whom such Elevators have been sold or distributed, to immediately cease distribution of the Elevators;

(2) Notify appropriate state and local public health officials;

(3) Give prompt public notice of the defect in the Elevators, including the incidents and injuries associated with the use of the Elevators, including posting clear and conspicuous notice on Respondent's website, and providing notice to any third-party website on which Respondent has a presence, and provide further announcements in languages other than English and on radio, television, and social media;

(4) Mail and email notice to each distributor, retailer, dealer and installer of the Elevators; and

(5) Mail and email notice to every person to whom the Elevators were delivered or sold.

C. Determine that action under Section 15(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(d), is in the public interest and additionally order Respondent to:

(1) Repair the defect in the Elevators by providing a free inspection to consumers by a qualified inspector who will measure the gap between the hoistway and elevator doors;

(2) Install, at no cost to consumers, a free space guard approved by Commission staff that reduces the gap to no more than 4 inches;

(3) Make no charge to consumers, and to reimburse consumers, for any reasonable and foreseeable expenses incurred in availing themselves of any remedy provided under any Commission Order issued in this matter, as provided by Section 15(e)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(e)(1), including previous purchases of space guards or other safety devices, and all costs associated with those purchases, whether or not they were part of the homeSAFE campaign;

(4) Reimburse distributors, retailers, dealers, installers, and other third parties for expenses in connection with carrying out any Commission Order issued in this matter, including the costs of repairs or replacements, as provided by Section 15(e)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(e)(2);

(5) Submit a plan satisfactory to the Commission, within ten (10) days of service of the Final Order, directing that actions specified in Paragraphs B(1) through (5), and C(1) through (4) above be taken in a timely manner;

(6) Submit monthly reports, to the Commission, documenting the progress of the corrective action program;

(7) For a period of five (5) years after issuance of the Final Order in this matter, keep records of its actions taken to comply with Paragraphs B(1) through (5), C(1) through (4), above, and supply these records to the Commission for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the Final Order; and

(9) For a period of five (5) years after issuance of the Final Order in this matter, notify the Commission at least sixty (60) days prior to any change in its business (such as incorporation, dissolution, assignment, sale, or petition for bankruptcy) that results in, or is intended to result in, the emergence of a successor corporation, going out of business, or any other change that might affect compliance obligations under a Final Order issued by the Commission in this matter.

D. Order that Respondent take other and further actions as the Commission deems necessary to protect the public health and safety and to comply with the CPSA.

Pursuant to 16 CFR 1025.11(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, the following is a list and summary of documentary evidence supporting the charges in this matter. Complaint Counsel reserves the right to offer additional or different evidence during the course of the proceedings, or to withhold evidence on the basis of any applicable legal privileges.

1. Claims, complaints, records, reports, CPSC's In-Depth Investigations, and lawsuits concerning incidents or injuries involving various models of residential elevators manufactured and distributed by Respondent (“Elevators”).

2. Engineering drawings and instructional materials, including installation, design, and planning guides (referred to as “Installation Materials”).

3. Design, manufacturing, distribution, warnings, instructions, and promotional materials associated with the Elevators.

4. CPSC Product Safety Assessments.

5. Correspondence between Respondent and CPSC staff related to the Elevators.

6. Documents and information related to the Elevators, including notices issued regarding the Elevators and similar products.

7. Documents and information related to Respondent's corporate structure and Respondent's acquisition of and merger with other manufacturers and distributors of the Elevators.

I hereby certify that on July 7, 2021, I served the foregoing Complaint and List and Summary of Documentary Evidence upon all parties of record in these proceedings by emailing a copy to counsel, as follows:

The Draft EIS and informational materials are available on the project website at www.NAVWAR-revitalization.com. The public may also review the Draft EIS and select materials at the following libraries:

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the ARP-AIRE program is to support Tribal educational agencies (TEAs) in the provision of direct services to Indian children and youth. Projects must include one or more of the activities authorized under section 6121(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).

Background: ARP-AIRE is a one-time discretionary grant competition authorized under Section 11006(1) of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) to provide awards to TEAs for activities authorized under section 6121(c) of the ESEA in order to meet the urgent needs of students in response to the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Those activities include a broad range of direct services to Indian children and youth, their teachers, and families.

In accordance with the Department's commitment to engage in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian Tribes, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education's (OESE) Office of Indian Education (OIE) and the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education (WHIAIANE) conducted a virtual Tribal consultation session regarding the ARP-AIRE program on April 26, 2021. Consistent with the Department's trust responsibility to Tribes and its Tribal consultation Policy, the Department consulted with elected officials of federally recognized Tribes to ensure that their views inform the Department's policy decisions related to the priorities, requirements, and definitions that govern this competition. In addition to the virtual Tribal consultation, Tribal leaders and others had an opportunity to submit written comments to the Department by email. We solicited feedback on specific questions related to the design of this grant program during this Tribal consultation opportunity. A summary of the feedback to these questions and how we incorporated the feedback into this NIA follows.

1. We asked whether we should adopt the definition of TEA used in the State Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) program for the ARP-AIRE program, which is: “the agency, department, or instrumentality of an Indian Tribe that is primarily responsible for supporting Tribal students' elementary and secondary education.” A significant number of comments from both Tribal leaders and others expressed interest in using the same definition from the STEP program. A commenter expressed interest in adding postsecondary education, and another proposed adding online students, to the definition. Because the activities in ESEA section 6121(c) are focused on pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) to grade 12 education, we are limiting the scope of this program to students in those grade levels. This scope covers students in a TEA's geographic area, regardless of whether students attend school in person or online. Thus, we are using the STEP definition of TEA in this ARP-AIRE program competition.

2. We asked whether there were other considerations for how “TEA” should be defined for this new grant program. Some commenters expressed interest in adding Pre-K and early childhood to the definition of TEA. Although we are not expanding the definition of TEA, the activities in ESEA section 6121(c) do include early childhood education, and accordingly we are including language in the absolute priority to provide applicants an opportunity to select project activities that would address any grade level from Pre-K through grade 12.

3. We asked how long the grant period should be for the ARP-AIRE program and provided examples of 3-year, 4-year, and 5-year grant periods. A majority of Tribal leaders and other commenters suggested that the program performance period be a 5-year period. We considered this input, but weighed it against the fact that, given the one-time nature of these ARP funds, we could award more 3-year awards than 5-year awards, and the fact that the ARP funding is emergency funding from Congress to address immediate needs caused by the pandemic. We also believe that a grant period shorter than three years would not give grantees adequate time to successfully implement projects. We have decided to use a 3-year grant period in order to maximize the number of awards available and reach the maximum number of Tribal communities throughout the country to support effective responses to the pandemic.

4. We explained that we were considering prioritizing certain project activities from the full list of allowable activities in ESEA section 6121(c). All of the allowable activities are for direct services to Indian children and youth in Pre-K through twelfth grade, and/or their teachers and parents. We asked Tribal representatives to select two of the listed activities that most interest their Tribal Nation. The most popular activities selected by participants were Native language programs; services to assist and encourage students to enter, remain in, or reenter school; and incorporation of culturally relevant pedagogy into local school curricula. However, the majority of comments from Tribal leaders and others strongly recommended that TEAs be able to choose their grant focus from among the activities listed in section 6121(c) of the ESEA. We agree with Tribal leaders and other commenters that allowing applicants to choose their activities better supports Tribal sovereignty.

The Department has designed one absolute priority that we believe meets these various goals; the absolute priority requires culturally relevant projects designed to assist and encourage Indian children and youth to enter, remain in, or reenter school at any grade level from Pre-K through grade 12, that include at least one of the activities from section 6121(c) of the ESEA. We omitted section 6121(c)(5) because it is incorporated into the introductory language of the absolute priority, and section 6121(c)(14) because it is only relevant to the Demonstration Grants program. Under this absolute priority, applicants can choose one or more of the activities, such as native language instruction, remedial instruction, or Pre-K education, and must show how it is culturally relevant and how it is designed to help students enter, remain in, or reenter school.

We included in the introductory language of the absolute priority the focus on activities that assist and encourage Indian children and youth to enter, remain in, or reenter school, because two decades of research literature shows that there is a clear need to identify strategies to help keep Indian children and youth in school (Withington A., & Shtivelband, A., 2014). 1 We included the requirement that all projects use culturally related activities because research has shown that such activities improve the academic achievement of American Indian/Alaska Native students (McCarty, 2011;  2 Faircloth & Tippeconic, 2000;  3 Kim & Helphenstine, 2017; Thomas & Collier, 1997  4 ).

5. We asked whether we should prioritize novice applicants by including a competitive preference priority that awards additional points to applicants that have not received a grant from the Department within a certain time period. The majority of comments were in favor of the Department including a competitive preference priority to encourage novice applicants to give an advantage to TEAs that have not previously been awarded grants from the Department. We agree and have included a competitive preference priority for novice applicants in the competition. For this competition, a “novice” applicant is one that has not had an active discretionary grant from the Department in the past five years. If an applicant received a grant during that period only as a member of a consortium in which it was not the lead applicant, the applicant will still receive the novice priority points. For an applicant that is a consortium of TEAs, if the lead applicant has not had an active discretionary grant from the Department in the past five years, it will receive the novice points even if not all consortium members meet the novice requirement.

6. We asked how we should measure the success of these projects and included the following measures as examples: The number and percentage of participating students who demonstrate an increase in attendance rate; increase in graduation rate; improved academic performance; and improved social, emotional and mental health. As a related matter, we asked whether we should require grantees to track student-level data and, specifically, graduation rates. The majority of comments suggested the Department measure the success of project performance using attendance, academic performance, and other means as defined by the TEA. While we generally agree that each of these are important, because we anticipate that projects will focus on many types of activities, the Department will measure success by determining the number of grantees that attain or exceed the targets for the outcome indicators that have been approved by the Secretary for their projects.

As part of these questions, we also asked whether we should require grantees to track these measures during a data collection period after the substantive project activities have ended. A majority of the comments from Tribal leaders and others suggested that grantees should track measures beyond the performance period. While we generally agree, we also had many requests during consultation to keep the program design simple and minimize program requirements. Therefore, we will not incorporate a program requirement relating to long-term data collection; however, we may consider grant extensions for data collection in the future.

7. We asked whether we should require grantees to enter into written data-sharing agreements with the school districts attended by students participating in their projects. The purpose of such agreements would be to ensure that grantees have the data needed to report on measures we might require of all grantees, as well as their own project-specific objectives. Results were mixed from Tribal leaders as to whether the Department should impose an application requirement for a data-sharing agreement with partner schools. Most other commenters suggested that TEAs should be required to enter a data-sharing agreement with partner schools prior to applying. One commenter suggested that data-sharing agreements could be entered into at any appropriate point in the grant process and do not necessarily need to be entered into prior to submitting a grant application. While we generally agree that data-sharing agreements are conducive to effective project performance, we do not want to impose an application requirement that we understand can be very time-consuming and that might lead to TEAs being unable to meet the application deadline. Instead, we have created a program requirement for a data-sharing agreement to allow grantees the flexibility to obtain those agreements during the first six months of their performance period.

8. We asked Tribal leaders and other participants to comment on any other application or program requirements that we should consider. Commenters suggested that we require family engagement and minimize reporting burden on grantees as much as possible. We recognize the importance of promoting family engagement and reducing reporting burden and have taken those into consideration. While we agree that family engagement is important, we also want to simplify the application and be respectful of Tribal sovereignty, so we are not adding an additional program requirement around family engagement. With regard to reporting burdens, there are Department-wide requirements around annual reporting in the Annual Performance Report (APR), and we believe that APR reporting serves a valuable function in ensuring ongoing progress and enabling us to provide assistance to grantees who may be struggling to achieve adequate progress.

Priorities: This notice contains one absolute priority and one competitive preference priority. We are establishing these priorities for the FY 2021 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

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

This priority is:

American Indian Resilience in Education.

To meet this priority, applicants must propose a culturally relevant project designed to assist and encourage Indian children and youth to enter, remain in, or reenter school at any grade level from Pre-K through grade 12, that includes at least one of the following activities from section 6121(c) of the ESEA:

(1) Innovative programs related to the educational needs of educationally disadvantaged Indian children and youth.

(2) Educational services that are not available to such children and youth in sufficient quantity or quality, including remedial instruction, to raise the achievement of Indian children in one or more of the subjects of English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, art, history, and geography.

(3) Bilingual and bicultural programs and projects.

(4) Special health and nutrition services, and other related activities, that address the special health, social, and psychological problems of Indian children and youth.

(5) Comprehensive guidance, counseling, and testing services.

(6) Early childhood education programs that are effective in preparing young children to make sufficient academic growth by the end of grade 3, including kindergarten and Pre-K programs, family-based preschool programs that emphasize school readiness, screening and referral, and the provision of services to Indian children and youth with disabilities.

(7) Partnership projects between local educational agencies and institutions of higher education that allow secondary school students to enroll in courses at the postsecondary level to aid such students in the transition from secondary to postsecondary education.

(8) Partnership projects between schools and local businesses for career preparation programs designed to provide Indian youth with the knowledge and skills such youth need to make an effective transition from school to a high-skill career.

(9) Programs designed to encourage and assist Indian students to work toward, and gain entrance into, institutions of higher education.

(10) Family literacy services.

(11) Activities that recognize and support the unique cultural and educational needs of Indian children and youth, and incorporate traditional leaders.

(12) High-quality professional development of teaching professionals and paraprofessionals.

Competitive Preference Priority: This priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award an additional five points to an application that meets this priority.

This priority is:

Applicants that are New Potential Grantees. (0 or 5 points)

To meet this priority, the applicant has not had an active discretionary grant from the Department in the past five years. For an applicant that is a consortium of TEAs, if the lead applicant meets this requirement, it will receive the novice points even if not all consortium members meet this requirement.

Requirement: We are establishing this program requirement for the FY 2021 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA.

Program Requirement: Within six months after the date of the award, the grantee must submit to the Department a signed, written agreement with each LEA where participating students are enrolled. The agreement must include provisions that allow the grantee to access data necessary for the success of the project and for reporting on project objectives. Agreements between Tribally-controlled schools and grantees are not required if the school and grantee are controlled by the same Tribe.

Statutory Hiring Preference:

(a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). That section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee—

(1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and

(2) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.

(b) For purposes of this preference, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe.

Definitions: The following definitions apply to this competition. We are establishing the definitions of “Indian” and “Tribal Educational Agency” in this notice for the FY 2021 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. The definitions of “demonstrates a rationale” and “logic model” are from 34 CFR 77.1.

Demonstrates a Rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Indian means an individual who is—

(1) A member of an Indian Tribe or band, as membership is defined by the Indian Tribe or band, including any Tribe or band terminated since 1940, and any Tribe or band recognized by the State in which the Tribe or band resides;

(2) A descendant of a parent or grandparent who meets the requirements described in paragraph (1) of this definition;

(3) Considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose;

(4) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska Native; or

(5) A member of an organized Indian group that received a grant under the Indian Education Act of 1988 as it was in effect on October 19, 1994.

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

Tribal Educational Agency (TEA) means the agency, department, or instrumentality of one or more federally- recognized or State-recognized Indian Tribes, that is primarily responsible for supporting Tribal students' elementary and secondary education.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under section 11006(1) of the ARP (Pub. L. 117-2), and, therefore, qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities, requirements, and definitions under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities, requirements, and definitions will apply to the FY 2021 competition, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Program Authority: Section 11006 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP), Public Law 117-2.

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

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

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $19,800,000 for three years.

Estimated Range of Awards: $300,000 to $500,000 for each 12-month budget period.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $400,000 for each 12-month budget period.

Estimated Number of Awards: 16 for each 12-month budget period.

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

Project Period: 36 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: TEAs, including a consortium of TEAs.

Note: If applying as a consortium, applicants should refer to 34 CFR 75.127-75.129 for information about group applications.

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

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

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

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

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768) and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the ARP-AIRE program, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended). Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program. Please note that, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard 60-day intergovernmental review period in order to make awards by the end of FY 2021.

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

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the following standards:

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

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

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

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

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.

6. Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to review grant applications more efficiently if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of their intent to submit an application. To do so, please email the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT with the subject line “Intent to Apply,” and include the applicant's name and a contact person's name and email address. Applicants that do not submit a notice of intent to apply may still apply for funding; applicants that do submit a notice of intent to apply are not bound to apply or bound by the information provided.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210. We will award up to 100 points to an application under the selection criteria; the total possible points for each selection criterion are noted in parentheses.

(a) Quality of the project design (up to 50 points).

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

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

(i) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives. (20 points)

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental involvement. (10 points)

(iii) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice). (10 points)

(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible. (10 points)

(b) Quality of project services (up to 20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (1 point)

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services. (4 points)

(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (10 points)

(iii) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services. (5 points)

(c) Quality of project personnel (up to 15 points).

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

(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (3 points)

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator. (7 points)

(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. (5 points)

(d) Quality of the management plan (up to 15 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

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

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

(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (5 points)

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

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

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

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

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

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

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

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and for Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established the following performance measure for the ARP-AIRE program:

The number of grantees that attain or exceed the targets for the outcome indicators that have been approved by the Secretary for their projects.

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

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

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

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities (Center) is to identify or develop evidence-based literacy assessment tools and professional development activities and identify evidence-based instruction, strategies, and accommodations for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. The Center will also disseminate its products and information on evidence-based literacy to families, SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and schools.

Priority: This priority is from the notice of final priority, requirement, and definitions (NFP) for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

Absolute Priority: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities .

Background:

Section 2244 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA) requires the Secretary to establish a comprehensive center on students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability. Comprehensive centers are typically administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). OESE is funding this Center; however, because of the Center's subject matter, it will be administered jointly by OESE and OSEP in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

The project is designed to improve implementation of evidence-based literacy practices in both teacher classroom and remote learning environments. With respect to remote learning, the priority is intended to ensure that teachers have the training and support they need to implement evidence-based literacy practices during remote instruction for students with disabilities, including students with dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. Remote learning plays a critical role in regular instruction and can serve as a crucial link allowing high-quality teaching and learning to continue when regular instruction is disrupted.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities (Center) for children in early childhood education programs through high school. The Center must—

(a) Identify or develop free or low-cost evidence-based assessment tools for identifying students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;

(b) Identify evidence-based literacy instruction, strategies, and accommodations, including assistive technology, designed to meet the specific needs of such students;

(c) Provide families of such students with information to assist such students;

(d) Identify or develop evidence-based professional development for teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel to—

(1) Understand early indicators of students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;

(2) Use evidence-based screening assessments for early identification of such students beginning not later than kindergarten;  1 and

(3) Implement evidence-based instruction designed to meet the specific needs of such students; and

(e) Disseminate the products of the comprehensive center to regionally diverse SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools, including, as appropriate, through partnerships with other comprehensive centers established under section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602), and regional educational laboratories established under section 174 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9564).

In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:

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

(1) Address current and emerging training and information needs of SEAs, REAs, LEAs, TA centers, schools, and practitioners to select and implement teacher classroom and remote learning environment evidence-based practices (EBPs) that will improve literacy outcomes for students with disabilities, including students with dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current and emerging EBPs, which can be used in reading and literacy-related teacher classroom and remote learning environment instruction, screening, assessment, and identification or diagnosis of students at risk for not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. This includes demonstrating knowledge of current and emerging reading and literacy-related EBPs for students who are English learners; students from a variety of settings ( e.g., rural, suburban, urban); students from low-income families; and other educationally disadvantaged students; or

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of, previous experience with, and results of using creative approaches and implementing in-person and virtual TA strategies to provide capacity-building services and disseminate teacher classroom and remote learning environment EBPs to a variety of entities, including parents, SEAs, REAs, LEAs, schools, Head Start, and other early childhood programs;

(2) Demonstrate a record of improving outcomes in literacy achievement for students at risk for not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning, in order to better prepare them to compete in a global economy; and

(3) Demonstrate a record of improving the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of teacher classroom and remote learning environment EBPs in literacy instruction for students at risk for not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning.

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

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

(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and

(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the intended recipients of the grant;

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) A five-year plan for the Center to identify current and emerging training and information needs and to address the priority;

(ii) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(iii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes of the proposed project;

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, and describe any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

Note: The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel, www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework, and www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-06583.

(4) Be based on current research and make use of EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current research on teacher classroom and remote learning environment EBPs for literacy instruction for students at risk for not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;

(ii) The current research on teacher classroom and remote learning environment EBPs for assessing students at risk for not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. This should include the current research on screening assessments for dyslexia and other literacy-related disabilities that are evidence-based, psychometrically valid, free or low-cost, efficient to scale, and readily available for use; and

(iii) The current research about adult learning principles in in-person and virtual settings and implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and

(5) Develop products or refine or update publicly available existing products and provide in-person and virtual services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended measurable outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base in teacher classroom and remote learning environment literacy instruction for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach, a description of new or existing publicly available products that may be used and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of new or existing publicly available products that may be used and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the target audiences to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA, REA, LEA, school, and early childhood education program levels;

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs, REAs, and LEAs to build or enhance in-person and virtual training systems that include capacity-building services and professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching; and

(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system ( e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, districts, schools, early childhood education programs, families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the use of teacher classroom and remote learning environment EBPs for literacy instruction;

(6) Partner with the National Comprehensive Center and at least one of the other federally funded comprehensive centers, regional educational laboratories, equity assistance centers, OSEP- and other related federally funded TA Centers, parent training and information and community parent resource centers funded by the Department and OSEP ( e.g., Center for Parent Information and Resources and Parent Technical Assistance Centers), and other related organizations to refine or develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes; and

(7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant will systematically distribute information, products, and services to varied intended audiences, using a variety of in-person and virtual dissemination strategies, to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.

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

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions, that are linked directly to the project's proposed logic model required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this notice;

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The proposed project will ensure equal access for employment for all, including those who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or disability;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications, subject-matter expertise, and technical experience to carry out the proposed activities, achieve the project's intended outcomes, and develop ongoing partnerships with leading experts and organizations nationwide to inform project activities;

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

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

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

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

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes. The identified project director should be, at minimum, 0.5 full-time equivalency throughout the project period;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, general and special education teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, TA providers, researchers, institutions of higher education (IHEs), and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

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

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

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

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer, OESE staff, and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative;

(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, or a virtual conference, during each year of the project period;

(iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and

(iv) At least monthly, communicate and collaborate with other Department-funded centers to achieve project objectives;

(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

(4) Include a plan for maintaining a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;

(5) Include a plan for ensuring that annual project progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website;

(6) Include, in Appendix A, a letter of agreement from each partnering organization or consultant. The letter of agreement should clearly specify the role of the partnering organization or consultant and the time needed to fulfill the commitment to the project; and

(7) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP and OESE with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to target audiences during the transition to this new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Definitions:

The following definitions apply to this competition. We provide the source of the definitions in parentheses.

Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous improvement and achieve expected outcomes. (NFP)

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1)

Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale. (34 CFR 77.1)

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation ( e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:

(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable ( e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case ( e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment. (34 CFR 77.1)

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

Intensive, sustained TA means TA services often provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA center staff and the TA recipient. This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems levels. (NFP)

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project ( i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1)

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

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

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

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

(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

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

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

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

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components ( e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers). (34 CFR 77.1)

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

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

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

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

(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias ( e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive ( i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome. (34 CFR 77.1)

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation ( e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks. (34 CFR 77.1)

Regional educational agency, for the purposes of this program, means “Tribal Educational Agency” as defined in ESEA section 6132(b)(3), as well as other educational agencies that serve regional areas. (NFP)

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program. (34 CFR 77.1)

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

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

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

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

(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

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

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

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

TA services are defined as negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. (NFP)

Targeted, specialized TA means TA services based on needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted, specialized TA. (NFP)

Third-party evaluator is an independent and impartial program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have participated in the development or implementation of any project activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation. (NFP)

Universal, general TA means TA and information provided to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered universal, general TA. (NFP)

What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference, see § 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation. (34 CFR 77.1)

Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9602) and section 2244 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6674).

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

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

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

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: $1,475,000 in year one; $1,500,000 in years two through five.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $1,475,000 for a single budget period of 12 months in year one and $1,500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months in years two through five.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

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

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: Research organizations, institutions, agencies, IHEs, or partnerships among such entities, or individuals, with the demonstrated ability or capacity to carry out the activities described in this notice, including regional entities that carried out activities under the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994 (as such Act existed on the day before November 5, 2002) and title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as such title existed on the day before January 8, 2002).

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

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

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

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

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with 2 CFR part 200.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make an award/awards by the end of FY 2021.

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

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

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

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

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

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

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

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

(a) Significance (10 points).

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

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

(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses; and

(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.

(b) Quality of project services (30 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;

(ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that framework;

(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;

(iv) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services; and

(v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.

(c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;

(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and

(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.

(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (20 points).

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

(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator;

(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel;

(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors;

(iv) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and independence, of the evaluator;

(v) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;

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

(vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project; and

(viii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

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

(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;

(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project;

(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project; and

(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

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

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

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

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

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

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

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department will use the following measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the Center, as well as the Comprehensive Centers program as a whole:

• Program Performance Measure 1: The extent to which Comprehensive Center clients are satisfied with the quality, usefulness, and relevance of services provided.

• Program Performance Measure 2: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers provide services and products to a wide range of recipients.

• Program Performance Measure 3: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate that capacity-building services were implemented as intended.

• Program Performance Measure 4: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate recipient outcomes were met.

The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP and OESE.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by stakeholders and may require the Center to report on such alignment in their annual and final performance reports.

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

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

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

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Performance report for Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) Program.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0748.

Type of Review: An extension without change of a currently approved collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 291.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,274.

Abstract: GAANN grantees must submit a performance report annually. In addition, grantees are required to submit a supplement to the final performance report two years after submission of their final report. The reports are used to evaluate grantee performance. Further, the data from the reports will be aggregated to evaluate the accomplishments and impact of the GAANN Program as a whole. Results will be reported to the Secretary in order to respond to GPRA requirements.

Purpose of the Committee: The Committee provides advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Office of Science and to the Department of Energy on scientific priorities within the field of advanced scientific computing research.

Purpose of the Meeting: This meeting is the semi-annual meeting of the Committee.

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions may do so during the meeting. Approximately 30 minutes will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but will not exceed 10 minutes. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Those wishing to speak should submit your request at least five days before the meeting. Those not able to attend the meeting or who have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Christine Chalk, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; email to Christine.Chalk@science.doe.gov.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available within 90 days on the Advanced Scientific Computing website at: https://science.osti.gov/ascr/ascac.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1910-5162, Budget Justification;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Budget Justification;

(3) Type of Request: Renewal;

(4) Purpose: This collection of information is necessary in order for DOE to identify allowable, allocable, and reasonable recipient project costs eligible for Grants and Cooperative Agreements under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs;

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 400;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 400;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 24 hours, per response;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $1,010.52 per one time response;

Comments are invited 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Statutory Authority: Section 989(a) EPACT 2005 [Merit Review]{42 U.S.C. 16353(a)}; Section 646 DOE Organization Act [Contracts]{42 U.S.C. 7256(a)}; and 31 U.S.C. 503 (the Chief Financial Officers Act, Functions of the Deputy Director for Management), 31 U.S.C. 1111 (Improving Economy and Efficiency of the United States Government), 41 U.S.C. 1101-1131 (the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act), Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970, and Executive Order 11541 (“Prescribing the Duties of the Office of Management and Budget and the Domestic Policy Council in the Executive Office of the President”), the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507), as well as The Federal Program Information Act (Pub. L. 95-220 and Pub. L. 98-169, as amended, codified at 31 U.S.C. 6101-6106).

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 7, 2021, by Derek G. Passarelli, Head of Contracting Activity and Director, Golden Field Office, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

In accordance with § 431.401(f)(2) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) (10 CFR 431.401(f)(2)), DOE gives notification of the issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth below. The Decision and Order grants Vinotemp a waiver from the applicable test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C for specified basic models of walk-in cooler refrigeration systems, and provides that Vinotemp must test and rate such walk-in cooler refrigeration systems using the alternate test procedure specified in the Decision and Order. Vinotemp's representations concerning the energy efficiency of the specified basic models must be based on testing according to the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order, and the representations must fairly disclose the test results. Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same requirements when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))

Manufacturers not currently distributing equipment in commerce in the United States that employ a technology or characteristic that results in the same need for a waiver from the applicable test procedure must petition for and be granted a waiver prior to the distribution in commerce of that equipment in the United States. Manufacturers may also submit a request for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 431.401. (10 CFR 431.401(j))

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C  2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency for certain types of industrial equipment. This equipment includes walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, “walk-ins”), the focus of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6299).

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered walk-ins. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of walk-ins during a representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.6314(a)(2)) The test procedure for walk-ins is set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Net Capacity and AWEF of Walk-in Cooler and Walk-in Freezer Refrigeration Systems (“Appendix C”).

Any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. Id.

As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(l). As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule to that effect. Id. When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(3).

DOE received correspondence from Vinotemp, docketed on June 29, 2020, seeking an interim waiver from the DOE test procedure applicable to walk-ins set forth in Appendix C for certain basic models Vinotemp characterized as “wine cellar” systems. (Vinotemp, No. 1  3 ) By letter docketed on December 10, 2020, Vinotemp submitted a petition for waiver for certain basic models of walk-in cooler refrigeration systems to supplement its original interim waiver request (Vinotemp, No. 3). 4 The December 10, 2020 submission also explicitly stated that none of the basic models could operate below 45 °F and provided external static pressure (“ESP”) values for the subject basic models. 5 Vinotemp included additional basic models and clarified the specified external static pressure values as maximum values (rather than tested values) for the specified basic models in an updated petition for interim waiver, received on March 11, 2021 (Vinotemp, No. 10). Vinotemp stated that the specified basic models of walk-in cooler refrigeration systems operate at a temperature range of 45 °F to 65 °F and 50 to 70 percent relative humidity (“RH”), rather than the 35 °F with less than 50 percent RH test conditions prescribed by the test procedure for walk-in cooler applications. Vinotemp stated that the units operate at temperature and relative humidity ranges optimized for long-term storage of wine, reflecting conditions in natural caves, and that they are usually located in air-conditioned spaces. Vinotemp asserted that the specified units cannot operate at 35 °F.

On May 4, 2021, DOE published a notification announcing its receipt of the petition for waiver and granted Vinotemp an interim waiver. 86 FR 23692 (“Notification of Petition for Waiver”). In the Notification of Petition for Waiver, DOE noted that the “Self-contained” and “Self-packaged” basic models of walk-in refrigeration systems identified by Vinotemp in its petition are self-contained, single-package systems. Although not specifically addressed in Vinotemp's request for waiver, DOE notes that operating a wine cellar at the 35 °F condition would adversely mechanically alter the intended performance of the system, which would include icing of the evaporator coil that could potentially damage the compressor, and would not result in an accurate representation of the performance of the cooling unit. 86 FR 23692, 23695. Additionally, although not explicitly identified by Vinotemp, DOE recognized that because of their single-package design, these basic models have insufficient space within the units and insufficient lengths of liquid line and evaporator outlet line for the dual mass flow meters ( i.e., two independent meters) and the dual temperature and pressure measurements ( i.e., two independent sets of measuring equipment) required by the test procedure's refrigerant enthalpy method. Id. AHRI 1250-2009 (“Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers”  6 )—the industry testing standard on which DOE's test procedure is based—does not include specific provisions for testing single-package systems, and testing these basic models using the refrigerant enthalpy method as required by Appendix C would require extensive additional piping to route the pipes out of the system—where the components could be installed—and then back in. This additional piping would impact unit performance, would likely be inconsistent between test labs, and would result in unrepresentative test values for the unit under test. AHRI has published a revised version of the test standard that provides provisions for single-package systems without requiring extensive additional piping (AHRI 1250-2020, 2020 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers ).

In the Notification of Petition for Waiver, DOE established an alternate test procedure that was a modified version of the alternate test procedure suggested by Vinotemp. 86 FR 23692, 23698-23700. The alternate test procedure prescribed in the Notification of Petition for Waiver is the same as the alternate test procedure established in other waivers and interim waivers granted by DOE for similarly situated equipment. 7 Specifically, the required alternate test procedure establishes unit cooler air inlet conditions of 55 °F and 55 percent RH, specifies primary and secondary capacity measurement methods for single-package systems, requires testing at 50 percent of maximum external static pressure for ducted units, and defines wine cellar box load and evaporator cycle periods for calculation of Annual Walk-in Energy Factor (“AWEF”) for the specified basic models of walk-in cooler refrigeration systems. Id. DOE solicited comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition and the modified alternate test procedure. Id.

DOE received one comment, which was submitted by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison (collectively, “the CA IOUs”). 8 The CA IOUs stated their agreement with DOE that since the subject basic models are unable to operate below 45 °F, there is limited opportunity for market confusion from labeling the products tested according to the test procedure waivers as walk-in coolers. (CA IOUs, No. 12)

For the reasons explained here and in the Notification of Petition for Waiver, absent a waiver the basic models identified by Vinotemp in its petition cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. As noted previously, the alternate test procedure prescribed in the Interim Waiver modified Vinotemp's suggested alternate test procedure by including ESP provisions for certain systems that can be installed with (1) ducted evaporator air, (2) with or without ducted evaporator air, (3) ducted condenser air, or (4) with or without ducted condenser air. For such systems, testing is conducted at 50 percent of the maximum ESP specified by the manufacturer, subject to a tolerance of −0.00/+0.05 inches of water column (“in. wc.”). (Vinotemp, No. 2)

Selection of a representative ESP equal to half the maximum ESP is based on the expectation that most installations will require less than the maximum allowable duct length. In the absence of field data, DOE expects that a range of duct lengths from the minimal length to the maximum allowable length would be used; thus, half of the maximum ESP would be representative of most installations.

If the basic model provides multiple condenser or unit cooler fan speed settings, the speed setting used is as instructed in the unit's installation instructions. However, if the installation instructions do not specify a fan speed setting for ducted installation, systems that can be installed with ducts would be tested with the highest available fan speed. The ESP is set for testing either by symmetrically restricting the outlet duct or, if using the indoor air enthalpy method, by adjusting the airflow measurement apparatus blower.

The alternate test procedure also specifies the requirements for measuring ESP consistent with the provisions provided in AHRI 1250-2020 when using the indoor air enthalpy method with unit coolers.

Additionally, the alternate test procedure requires that specified basic models that are split systems must be tested as matched pairs. According to Vinotemp's petition, the walk-in refrigeration system basic models that are split-systems are sold as full systems ( i.e., matched pairs) rather than as individual unit cooler and condensing unit components. This Order provides no direction regarding refrigerant line connection operating conditions, and as such is inapplicable to testing the basic models as individual components. Consequently, this Order addresses only matched-pair testing of the specified basic models that are split-systems.

Contrary to Vinotemp's request, the Order does not modify the condenser air entering dry bulb temperature for outdoor condensers. 86 FR 23692, 23697. Vinotemp had suggested a 90 °F condenser air entering dry bulb temperature in its waiver request; however, the company did not provide technical justification for this request, and DOE has determined that outdoor wine cellar refrigeration units must be tested at 95 °F, 59 °F, and 35 °F, consistent with the current DOE test procedure.

For the reasons explained in the Notification of Petition for Waiver, the Order does not include a 0.55 correction factor in the alternate test procedure as suggested by Vinotemp. 86 FR 23692, 23697-23698. The company had observed that the test procedure in appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (“Appendix A”), which applies to miscellaneous refrigeration products, includes such a factor to adjust for average use, and sought to include such a factor as part of its petition. As explained in the Notice of Petition for Waiver, the closed-door conditions on which the miscellaneous refrigeration correction factor is based are not present in the test procedure for walk-in cooler refrigeration systems, and the referenced AHRI 1250-2009 provisions assume a load factor of 50 percent, consistent with Appendix C. Id. As a result, applying the 0.55 correction factor as suggested by Vinotemp is not appropriate for the specified basic models.

DOE is requiring that Vinotemp test and rate specified wine cellar walk-in refrigeration system basic models according to the alternate test procedure specified in this Decision and Order. This alternate procedure is a modified version of the one suggested by Vinotemp. The alternate test procedure required under this Order is the same alternate test procedure prescribed in the Interim Waiver Order.

This Decision and Order applies only to the basic models listed and does not extend to any other basic models. DOE evaluates and grants waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Vinotemp may request that DOE extend the scope of this waiver to include additional basic models that employ the same technology as those listed in this waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(g). Vinotemp may also submit another petition for waiver from the test procedure for additional basic models that employ a different technology and meet the criteria for test procedure waivers. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1).

DOE notes that it may modify or rescind the waiver at any time upon DOE's determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(1). Likewise, Vinotemp may request that DOE rescind or modify the waiver if the company discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2).

As set forth previously, the test procedure specified in this Decision and Order is not the same as the test procedure suggested by Vinotemp. If Vinotemp believes that the alternate test method it suggested provides representative results and is less burdensome than the test method required by this Decision and Order, Vinotemp may submit a request for modification under 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2) that addresses the concerns that DOE has specified with that procedure. Vinotemp may also submit another less burdensome alternative test procedure not expressly considered in this notification under the same provision.

After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Vinotemp, the various public-facing materials ( e.g., marketing materials, product specification sheets, and installation manuals) for the units identified in the petition, information provided by Vinotemp and other wine cellar walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers in meetings with DOE, and the comment received, in this matter, it is ordered that:

(1) Vinotemp must, as of the date of publication of this Order in the Federal Register , test and rate the following Wine Mate-branded wine cellar walk-in cooler refrigeration system basic models with the alternate test procedure as set forth in paragraph (2):

(2) The alternate test procedure for the Vinotemp basic models listed in paragraph (1) of this Order is the test procedure for Walk-in Cooler Refrigeration Systems prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, (“Appendix C to Subpart R”) with the modifications provided below. All other requirements of Appendix C and DOE's other relevant regulations remain applicable.

In Appendix C to Subpart R, revise section 3.1.1 (which specifies modifications to AHRI 1250-2009 (incorporated by reference; see § 431.303)) to read:

In Appendix C to Subpart R, revise section 3.1.4 (which specifies modifications to AHRI 1250-2009) and add modifications of AHRI 1250-2009 Tables 3 and 4 to read:

In Appendix C to Subpart R, following section 3.2.5 (instructions regarding modifications to AHRI 1250-2009), add sections 3.2.6 and 3.2.7 to read:

In Appendix C to Subpart R, revise section 3.3 to read:

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-5143; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Labor Relations Report; (3) Type of Request: Renewal; (4) Purpose: The proposed collection will request information from the Department of Energy M&O and Facilities Management Contractors for contract administration, management oversight, and cost control. This information is used to ensure that Department contractors maintain good labor relations and retain a workforce in accordance with the terms of their contract and in compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements as identified by contract. The respondents are Department M&O and Facility Management Contractors; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 35; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 35; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1.84 per respondent for total of 64.4 per year; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $5,964.95.

Statutory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7254, 7256.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 6, 2021, by John T. Lucas, Deputy General Counsel for Transactions, Technology and Contractor Human Resources, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBBP) was established by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182. EBBP is a program that will help low-income Americans obtain discounted broadband service and one-time co-pay for a connected device (laptop, desktop computer or tablet). This program was created specifically to assist American families' access to broadband, which has proven to be essential for work, school, and healthcare during the public health emergency that exists as a result of COVID-19. A household may qualify for the EBBP benefit under various criteria, including an individual qualifying for the FCC's Lifeline program.

In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 directs the FCC to leverage the National Verifier to verify applicants' eligibility for EBBP. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of EBBP applicants and subscribers by determining whether they receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid benefits administered by the Virginia Department. Under FCC rules, consumers receiving these benefits qualify for Lifeline discounts and also for EBBP benefits.

Virginia Department of Social Services (Department).

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182; 47 CFR part 54.

In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, the FCC required USAC to develop and operate the National Verifier to improve efficiency and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program. The stated purpose of the National Verifier is “to increase the integrity and improve the performance of the Lifeline program for the benefit of a variety of Lifeline participants, including Lifeline providers, subscribers, states, community-based organizations, USAC, and the Commission.” 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006, para. 126. To help determine whether Lifeline applicants and subscribers are eligible for Lifeline benefits, the Order contemplates that the USAC-operated LED will communicate with information systems and databases operated by other Federal and State agencies. Id. at 4011-2, paras. 135-7.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 directs the FCC to leverage the National Verifier to verify applicants' eligibility for EBBP. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of EBBP applicants and subscribers by determining whether they receive SNAP and Medicaid benefits administered by the Virginia Department. Under FCC rules, consumers receiving these benefits qualify for Lifeline discounts and also for EBBP benefits.

The categories of individuals whose information is involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, those individuals who have applied for EBBP benefits; are currently receiving benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for EBBP benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for EBBP benefits; or are individuals who have received EBBP benefits.

The categories of records involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to last name, date of birth and the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security Number. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the Virginia Department, which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in an EBBP-qualifying assistance program: State of Virginia's SNAP and Medicaid.

The USAC records shared as part of this matching program reside in the EBBP system of records, FCC/WCB-3, Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, which was published in the Federal Register at 86 FR 11523 (Feb. 25, 2021).

Copies of the agency form are available here. Paper copies are available from the Office of Arbitration Services by emailing Arthur Pearlstein at the email address above. Please ask for Agency Form F-7.

Agency: Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

Form Number: OMB No. 3076-0004.

Type of Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection.

Affected Entities: Employers and their representatives; and labor unions, their representatives and employees, regarding contract negotiations.

Frequency: This form is completed once for resolution facilitation.

Abstract: Under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. 158(d), Congress listed specific notice provisions so that no party to a collective bargaining agreement can terminate or modify a collective bargaining contract, unless the party wishing to terminate or modify the contract sends a written notice to the other party sixty days prior to the expiration date (29 U.S.C. 158(d)(1)) and offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new or modified contract (29 U.S.C. 158(d)(2)). The Act requires that parties notify FMCS within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a bargaining dispute (29 U.S.C. 158(d)(3)). The 1974 amendments to the National Labor Relations Act extended coverage to nonprofit health care institutions, including similar notices to FMCS. 29 U.S.C. 158(d) and (g). To facilitate handling around 27,190 notices a year, FMCS created information collection form F-7. The purpose of this information collection activity is for FMCS to comply with its statutory duty to receive these notices, to facilitate assignment of mediators to assist in labor disputes, and to assist the parties in knowing whether proper notice was given. The information from these notices is sent electronically to the appropriate field manager who assigns the cases to a mediator so that the mediator may contact labor and management quickly, efficiently, and offer dispute resolution services. Either party to a contract may make a request in writing for a copy of the notice filed with FMCS. Form F-7 was created to allow FMCS to gather desired information in a uniform manner. The collection of such information, including the name of the employer or employer association, address and phone number, email address, official contact, bargaining unit and establishment size, location of affected establishment and negotiations, industry, union address, phone number, email address and official contact, contract expiration date or renewal date, whether the notice is filed on behalf of the employer or the union, and whether this is a health care industry notice is critical for reporting and mediation purposes.

Burden: The current total annual burden estimate is that FMCS will receive requests from approximately 27,190 respondents per year. The form takes about 10 minutes to complete.

FMCS solicits comments to:

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

ii. Enhance the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information.

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

iv. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology.

The official records are paper and electronic records. The paper records are maintained at the address at the beginning of this document.