In April 2016, DOT established and appointed members to the Advisory Committee on Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS Advisory Committee or Committee) to negotiate and develop proposed regulations addressing, among other things, accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft. 1 During the first meeting, DOT committed to the Committee that if it came to a consensus on the terms of a proposed rule and the Department does not cast a dissenting vote on the consensus product, DOT would exercise good faith efforts to issue a proposed rule reflecting that consensus to the extent possible. The Committee gathered data, conducted meetings and site visits, and engaged in negotiations from May 2016 through November 2016.

On November 22, 2016, the ACCESS Advisory Committee reached consensus on recommendations for new regulatory proposals to improve the accessibility of lavatories on single-aisle aircraft and the Department does not cast a dissenting vote. 2 The accessible lavatory Term Sheet included agreements for both short-term and long-term accessibility improvements. The short-term improvements would be required on new single-aisle aircraft delivered three years after the effective date of the DOT final rule that implements the agreement. The short-term improvements included a proposed requirement that single-aisle aircraft with 125 or more passenger seats would have at least one lavatory with a number of accessibility features, including accessible door locks, flush handles, call buttons, faucets, and assist handles. Single-aisle aircraft with 125 or more passenger seats would also be required to include an OBW that: (1) Permits passage in the aircraft aisle; (2) fits within an available certificated OBW stowage space; and (3) accomplishes its functions without requiring modification to the interior arrangement of the aircraft or the lavatory. The Term Sheet called on the DOT to “consult with advocates, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, manufacturers of OBW, flight attendant association(s) and other stakeholders in developing these standards,” and to “include the proposed new standards for an OBW and replacement of OBW on existing aircraft as described above in its notice of proposed rulemaking.”  3

DOT determined that the most appropriate method for developing initial OBW design standards was to seek technical assistance from the Access Board, the federal agency that specializes in producing accessible design specifications for the built environment, transportation systems, information and communication technology, and medical diagnostic equipment. 4 See 29 U.S.C. 792. In response to DOT's request, on August 20, 2019, the Access Board published in the Federal Register “Proposed Advisory Guidelines for Aircraft Onboard Wheelchairs,” and sought public comment. 5 The Access Board's guidelines provide design criteria for onboard wheelchair seats, back support, armrests, footrests, movement, stowage, stability, loads, caster wheels, assist handles, and torso and leg restraints. These guidelines provided for the OBW to be backed fully into the lavatory and positioned over the closed toilet so that the lavatory door can be completely closed. The guidelines also provided for the OBW to be maneuvered partially into lavatories in a forward direction to allow users the option to make a stand-and-pivot transfer to the toilet.

The Access Board held a public hearing on these advisory guidelines on September 12, 2019. In response to its proposed guidelines, the Access Board received over 40 comments from various interest groups and stakeholders, including people with disabilities, advocacy groups, aircraft manufacturers, trade associations, manufacturers of onboard wheelchairs, researchers, and others. 6

On January 2, 2020, DOT published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Accessible Lavatories on Single-Aisle Aircraft: Part 1.”  7 This NPRM included proposals for short-term improvements to lavatory accessibility, including new proposed requirements for OBWs. In developing its own proposed rules for OBWs, DOT started with the Access Board's design-based guidelines and adapted them into more flexible performance standards. The performance standards were designed to allow manufacturers to find efficient and innovative means for meeting performance expectations. At the same time, the proposed rule states that airlines may use the Access Board's advisory guidelines for technical assistance in furnishing an OBW that meets the DOT's performance standards.

Under the proposed rule, OBWs meeting the new standards must be installed on new single-aisle aircraft with an FAA-certificated maximum capacity of 125 seats or more that enter service three years after the effective date of a final rule issued by DOT in this proceeding. The proposed rule would require the OBW to be designed in such a manner as to enable the OBW to completely enter the lavatory in a backward orientation. Specifically, the rule would require the OBW to fit over the closed toilet lid in a manner that permits the lavatory door to close completely. It is anticipated that the attendant would push the OBW backward into the lavatory by means of handles on the front of the OBW. After the OBW is situated over the closed toilet lid, the door would be closed and the passenger would be able to perform non-toileting lavatory functions in privacy.

The proposed rule would also require that the OBW be designed such that it could, at a minimum, partially enter the lavatory in a forward orientation. The purpose of this provision is to facilitate a stand-and-pivot maneuver from the OBW to the toilet seat, for passengers who are able to do so. With a stand-and-pivot maneuver, the passenger would partially enter the lavatory by means of the OBW, stand up, and pivot 180 degrees to reach the toilet seat.

The proposed OBW rule also contained safety elements. For example, the rule would require that the height of the OBW seat must align with the height of the aircraft seat to the maximum extent practicable, in order to permit a safe transfer between the OBW and the aircraft seat. The rule would require the wheels of the OBW to lock in the direction of travel, in order to avoid contact with aircraft seats and other obstructions as it moves down the aisle. Any other moving parts of the OBW would need to be capable of being secured such that they do not move while the occupied onboard wheelchair is being maneuvered. The wheels would also be required to lock in place so as to provide stability during transfers. The OBW would be required not to tip or fall in any direction under normal operating conditions when occupied for use.

The OBW would also be required to have a padded seat and backrest, in order to preserve skin integrity, and to prevent spasticity and injury. 8 The rule would also require the OBW to be free of sharp or abrasive components. The OBW would also be required to have arm supports that are sufficient to facilitate transfers; arm supports that are repositionable to permit unobstructed transfers between the OBW and the aircraft seat; torso and leg restraints to ensure stability and prevent injury; as well as a unitary foot support that would provide adequate clearance over the lavatory threshold and also allow for an unobstructed transfer between the OBW and the lavatory. Under the proposed rule, restraints would be operable by the passenger in order to permit the passenger the option to adjust the restraints unassisted. Finally, the rule would require the OBW to have instructions prominently displayed for proper use.

In keeping with the ACCESS Advisory Committee's Term Sheet, airlines would not be required to modify aircraft interiors, including lavatories and existing OBW stowage spaces, in order to comply with these OBW provisions. DOT sought comment on all aspects of this critical issue of OBW stowage space. Specifically, DOT sought further data regarding: (1) The folded dimensions of OBWs currently in use on single-aisle aircraft; (2) the locations and dimensions of current OBW stowage spaces; and (3) the feasibility of designing and constructing an OBW that meets the listed performance standards, particularly including the ability to enter the lavatory in a backward orientation, while fitting into the existing OBW stowage space for that aircraft. DOT also sought comment on an alternative proposal: Whether to require OBWs to meet the new performance standards set forth in the NPRM even if stowage space must be expanded to accommodate the OBW. DOT sought comment on the costs of expanding OBW stowage spaces to meet these performance standards.

Again, in keeping with the ACCESS Advisory Committee's Term Sheet, the proposed rule provided that an airline would not be responsible for the failure of third parties to furnish an OBW that complies with these proposed standards, so long as the airline notifies and substantiates to DOT the efforts it expended to obtain compliant OBWs. DOT recognized that, at present, no commercially available OBW exists that permits backward passage into an aircraft lavatory, and that while airlines may seek to procure an OBW that meets DOT's performance standards, airlines do not design or produce OBWs themselves. 9

Finally, the proposed rule provided that if an airline replaces an OBW on an aircraft with an FAA-certificated maximum capacity of 125 seats or more three years after the effective date of the rule, then the replacement OBW must comply with DOT's new OBW standards. DOT sought comment on all aspects of the OBW proposal, including costs, benefits, and feasibility.

The comment period to the NPRM closed on March 2, 2020. DOT received relatively few comments about OBW design, and almost no comments that estimated the costs of developing or manufacturing an OBW that would comply with the standards set forth in the proposed rule. Certain disability advocates argued, among other things, that DOT's OBW standards should have tracked more closely the Access Board's design standards. 10 Representatives of the airline industry contended that DOT failed to take into account considerations such as aviation safety and the impact on flight attendants of unpacking, using, and stowing the OBW while in flight. 11 They also argued that DOT failed to adequately consult with stakeholders before issuing its OBW proposal. 12 DOT received no comments from OBW manufacturers.

Under these circumstances, the Access Board and DOT are jointly of the view that it is appropriate to hold a public hearing to gather additional information on the OBW design from disability advocates, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, manufacturers of OBWs, flight attendant associations, and other stakeholders. Specifically, the Access Board seeks information on OBW loads and caster wheel size that will help it finalize its advisory guidelines for OBWs. DOT seeks comment on all aspects of OBW design before issuing any final binding regulation on the topic.

The Access Board is seeking additional information regarding OBW loads and OBW casters.

The overall weight capacity or load of current OBW varies greatly and ranges from approximately 200 to 800 pounds. In trying to determine the appropriate load, the Access Board looked to its Guidelines for Aircraft Boarding Chairs (1987), which recommend that seats support at least 723 pounds (weight of a 99th percentile male with a 3.0 safety factor). See https://www.access-board.gov/research/completed-research/guidelines-for-aircraft-boarding-chairs. Using updated anthropometrics, the weight of a 99th percentile male with a 3.0 safety factor would be 826 pounds. See Department of Health and Human Service Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014, Table 6, Line 1 (Aug. 2016). However, the boarding chair (used to transfer passengers from their personal wheelchairs to the airplane seat) differs from the proposed OBW in that a boarding chair does not need to fold for storage on the aircraft or fit over the seat of a toilet in a cantilever design.

The Board is not aware of existing industry standards for OBW that are designed to allow over-the-toilet positioning. In its proposed advisory guidelines, the Board reserved provisions for loads pending further information as to what loads are appropriate for an OBW design that accomplishes the proposed functions.

The Board received comments from the public, including aircraft manufacturers, recommending that the Board's guidelines reference load specifications in SAE International's standard entitled, “Foldable On-Board Wheelchairs for Passengers with Disabilities,” ARP 4120C (Stabilized 2013).” The SAE standard specifies loads for onboard wheelchair seats, seat backs, arm and foot supports, wheels, and assist handles.

Based on its review of the comments on the proposed guidelines, the Board is considering referencing the SAE International's standard for loads for seats (3.2.9.1), arm supports (3.2.9.3), foot support (3.2.9.4), casters (3.2.9.2), and assist handles of onboard wheelchairs (3.2.9.6). The Board seeks comment on whether the loads specified in the SAE International ARP 4120C Standard are appropriate for an onboard wheelchair design that allows the chair to be positioned over the closed lavatory toilet. SAE International has made these referenced provisions publicly available without cost (read-only, not for distribution) until the close of the comment period on January 17, 2022, at: https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/assets/cm/content/standards/arp4120c_review.pdf.

In addition to comments on loads stated in the above-referenced SAE International standard, the Access Board seeks information on alternative appropriate standards for OBW loads.

The draft advisory guidelines require that caster wheels of onboard wheelchairs move independently to facilitate maneuvering within the confined space of aircraft aisles and lavatories. For safety and stability, the guidelines also require each caster to have wheel locks and swivel locks. In its proposal, the Board sought comment on whether the guidelines should specify a minimum size for caster wheels so that they are large enough to readily traverse thresholds at lavatory entrances. Commenters recommended that the guidelines specify a performance requirement instead of a minimum caster size. However, the threshold at the lavatory entrance may significantly impact an assistant's ability to back the occupied OBW into the lavatory using the front assist handles and to pull it back out.

The Access Board requests information on the minimum caster wheel diameter that would ensure stability of the occupied OBW and allow the chair to easily traverse the lavatory doorway threshold when propelled using solely the front assist handles. The Board also requests information on the standard height of lavatory thresholds on single-aisle aircraft with 125 or more passenger seats.

In a notice published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , DOT seeks further information on all aspects of its NPRM relating to OBW design, including but not limited to:

• Whether the proposed OBW design elements adequately address accessibility concerns;

• The cost and feasibility of designing, manufacturing, and implementing compliant OBWs;

• The cost of developing and implementing procedures for training crew in unloading, using, and stowing the OBW;

• The dimensions of current OBW stowage spaces in single-aisle aircraft;

• Whether OBWs that meet DOT's proposed accessibility standards can be stowed in existing stowage spaces; and

• Aviation safety considerations relating to unloading, using, and stowing the OBW while in flight.

The Access Board encourages stakeholders, including disability advocates, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, manufacturers of OBWs, flight attendant associations, public meeting participants, and others to submit written comments to the regulatory docket on its proposed OBW advisory guidelines, oral testimony or written materials discussed at the public hearing, or related matters, during the supplemental period for comment from December 16, 2021 to January 17, 2022.

The meeting is available to the public through the web link above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email bdelaviez@usccr.gov at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara Delaviez at ero@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact Barbara Delaviez at 202-539-8246.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at www.facadatabase.gov. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number or email address.

The 2020 Post-Census Group Quarters Review (2020 PCGQR) provides a mechanism for tribal, state, and local governmental units in the United States and Puerto Rico, or their designated representatives, to submit a request that the Census Bureau review their population counts for group quarter facilities by block to correct error(s) affecting the inclusion of group quarters and their population from the 2020 Census.

The Census Bureau has a comprehensive program to improve the quality of the population counts. For example, the Census Bureau provides an opportunity for tribal, federal, state, and local governments to review and improve the address lists and maps used to conduct the 2020 Census through the Local Update of Census Addresses program. In 2020, the Census Bureau used administrative records to classify some addresses as occupied, vacant, or nonresidential for enumeration. The Census Bureau also conducts the Population Estimates Program to calculate population change since the most recent decennial census and produce a time series of estimates of population, demographic components of change, and housing units. Beginning in January 2022, the Census Bureau will begin accepting and processing challenges submitted by eligible tribal, state, and local government officials through the Count Question Resolution (CQR) Program. The purpose of CQR is to provide a mechanism for governmental units to request a review of their official Census results and to help ensure that housing and population counts are correctly allocated to census tabulation blocks in the 50 states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. CQR provides corrected counts for housing units and population counts existing as of April 1 of the decennial year when the decennial census record shows that a housing unit or its associated population was identified during the enumeration, but erroneously excluded from or included in the census count due to a processing error. As part of the preparation for the 2020 CQR program, the Census Bureau published a Federal Register Notice on August 4, 2020 (85 FR 47162). The Census Bureau received several comments urging the Census Bureau to expand the CQR program in 2020 to accept and process submissions of population counts for group quarters facilities that the eligible governmental unit believed was not collected by the Census Bureau in the 2020 decennial census enumeration. Because the CQR program cannot be an extension of the decennial enumeration, the Census Bureau was unable to make changes to CQR consistent with these comments. However, the Census Bureau considered these comments in conjunction with its comprehensive program to improve the quality of the group quarters and associated population counts and the use of administrative records to support Census Bureau programs under Title 13, United States Code. The Census Bureau will conduct a 2020 PCGQR to collect information in support of its ongoing programs, such as the Population Estimates program and the American Community Survey program. The Census Bureau will issue certified population correction counts, as determined by Census Bureau research. The Census Bureau will incorporate all 2020 PCGQR revisions into the intercensal population estimates and American Community Survey estimates starting in 2022 and will post the results on the Census Bureau 2020 PCGQR website.

The Census Bureau will accept 2020 PCGQR cases submitted by tribal, state, and local governmental units from Spring 2022 through Summer 2023. Governmental units wanting to submit a case will be provided an Excel spreadsheet template that will be submitted through the Census Bureau's Secure Web Incoming Module (SWIM). The Census Bureau will only accept cases that initiate from the highest elected or appointed official of tribal, state, and local governmental units, or their designated representative. Regardless of who makes the case submission, the Census Bureau must receive notification from the highest elected or appointed official of the governmental unit that indicates they want the Census Bureau to review their population counts for group quarter facilities data through the 2020 PCGQR process. This level of notification assures the Census Bureau that the highest level of leadership is informed and in agreement with filing a case on behalf of the governmental unit. The notification must accompany the supporting documentation submitted with the case.

While the 2020 PCGQR is not an extension of the CQR or the decennial census program, the Census Bureau will conduct 2020 PCGQR case research by examining the census records for the 2020 tabulation block(s) identified in a 2020 PCGQR case using the Master Address File. All boundaries in the published 2020 Census results are current as of January 1, 2020, and all group quarters and population counts are current as of April 1, 2020; therefore, any changes to counts that occurred past those dates are out of scope. These standards will ensure that the information submitted as part of a 2020 PCGQR case is consistent with existing Census Bureau records, which will allow the Census Bureau to use the submitted records in other Census Bureau programs, such as the Population Estimates Program and American Community Survey. No new decennial information products will be created by the 2020 PCGQR. The Census Bureau will not revise any 2020 Census information products, such as the population counts delivered to the President for apportionment or the 2020 Census Public Law 94-171 Redistricting Data Files and Geographic Products. Federal law requires decennial census data collection to end; therefore, the Census Bureau cannot continue collecting information for the decennial census through a 2020 PCGQR.

When a submission is received, the Census Bureau will conduct research and assess the records contained in that submission for quality. Once the Census Bureau completes this research and assessment, the Census Bureau will respond to the governmental unit in writing with an official determination letter. This determination letter will state how the case was resolved and information on the resolution, such as, if the Census Bureau will or will not accept the records. If the Census Bureau's research and assessment determines that a submission identifies existing group quarters and its associated population counts, then the Census Bureau will accept the records and update populations counts for the governmental unit for use in Census Bureau programs, as appropriate. The Census Bureau will issue certified population count corrections, which governmental units can use for any purpose requiring their official Census counts. The Census Bureau will incorporate all 2020 PCGQR revisions into the intercensal population estimates and American Community Survey estimates starting in 2022 and will post the new counts on our website. The Census Bureau will attempt to respond to each inquiry within 90 days of receipt and complete all case research and resolution by no later than September 30, 2023.

OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission, New Information Collection.

Affected Public: Tribal, State or Local governmental units in the United States and Puerto Rico.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,500.

Estimated Time per Response: 5.2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,800.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. (This is not the cost of respondents' time, but the indirect costs respondents may incur for such things as purchases of specialized software or hardware needed to report, or expenditures for accounting or records maintenance services required specifically by the collection.)

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Section 6.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

On August 15, 2019, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD order on steel propane cylinders from China. 1 On September 30, 2021, Commerce received a request on behalf of Yi Jun for an expedited changed circumstances review, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b), to establish Yi Jun as the successor-in-interest to GSBF, a Hong Kong trading company and exporter of steel propane cylinders from China produced by GSBF's affiliated producer, GSBF Tank, and thus, entitled to the AD cash deposit rate of GSBF. 2 We did not receive comments from other interested parties concerning this request.

The merchandise covered by the Order is steel cylinders for compressed or liquefied propane or other gases (steel propane cylinders) meeting the requirements of, or produced to meet the requirements of, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Specifications 4B, 4BA, or 4BW, or Transport Canada Specification 4BM, 4BAM, or 4BWM, or United Nations pressure receptacle standard ISO 4706 and otherwise meeting the description provided below. The scope includes steel propane cylinders regardless of whether they have been certified to these specifications before importation. Steel propane cylinders range from 2.5 pound nominal gas capacity (approximate 6 pound water capacity and approximate 4-6 pound tare weight) to 42 pound nominal gas capacity (approximate 100 pound water capacity and approximate 28-32 pound tare weight). Steel propane cylinders have two or fewer ports and may be imported assembled or unassembled ( i.e., welded or brazed before or after importation), with or without all components (including collars, valves, gauges, tanks, foot rings, and overfill prevention devices), and coated or uncoated. Also included within the scope are drawn cylinder halves, unfinished propane cylinders, collars, and foot rings for steel propane cylinders.

An “unfinished” or “unassembled” propane cylinder includes drawn cylinder halves that have not been welded into a cylinder, cylinders that have not had flanges welded into the port hole(s), cylinders that are otherwise complete but have not had collars or foot rings welded to them, otherwise complete cylinders without a valve assembly attached, and cylinders that are otherwise complete except for testing, certification, and/or marking.

The Order also covers steel propane cylinders that meet, are produced to meet, or are certified as meeting, other U.S. or Canadian government, international, or industry standards (including, for example, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), or American National Standard Institute (ANSI)), if they also meet, are produced to meet, or are certified as meeting USDOT Specification 4B, 4BA, or 4BW, or Transport Canada Specification 4BM, 4BAM, or 4BWM, or a United Nations pressure receptacle standard ISO 4706.

Subject merchandise also includes steel propane cylinders that have been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to, attachment of collars, foot rings, or handles by welding or brazing, heat treatment, painting, testing, certification, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the Order if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope steel propane cylinders.

Specifically excluded are seamless steel propane cylinders and propane cylinders made from stainless steel ( i.e., steel containing at least 10.5 percent chromium by weight and less than 1.2 percent carbon by weight), aluminum, or composite fiber material. Composite fiber material is material consisting of the mechanical combination of two components: Fiber (typically glass, carbon, or aramid (synthetic polymer)) and a matrix material (typically polymer resin, ceramic, or metallic).

The merchandise subject to the Order is properly classified under statistical reporting numbers 7311.00.0060 and 7311.00.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, Commerce will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from, an interested party for a review of an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In the past, Commerce has used changed circumstances reviews to address the applicability of cash deposit rates after there have been changes in the name or structure of a respondent, such as a merger or spinoff (`successor-in-interest' or `successorship' determinations). 3 Based on a review of the request from Yi Jun, and in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d) and (e), we find that the information submitted in the CCR Request supporting Yi Jun's claim that it should be treated as the successor-in-interest to GSBF is sufficient to warrant such a review to determine whether Yi Jun is entitled to GSBF's AD cash deposit rate.

Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of Commerce's regulations permits Commerce to combine the notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review and the notice of preliminary results if Commerce concludes that expedited action is warranted. 4 In this instance, because the record contains information necessary to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action is warranted and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results. 5

Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, we have conducted a successor-in-interest analysis in response to Yi Jun's request. In making a successor-in-interest determination, Commerce examines several factors, including, but not limited to, changes in the following: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. 6 While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, generally, Commerce will consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. 7 Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sales of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as essentially the same business entity as the former company, Commerce will accord the new company the same antidumping treatment as its predecessor. 8

We preliminarily determine that Yi Jun supplied sufficient evidence to determine that Yi Jun is the successor-in-interest to GSBF. Specifically, Yi Jun provided documentation demonstrating approval of GSBF's name change by GSBF's shareholders  9 (which remained unchanged from the underlying investigation, as well as the shareholders of its affiliated supplier, GSBF Tank), noting that GSBF's shareholders decided to change the company name and start building their own brand. GSBF's shareholders approved of the name change in January 2020, but Yi Jun continued to do business as GSBF until its corporate bank account was changed to reflect the new name in September 2021. 10 Yi Jun asserts that the change in company name was cosmetic only, was made with the sole purpose of developing a distinct brand, and had no impact on the internal or external operation and structure of the company. 11 As support, Yi Jun provides the name change certificate issued by the Hong Kong Registrar of Companies  12 and GSBF's business license before and after the change to Yi Jun which reflect a “replacement” business registration, which substantiates that there was no change in address or the material details of the registration. 13 Yi Jun also provided updated articles of association that reflect the name change, but are otherwise unchanged from the prior articles. 14 The lack of changes to the articles supports the claim that Yi Jun's operations with respect to the sales of subject merchandise have not materially changed as a result of its name change.

In addition, the record includes a list of company officials before and after the name change, supporting Yi Jun's assertion that the managing staff remained the same. 15 Further, Yi Jun notes that the subject merchandise sold to the U.S. by both GSBF and Yi Jun were all sourced from GSBF Tank, and that neither GSBF nor Yi Jun manufactures steel propane cylinders ( i.e., the company has been and will continue to only serve as an exporter). 16 Moreover, Yi Jun provided lists of both its suppliers and U.S. customers, before and after the name change to support its assertion that there have been no material changes to GSBF's suppliers  17 or its customer base following the name change. Yi Jun notes it has only added one U.S. customer through the normal course of business. 18

Therefore, based on the aforementioned evidence on the record, we preliminarily determine that Yi Jun is the successor-in-interest to GSBF, as the change in the business' name was not accompanied by significant changes to its management and operations, supplier relationships, or customer base. 19 Thus, we preliminarily determine that Yi Jun operates as essentially the same business entity as GSBF, that Yi Jun is the successor-in-interest to GSBF, and that Yi Jun should receive the same AD cash deposit rate with respect to subject merchandise as its predecessor, GSBF.

Should our final results remain unchanged from these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assign entries of subject merchandise exported by Yi Jun the AD cash deposit rate applicable to GSBF. Commerce will issue its final results of the reviews in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. 20 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. 21 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 22 All comments are to be filed electronically using ACCESS, available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and must also be served on interested parties. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day it is due. 23 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 24

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b), 351.221(b) and 351.221(c)(3).

Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Japan in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 1 Commerce initiated this administrative review on December 8, 2020 covering twenty-nine producers and/or exporters. 2 We selected NSC as mandatory respondent. 3 On June 28, 2021, we extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review by an additional 118 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), resulting in a deadline of October 29, 2021, for these preliminary results. 4 For a detailed description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5

The merchandise covered by the Order is hot-rolled steel from Japan. For a complete description of the scope of the Order , see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 6

Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Constructed export price and export price were calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). Access to ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Among the companies under review, Honda and Mitsui each properly filed a statement reporting that it had made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 7 Commerce issued an instruction to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) asking for any entry activity regarding Honda and Mitsui. 8 CBP subsequently confirmed that these two companies had no shipments. 9 Based on the certifications submitted by Honda and Mitsui, and our analysis of CBP information currently on the record, we preliminarily determine that Honda and Mitusi had no shipments during the POR. Consistent with its practice, Commerce finds that it is not appropriate to preliminarily rescind the review with respect to Honda and Mitsui, but rather to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.”

In this review, we have preliminarily calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for NSC that is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, Commerce preliminarily has assigned to companies not individually examined a margin of 26.81 percent, which is NSC's calculated weighted-average dumping margin.

We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020:

Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review and the respondent reported reliable entered values, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to each importer and the total entered value of those same sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If the respondent has not reported reliable entered values, we will calculate a per-unit assessment rate for each importer by dividing the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made to that importer by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.”  12

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by NSC for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, or for any respondent for which we have a final determination of no shipments, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company (or companies) involved in the transaction. 13

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

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the underlying investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.58 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 14 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs. 15 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 16 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS  17 and must be served on interested parties. 18 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed via ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 19 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined. 20 Parties should confirm the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended. 21

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

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Papahānaumokuākea is considered a sacred area, from which Native Hawaiians believe all life springs, and to which spirits return to after death. The longest recorded traditional Hawaiian chant, the Kumulipo (source of deep darkness), is the history of how all life forms came and evolved from Papahānaumokuākea, beginning with the coral polyp—the building block for all life. This genealogy of Papahānaumokuākea tells the story of Native Hawaiians' ancestral connection with the gods who created those coral polyps, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands or Kūpuna (respected elders) Islands, and everything else in the Hawaiian archipelago, including Native Hawaiians. Throughout the expanse of the Monument, there are many wahi pana (places of great cultural significance and practice) where Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners of today reconnect with their ancestors and gods.

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument is one of the largest protected areas in the world. The original Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument and the Monument Expansion Area (collectively “Papahānaumokuākea” or “Monument”), located around the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, were established under the Antiquities Act through, respectively, Presidential Proclamation 8031 of June 15, 2006, as amended by Proclamation 8112 of February 28, 2007; and Proclamation 9478 of August 26, 2016. In 2006, the President established Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument to protect and preserve the marine area of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and certain lands as necessary for the care and management of the historic and scientific objects therein. The Federal land and interests in land reserved included approximately 139,793 square miles of emergent and submerged lands and waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA and USFWS promulgated implementing regulations for the original Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument on August 29, 2006 (71 FR 51134, 50 CFR part 404). These regulations codify the scope and purpose, boundary, definitions, prohibitions and regulated activities.

In 2016, Proclamation 9478 expanded the Monument into an adjacent area—the Monument Expansion Area—which includes the waters and submerged lands to the extent of the seaward limit of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ) west of 163° West Longitude and covers an additional 442,781 square miles. Proclamation 9478 also directed the Secretary of Commerce to consider initiating the process to designate the Monument Expansion Area and the original Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument seaward of the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge and Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge and Battle of Midway National Memorial as a national marine sanctuary to supplement and complement existing authorities. The area has a long history of being considered for national marine sanctuary designation, beginning with Executive Order 13178 in 2000, followed by Proclamation 9478 in 2016. Recently, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed NOAA to initiate the process to designate Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument as a National Marine Sanctuary.

The Monument is administered jointly by four Co-Trustees—the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the State of Hawai'i, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Monument Co-Trustees currently operate the Monument guided by a 2008 Monument Management Plan for Papahānaumokuākea and the Presidential Proclamations designating the Monument. The Monument Co-Trustees will update the Monument Management Plan at a later date and will provide opportunities for public input for a new plan. Any draft sanctuary management plan would augment the overarching Monument Management Plan.

The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate and protect as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment that are of special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities. Day-to-day management of national marine sanctuaries has been delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. The primary objective of the NMSA is to protect the resources of the National Marine Sanctuary System, including biological and cultural resources, such as coral reefs, marine animals, archaeological sites, historic structures and historic shipwrecks.

The purpose of the designation is to fulfill the purposes and policies outlined in Section 301(b) of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1431(b), including to identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment which are of special national significance, provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of these marine areas, and to protect the resources of these areas. Additionally, the purpose of the designation is to implement the provisions of Executive Order 13178 and Presidential Proclamation 9478 that direct NOAA to consider initiating the sanctuary designation process.

The need for designation is to:

• Develop objectives and actions that ensure lasting protections consistent with the existing Monument proclamations and regulations;

• safeguard natural and cultural values of the marine environment of the Monument;

• strengthen the existing interagency management regulations (50 CFR 404);

• authorize NOAA to assess civil penalties for violations of sanctuary regulations or permits and to enforce provisions of the NMSA;

• prohibit destruction or loss of sanctuary resources and provide natural resource damage assessment authorities for loss of or injury to any sanctuary resource;

• require interagency consultation for any Federal agency action that is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource;

• enhance the joint permitting system for activities in the Monument Expansion Area;

• augment existing authorities under the Antiquities Act; Presidential Proclamations 8031, 8112 and 9478; Executive Order 13178; and 50 CFR 404 to provide additional regulatory and non-regulatory tools for management and protection of Monument resources.

NOAA's proposed action is to consider designating the marine portions of the Monument as a national marine sanctuary, following the designation process in section 304 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434). As part of the sanctuary designation process, NOAA will develop designation materials including a draft sanctuary management plan, proposed sanctuary regulations, and proposed terms of designation. Each national marine sanctuary has management programs developed with public input and crafted to meet the specific issues and resources found in that sanctuary.

The NEPA process will include preparation of a DEIS to consider alternatives and to describe potential effects of the proposed sanctuary designation on the human environment. The DEIS will evaluate a reasonable range of action alternatives that could include different options for management goals or actions, sanctuary regulations, and potential boundaries. The DEIS will also consider a No Action Alternative, wherein NOAA would not designate the proposed sanctuary. Any proposed sanctuary regulations would be separate from, but supplementary and complementary to, existing Monument regulations and management provisions from the establishing executive order and proclamations.

The results of this public scoping process will assist NOAA in moving forward with the designation process, including preparation and release of draft documents, and formulating alternatives for the DEIS. Reasonable alternatives that are identified during the scoping period will be evaluated in the DEIS.

The DEIS will identify and describe the potential effects of the proposed action, and reasonable alternatives, on the human environment. Potential impacts may include, but are not limited to, impacts on the Monument's:

• Marine resources, including habitats, plants, birds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and special status species;

• cultural and historic resources, including Traditional Cultural Properties and archaeological sites; and

• human uses and socioeconomics, including research, recreation, education, cultural practices, and fishing.

Based on a preliminary evaluation of the resources listed above, NOAA expects potential impacts of continued or enhanced long-term protection of the Monument's natural, cultural and historic resources; improved planning and coordination of research, monitoring, and management actions; reducing disturbance of special status species; reducing threats and stressors to Monument resources; and minimal disturbance during research or restoration actions.

NOAA will undertake a process for the designation of a national marine sanctuary, as outlined below.

1. Public Scoping Process— Information collection and characterization, including the consideration of public comments received during scoping, coordination under section 304(a)(5) with Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council on any necessary draft fishing regulations for the proposed sanctuary;

2. Preparation of Draft Documents— Preparation and release of draft sanctuary designation documents, including: a DEIS, prepared pursuant to NEPA, a draft sanctuary management plan, and a notice of proposed rulemaking to define proposed sanctuary boundaries and regulations. Draft documents would be used to support consultations with Federal, State, or local agencies, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Native Hawaiian organizations, and other interested parties, as appropriate;

3. Public Comment—Through public meetings and in writing, allow for public review and comment on the DEIS, draft sanctuary management plan, and notice of proposed rulemaking;

4. Preparation of Final Documents— Preparation and release of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS), final sanctuary management plan, and a final rule and sanctuary regulations, including a response to public comments.

5. The sanctuary designation and regulations would take effect after the end of a review period of forty-five days of a continuous session of Congress. During this same period, should the designation include State waters, the Governor of the State has the opportunity to concurrently review the terms of designation including boundaries within State waters.

NOAA will serve as the lead Federal agency for the NEPA process for the proposed action. The USFWS, State of Hawai'i and OHA shall serve as cooperating agencies in this process, through agreement with the lead agency. NOAA may invite other Federal, Tribal, or State and local government agencies to become cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS. NEPA regulations specify that a cooperating agency means any Federal agency (and a State, Tribal, or local agency with agreement of the lead agency) that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable alternative) (40 CFR 1508.1(e)).

NOAA expects to make the DEIS and other draft sanctuary designation documents available to the public in approximately January 2023. NOAA expects to make the FEIS for sanctuary designation available to the public in Fall 2023. A Record of Decision and the final sanctuary management plan and final rule will be completed no sooner than 30 days after the FEIS is made available to the public, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.11.

Federal, State, and local permits, authorizations or consultations may be required for the proposed action, including consultation under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq., consistency review under the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and possibly reviews under other laws and regulations determined to be applicable to the proposed action. To the fullest extent possible, NOAA will prepare the DEIS concurrently with and integrated with analyses required by other Federal environmental review requirements, and the DEIS will list all Federal permits, licenses, and other authorizations that must be obtained in implementing the proposed action, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.24.

This notice confirms that NOAA will coordinate its responsibilities under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) during the sanctuary designation process and is soliciting public and stakeholder input to meet section 106 compliance requirements. The section 106 consultation process specifically applies to any Federal agency undertaking that may affect historic properties. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1), historic properties include: “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. The term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria.”

The NHPA requires that Federal decision makers consider historic properties during project planning. Section 106 of the NHPA requires agencies to take into account the effects of such undertakings they carry out, assist, fund, or permit on historic properties. NEPA mandates that Federal agencies assess a proposed Federal action's environmental impacts, including impacts on historic and cultural resources. As part of section 106 consultation, it is the agency's responsibility to provide consulting parties a reasonable opportunity to identify their concerns about historic properties, advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance, articulate their views on the undertaking's effects on such properties, and participate in the resolution of any adverse effects (if identified).

The following parties may have consultative roles in the section 106 process: State historic preservation officer, Native Hawaiian organizations, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, representatives of local government, and additional consulting parties. Certain individuals and organizations may also participate as consulting parties due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the action's effects on historic properties. As part of this public scoping process, NOAA seeks public input on potential effects on historic properties in the area of potential effects (the entire Monument area). NOAA will invite consulting party participation via letters of invitation.

With this notice, NOAA is initiating a public scoping process to gather input from individuals, organizations, Native Hawaiian Organizations, and Federal, State, and local agencies on the proposed sanctuary designation. NOAA intends to use this process to determine the scope and significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the DEIS, with consideration of the scoping factors and responsibilities provided in 40 CFR 1501.9. NOAA specifically request comments on the following topics, including the identification of potential alternatives, information, and analyses relevant to the proposed action:

• The proposed designation of marine waters of the Monument as a national marine sanctuary, including the spatial extent of the proposed sanctuary and boundary alternatives NOAA should consider;

• the location, nature, and value of resources that would be protected by a sanctuary;

• management measures for the sanctuary and any additional regulations that should be added under the NMSA authority to protect Monument resources;

• the potential socioeconomic, cultural, and biological impacts of sanctuary designation;

• information regarding historic properties in the entire Monument area and the potential effects to those historic properties to support National Historic Preservation Act compliance under section 106; and

• other information relevant to the designation and management of a national marine sanctuary.

Comments may be submitted to NOAA by January 31, 2022 using the methods described above in ADDRESSES . NOAA will host public scoping meetings during the public comment period, as described above under DATES .

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 40 CFR 1500-1508 (NEPA Implementing Regulations); Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A;

The following items are on the agenda, although agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's website when possible.)

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).

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as amended, is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Specifics regarding the commercial shark quotas and the shark research fishery can be found at §§ 635.27(b) and 635.32(f).

The shark research fishery was established, in part, to maintain time series data for stock assessments and to meet NMFS' research objectives. Since the shark research fishery was established in 2008, it has allowed for: The collection of fishery-dependent data for current and future stock assessments; the operation of cooperative research to meet NMFS' ongoing research objectives; the collection of updated life-history information used in the sandbar shark (and other species) stock assessment; the collection of data on habitat preferences that might help reduce fishery interactions through bycatch mitigation; evaluation of the utility of the mid-Atlantic closed area on the recovery of dusky sharks and collection of hook-timer and pop-up satellite archival tag information to determine at-vessel and post-release mortality of dusky sharks; and collection of sharks to determine the weight conversion factor from dressed weight to whole weight.

The shark research fishery allows selected commercial fishermen the opportunity to earn revenue from selling additional sharks, including sandbar sharks. Only the commercial shark fishermen selected to participate in the shark research fishery are authorized to land sandbar sharks subject to the sandbar quota available each year. The base quota for sandbar sharks is 90.7 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) per year, although this number may be reduced in the event of overharvests. The selected shark research fishery permittees will also be allowed to land other LCS, SCS, smoothhound, and pelagic sharks consistent with any restrictions established on their shark research fishery permit. Generally, the shark research fishery permits are valid only for the calendar year for which they are issued.

One hundred percent observer coverage is required on shark research fishery trips. The specific 2022 trip limits and number of trips per month will depend on the availability of funding, number of selected vessels, the availability of observers, the available quota, and the objectives of the research fishery, and will be included in the permit terms at time of issuance. The number of participants in the research fishery changes each year. In 2021, four fishermen were chosen to participate. From 2008 through 2021, there has been an average of six participants each year with the range from 4 to 11. The number of trips allowed per month can change, but in the last few years participating vessels on average have been able to take one trip per month. The number of trips taken per month are limited by the scientific and research needs of the Agency and the number of NMFS-approved observers available. Participants are also limited on the amount of gear they can deploy on a given set ( e.g., number of hooks and sets, soak times, length of longline). These limits may change both between years and during the year depending on research goals and bycatch limits.

In 2021, NMFS split 90 percent of the sandbar and LCS research fishery quotas equally among selected participants, with 20.4 mt dw (44,973 lb dw) of sandbar shark research fishery quota and 11.3 mt dw (24,911 lb dw) of other LCS research fishery quota available to each vessel. The remaining quota was held in reserve to ensure the overall sandbar and LCS research fishery quotas were not exceeded. It is likely NMFS will use this process again for the quota in 2022.

In 2021, NMFS continued to implement a regional dusky bycatch limit, which was first established in 2013, in the shark research fishery, applicable to four regions across the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. Under this limit, when four or more dusky sharks have been brought to the vessel dead in a region, shark research fishery permit holders in that region were prohibited from soaking their gear for longer than 3 hours. If, after the change in soak time, three additional dusky shark interactions (alive or dead) were observed, shark research fishery permit holders were prohibited from making a trip in that region for the remainder of the year, unless otherwise permitted by NMFS. Slightly different measures were established for shark research fishery participants in the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in order to allow NMFS observers to place satellite archival tags on dusky sharks and collect other scientific information on dusky sharks while also minimizing any dusky shark mortality.

Previously, shark research fishery permit holders were required to land any dead sharks, except for prohibited species. However, in 2021, shark research fishery permit holders were provided more flexibility and allowed to retain or discard any shark, regardless of condition. All prohibited species were required to be released, unless the observer requested that the shark be retained for research purposes. If the regional non-blacknose SCS, blacknose, and/or pelagic shark commercial management group quotas were closed, then any shark research fishery permit holder fishing in the region was required to discard all of the species from the closed management groups, regardless of condition. All other sharks, except prohibited species, caught and brought to the vessel could be released alive or landed. The vessels participating in the shark research fishery averaged 12 trips in 2021, but the timing, and number of the trips varied based on seasonal availability of certain species and quota available.

To participate in the shark research fishery, commercial shark fishermen need to submit a completed Shark Research Fishery Application by the deadline noted above (see DATES ) showing that the vessel and owner(s) meet the specific criteria outlined below.

Each year, the research objectives are developed by a shark board, which is comprised of representatives within NMFS, including representatives from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Panama City Laboratory, the Southeast Regional Office Protected Resources Division, and the HMS Management Division. The research objectives for 2022 are based on various documents, including the 2020 Biological Opinion of the Atlantic Shark Fisheries Except Pelagic Longline, as well as recent stock assessments for the U.S. South Atlantic blacknose, U.S. Gulf of Mexico blacknose, U.S. Gulf of Mexico blacktip, sandbar, and dusky sharks (all these stock assessments can be found at http://sedarweb.org/ ). The 2022 research objectives are:

• Collect reproductive, length, sex, and age data from sandbar and other sharks throughout the calendar year for species-specific stock assessments;

• Monitor the size distribution of sandbar sharks and other species captured in the fishery;

• Continue on-going tagging shark programs for identification of migration corridors and stock structure using dart and/or spaghetti tags;

• Maintain time-series of abundance from previously derived indices for the shark bottom longline observer program;

• Acquire fin-clip samples of all shark and other species for genetic analysis;

• Attach satellite archival tags to endangered smalltooth sawfish to provide information on critical habitat, preferred depth and post-release mortality, consistent with the requirements listed in the take permit issued under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act to the SEFSC Observer Program;

• Attach satellite archival tags to prohibited dusky and other sharks, as needed, to provide information on daily and seasonal movement patterns, and preferred depth;

• Evaluate hooking mortality and post-release survivorship of dusky, hammerhead, blacktip, and other sharks using hook-timers and temperature-depth recorders;

• Evaluate the effects of controlled gear experiments to determine the effects of potential hook changes to prohibited species interactions and fishery yields;

• Examine the size distribution of sandbar and other sharks captured throughout the fishery including in the Mid-Atlantic shark time/area closure off the coast of North Carolina from January 1 through July 31;

• Develop allometric and weight relationships of selected species of sharks ( e.g., hammerhead, sandbar, blacktip shark); and

• Collect samples such as liver and muscle plugs for stable isotope analysis as a part of a trophic level-based ecosystem study.

Shark Research Fishery Permit Applications will only be accepted from commercial shark fishermen who hold a current directed or incidental shark limited access permit. While incidental permit holders are welcome to submit an application, to ensure that an appropriate number of sharks are landed to meet the research objectives for this year, NMFS will give priority to directed permit holders as recommended by the shark board. As such, qualified incidental permit holders will be selected only if there are not enough qualified directed permit holders to meet research objectives.

The Shark Research Fishery Permit Application includes, but is not limited to, a request for the following information: Type of commercial shark permit possessed; past participation and availability in the commercial shark fishery (not including sharks caught for display); past involvement and compliance with HMS observer programs per 50 CFR 635.7; past compliance with HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635; past and present availability to participate in the shark research fishery year-round; ability to fish in the regions and seasons requested; ability to attend necessary meetings regarding the objectives and research protocols of the shark research fishery; and ability to carry out the research objectives of the Agency. Preference will be given to those applicants who are willing and available to fish year-round and who affirmatively state that they intend to do so, to ensure the timely and accurate data collection NMFS needs to meet this year's research objectives. An applicant who has been charged criminally or civilly ( e.g., issued a Notice of Violation and Assessment (NOVA) or Notice of Permit Sanction) for any HMS-related violation will not be considered for participation in the shark research fishery. In addition, applicants who were selected to carry an observer in the previous two years for any HMS fishery, but failed to contact NMFS to arrange the placement of an observer as required per § 635.7, will not be considered for participation in the 2022 shark research fishery. Applicants who were selected to carry an observer in the previous two years for any HMS fishery and failed to comply with all the observer regulations per § 635.7 will also not be considered. Exceptions will be made for vessels that were selected for HMS observer coverage but did not fish in the quarter when selected and thus did not require an observer. Applicants who do not possess a valid USCG safety inspection decal when the application is submitted will not be considered. Applicants who have been non-compliant with any of the HMS observer program regulations in the previous two years, as described above, may be eligible for future participation in shark research fishery activities by demonstrating two subsequent years of compliance with observer regulations at § 635.7.

The HMS Management Division will review all submitted applications and develop a list of qualified applicants from those applications that are deemed complete. A qualified applicant is an applicant that has submitted a complete application by the deadline (see DATES ) and has met the selection criteria listed above. Qualified applicants are eligible to be selected to participate in the 2022 shark research fishery. The HMS Management Division will provide the list of qualified applicants without identifying information to the SEFSC. The SEFSC will then evaluate the list of qualified applicants and, based on the temporal and spatial needs of the research objectives, the availability of observers, the availability of qualified applicants, and the available quota for a given year, will randomly select qualified applicants to conduct the prescribed research. Where there are multiple qualified applicants that meet the criteria, permittees will be randomly selected through a lottery system. If a public meeting is deemed necessary, NMFS will announce details of a public selection meeting in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

Once the selection process is complete, NMFS will notify the selected applicants and issue the shark research fishery permits. The shark research fishery permits will be valid through December 31, 2022, unless otherwise specified. If needed, NMFS will communicate with the shark research fishery permit holders to arrange a captain's meeting to discuss the research objectives and protocols. NMFS usually holds mandatory captain's meetings before observers are placed on vessels and may hold one for the 2022 shark research fishery in early 2022. Once the fishery starts, the shark research fishery permit holders must contact NMFS or the NMFS-designee to arrange the placement of a NMFS-approved observer for each shark research trip. Selected applicants are required to allow observers the opportunity to perform their duties and assist observers as necessary.

A shark research fishery permit will only be valid for the vessel and owner(s) and terms and conditions listed on the permit, and, thus, cannot be transferred to another vessel or owner(s). Shark research fishery permit holders must carry a NMFS-approved observer on shark research fishery trips. Issuance of a shark research permit does not guarantee that the permit holder will be assigned a NMFS-approved observer on any particular trip. Rather, issuance indicates that a vessel may be issued a NMFS-approved observer for a particular trip, and on such trips, may be allowed to harvest Atlantic sharks, including sandbar sharks, in excess of the retention limits described in § 635.24(a). Applicable retention limits will be based on available quota, number of vessels participating in the 2022 shark research fishery, the research objectives set forth by the shark board, the extent of other restrictions placed on the vessel, and may vary by vessel and/or location. When not operating under the auspices of the shark research fishery, the vessel would still be able to land LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks subject to existing retention limits on trips without a NMFS-approved observer.

NMFS annually invites commercial shark permit holders (directed and incidental) to submit an application to participate in the shark research fishery. Permit applications can be found on the HMS Management Division's website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/atlantic-highly-migratory-species/atlantic-highly-migratory-species-permits-and-reporting-forms or by calling (301) 427-8503. Final decisions on the issuance of a shark research fishery permit will depend on the submission of all required information by the deadline (see DATES ), and NMFS' review of applicant information as outlined above. The 2022 shark research fishery will start after the opening of the shark fishery and under available quotas as published in a separate Federal Register final rule.

The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.

Status: The December 7, 2021 meeting will be open to public participation with a 15-minute public comment period at 4:45 p.m., EST. The SAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three minutes. Written comments for the December 7 and December 8, 2021 meeting should be received by the SAB Executive Director's Office by November 29, 2021 to provide sufficient time for SAB review. Written comments received by the SAB Executive Director after these dates will be distributed to the SAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date.

Special Accommodations: This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed to the Executive Director no later than 12 p.m. on November 29, 2021.

Matters To Be Considered: The meeting on December 7-8, 2021 will consider (1) NOAA Update; (2) NOAA Science Update; (3) NOAA Response to the SAB Environmental Information Services Working Group: Statement Concerning the Ongoing NWS Data Dissemination Challenges; (4) Priorities of Weather Research (PWR) Final Report; (5) Tsunami Science & Technology Advisory Panel Final Report; (6) NOAA Response to SAB Environmental Information Services Working Group Report: Recommendations to the NOAA Concerning the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program; (7) Review of the Draft 2021 Report to the United States Congress from the Environmental Information Services Working Group (EISWG); (8) NOAA Response to SAB Climate Working Group Report (CWG): Precipitation Prediction Grand Challenge Strategic Plan Review. The full agenda will be published on the SAB website. Meeting materials, including work products, will be available on the SAB website: http://sab.noaa.gov/SABMeetings.aspx.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On 2/12/2021, 3/12/2021, 3/19/2021, 4/30/2021, 5/7/2021, 5/21/2021, and 5/28/2021, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product(s) and service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following product(s) are added to the Procurement List:

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Advisory Committee Management Final Rule (41 CFR part 102-3).

Purpose of Meeting: The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry, as the Board deems necessary, into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy.

Agenda: Proposed meeting agenda for December 6, 2021.

The executive session of the meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on December 6, 2021, will consist of discussions of new and pending administrative or minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishments involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to, individual honor or conduct violations within the Brigade, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For this reason, the executive session of this meeting will be closed to the public, as the discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Department of the Navy General Counsel, has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because the discussions during the executive session from 11 a.m. to noon (12 p.m.) will be concerned with matters protected under sections 552b(c) (5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140, this meeting is open to the public. Any public attendance at the meeting will be governed by prevailing health directives at the United States Naval Academy. Please contact the Executive Secretary five business days prior the meeting to coordinate access to the meeting.

Written Statements: Per Section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration at any time, but should be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least 15 business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Board for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written statements should be submitted via mail to Board of Visitors, 121 Blake Rd., Annapolis, MD 21402. Please note that since the Board operates under the provisions of the FACA, as amended, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the board website. If, and only if, prevailing medical directives require the employment of a virtual meeting, the virtual meeting will be broadcasted live from the United States Naval Academy. The broadcast will be close captioned for the duration of the public portion of the meeting. The link to view the meeting will be posted at https://www.usna.edu/PAO/Superintendent/bov.php forty-eight hours prior to the meeting. A virtual event will preclude accommodation of the public to attend the meeting in person.

On November 5, 2021, we published in the Federal Register the NIA for the FY 2021 RPED Grant Program (86 FR 61193). The application deadline in the NIA was December 6, 2021. We are amending the NIA to include as eligible applicants public and private non-profit organizations and agencies that partner with IHEs and to make corresponding changes to performance measure 2. In addition, we are extending the deadline for transmittal of applications until December 13, 2021. All other requirements and conditions stated in the NIA remain the same.

In FR Document 2021-24361 appearing on page 61193 of the Federal Register of November 5, 2021, we make the following amendments:

1. On page 61193, in the second column, under the Dates caption and following the heading “Deadline for Transmittal of Applications”, remove “December 6, 2021” and add in its place “December 13, 2021”.

2. On page 61195, in the second column, in the “Eligiblity Information” section, at the end of the paragraph following the heading “Eligible Applicants”, add “, and public and private non-profit organizations and agencies that partner with such IHEs”.

3. On page 61197, in the third column, in the second line of the second paragraph, add “and/or partner” after “grantee”.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d; Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 7614, 116th Congress (2020); the explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 133 (Pub. L. 116-260).

Accessible Format: On request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document, the NIA, and a copy of the application 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: Grantee Reporting Form—Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Annual Payback Report.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0617.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 11,790.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,858.

Abstract: Public Law 114-95, section 302(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) provides Long-Term Training grants to academic institutions to support scholarship assistance to students. Students who receive scholarships under this program are required to work within the public rehabilitation program, such as with a state vocational rehabilitation agency, or an agency or organization that has a service arrangement with a state vocational rehabilitation agency. The student is expected to work two years in such settings for every year of full-time scholarship support. The program regulations at 34 CFR 386.33-386.35 and 386.40-386.43 detail the payback provisions and the RSA scholars' requirements to comply with them.

Section 302(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires tracking of scholars' employment status and location of former scholars supported under the grants in order to ensure that students are meeting the payback requirement. Scholars must provide requested information necessary to meet the exit certification requirements.

In addition to meeting the requirement that all scholars be tracked, the information collected will provide performance data relevant to the rehabilitation fields and degrees pursued by RSA scholars, as well as the funds owed and the rehabilitation work completed by them. These data are used to assess program effectiveness and efficiency, and to meet the reporting requirements of Public Law 103-62 section 4 of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

RSA is requesting an extension of the currently approved collection for grantees (Institutions of Higher Education), scholars, and employers to submit data electronically through the online RSA Payback Information Management System (PIMS). There is no substantial change in the proposed data collected, nor estimated burden required to report data using the PIMS system.

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: Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection.

OMB Control Number: 1870-0504.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 17,884.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,165,918.

Abstract: The collection, use, and reporting of education data is an integral component of the mission of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). ED has collected civil rights data about the nation's public schools via the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) since 1968. For school years 2009-10 and 2011-12, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the CRDC part of the EDFacts information collection (1875-0240). EDFacts, an ED initiative to put performance data at the center of ED's policy, management, and budget decision-making processes for all preschool-grade 12 education programs, has transformed the way in which ED collects and uses data. For school years 2013-14, 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2020-21, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) cleared the CRDC as a separate collection from EDFacts while maintaining its transformative data collection policies and practices. As with previous CRDC collections, the purpose of the 2021-22 CRDC is to obtain vital data related to the civil rights laws' requirement that public local educational agencies (LEAs) and elementary and secondary schools provide equal educational opportunity. ED has analyzed the uses of many data elements collected in the 2015-16 and 2017-18 CRDCs and sought advice from experts across ED to refine, improve, and where appropriate, add or remove data elements from the collection. ED also made the CRDC data definitions and metrics consistent with other mandatory collections across ED wherever possible. ED seeks OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act to collect from LEAs the elementary and secondary education data described in the sections of Attachment A. In addition to reviewing and commenting on the proposed changes (detailed in Supporting Statement A and Attachments A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4), ED requests that LEAs and other stakeholders respond to the directed questions found in Attachment A-5.

The Department of Energy (DOE) regulates exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country, pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 42 U.S.C. 7172(f)). Such exports require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On November 3, 2021, TPS filed an application with DOE (Application or App.) to “transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a period of five years.” App. at 1. TPS states that it “is a Nebraska corporation and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Tenaska Energy, Inc. (`Tenaska').” Id. TPS further states that its “parent company, Tenaska, is a privately held corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.” Id. at 2. TPS represents that it “does not currently own or control electric generation or transmission facilities, and does not have a power supply of its own in the United States that would cause its electricity exports to have a reliability, fuel use, or system stability impact.” Id. at 3.

TPS further claims that it would “purchase the electricity may export . . . from wholesale generators, electric utilities, federal power marketing agencies and affiliates through negotiated agreements that have been voluntarily executed by the selling parties after considering their own need for any such electricity.” App. at 3. TPS contends that its “proposed electricity exports will not impair or tend to impede the sufficiency of electric power supplies in the United States or the regional coordination of electric utility planning or operations.” Id. at 3-4.

The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).

Comments and other filings concerning TPS's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-243-D. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Norma Rosner Iacovo, 300 East John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 100, Irving, TX 75062, niacovo@tnsk.com; and Neil L. Levy, 500 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, nlevy@mwe.com.

A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of the Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at https://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Matt Aronoff at matthew.aronoff@hq.doe.gov.

The Department of Energy (DOE) regulates exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country, pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 42 U.S.C. 7172(f)). Such exports require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On October 29, 2021, SociVolta filed an application with DOE (Application or App.) to “transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a period of five (5) years.” App. at 1. SociVolta states that it “is a Canadian company with its principal place of business in Montreal, Quebec,” adding that it “was incorporated in Quebec under a Canadian federal chart.” Id. at 2. SociVolta represents that it “does not have any affiliates or upstream owners that possess any ownership interest or involvement in any other company that is a traditional utility or that owns, operates, or controls any electric generation, transmission or distribution facilities, nor do they have any direct involvement with the energy industry other than through the ownership of SociVolta.” Id.

SociVolta further claims that it would “purchase power to be exported from a variety of sources such as power marketers, independent power producers, or U.S. electric utilities and federal power marketing entities as those terms are defined in Sections 3(22) and 3(19) of the [Federal Power Act].” App. at 3. SociVolta contends that its proposed exports would be “surplus to the system of the generator and, therefore, the electric power that [it would] export on either a firm or interruptible basis [would] not impair the sufficiency of the electric power supply within the U.S.” Id. SociVolta adds that its proposed exports would “not impair or tend to impede the sufficiency of electric supplies in the U.S. or the regional coordination of electric utility planning or operations.” Id. at 4.

The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).

Comments and other filings concerning SociVolta's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-433-A. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Ruta Kalvaitis Skučas, 1601 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20006, rskucas@piercewood.com ; and Daniel Doyon, 5455 De Gaspe Ave, Suite 710, Montreal, Quebec H2T 3B3, Canada, info@socivolta.com.

A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of the Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at https://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Matt Aronoff at matthew.aronoff@hq.doe.gov.

On June 1, 2021, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board issued the reaffirmation and revision of Recommendation 2020-1, Nuclear Safety Requirements, to the Department of Energy. In accordance with section 315 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286d(e)), the Secretary of Energy's final decision and the reasoning for such decision pertaining to Recommendation 2020-1 are printed in full at the conclusion of this notice.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on November 15, 2021, by Joe Olencz, Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, 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 .

Summary: This notice, together with its attachments, memorializes the Secretary of Energy's final decision and reasoning for such decision pertaining to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB or Board) Recommendation 2020-1, Nuclear Safety Requirements.

Discussion: The Board issued Recommendation 2020-1 on February 21, 2020. The Recommendation was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2020 (85 FR 14658). The Secretary of Energy responded to the DNFSB in the letter dated June 11, 2020, indicating that the Department of Energy (DOE) partially accepted Recommendation 2020-1. DOE's response was published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2020 (85 FR 37086).

In response to DOE's partial acceptance, the DNFSB revised and reaffirmed Recommendation 2020-1 on June 1, 2021. In this revision and reaffirmation, the Board acknowledged DOE's completion of the rulemaking for 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management, and made a number of revisions to specific sub-recommendations within Recommendation 2020-1.

In a letter to the DNFSB dated September 8, 2021, the Secretary of Energy accepted Recommendation 2020-1, and provided details of the reasoning for this acceptance. This response constitutes the Secretary's final decision for the Recommendation. The Secretary of Energy's final decision and reasoning are included as attachments to this notice.

This notice is in accordance with 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 2286d paragraph (e), which states:

The Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledges receipt of your letter dated June 1, 2021, which both reaffirms and revises Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 2020-1, Nuclear Safety Requirements. The initial issuance of Recommendation 2020-1, dated February 21, 2020, asserted that DOE's August 2018 proposed revisions to Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management, would erode DOE's nuclear safety regulatory framework. In its June 11, 2020, response which states that “the changes to 10 CFR part 830 will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of DOE's nuclear safety framework while continuing to ensure adequate protection of public and worker health and safety across the DOE complex,” DOE disagreed with the DNFSB's assertions. On October 19, 2020, DOE published the Final Rule amending 10 CFR part 830, addressing and incorporating comments from the DNFSB and members of the public as part of the formal rulemaking process. (85 FR 66201).

Following our recent evaluation of your updated Recommendation 2020-1, the Department continues to conclude that its current regulatory framework, as revised by the October 2020 rulemaking, provides adequate protection of public and worker health and safety across the DOE complex. However, I accept Recommendation 2020-1, as detailed in the enclosure, which constitutes my Final Decision for this Recommendation. DOE agrees with addressing the technical concerns raised by the Board, but DOE cannot commit to a specific outcome in a future rulemaking and will perform a regulatory analysis to evaluate whether any changes to 10 CFR part 830 should be proposed through a future rulemaking process.

The enclosure updates DOE's June 11, 2020, response for several sub-recommendations to reflect revisions to Recommendation 2020-1. We believe DOE's implementation plan will meet the safety improvement objectives of the DNFSB's Recommendation.

DOE appreciates the Board's advice and will continue working closely with the Board and its staff to continuously improve DOE's nuclear safety regulatory framework in a manner that meets our shared objective to ensure the continued safe, effective, and efficient execution of DOE's mission.

To ensure that our implementation plan will meet the underlying safety improvement objectives of the DNFSB's Recommendation, DOE will engage in frequent staff level interactions during the preparation of the plan. The Board cited these constructive interactions during the most recent preparation of an implementation plan as a potential best practice, and we look forward to enhancing and improving our interactions during this process as well.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Matthew Moury, Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, at 202-586-1285.

The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has evaluated the reaffirmed and revised Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB or Board) Recommendation 2020-1, dated June 1, 2021. The following discussion presents a detailed response for each DNFSB sub-recommendation, which reflects the Department's acceptance of Recommendation 2020-1, and constitutes the Secretary's Final Decision for this Recommendation.

As described in DOE's June 11, 2020, initial response to Recommendation 2020-1, DOE disagreed with the DNFSB's assertion that the revisions proposed in the August 8, 2018, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for 10 CFR part 830, Nuclear Safety Management, will erode DOE's nuclear safety regulatory framework. Rather, DOE believes that these proposed changes will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the framework while continuing to ensure adequate protection of environment, public, and worker health and safety at DOE defense nuclear facilities. On October 19, 2020, DOE published the Final Rule amending 10 CFR part 830, addressing and incorporating comments from the DNFSB and members of the public as part of the formal rulemaking process. (85 FR 66201).

The DNFSB's June 1, 2021, letter both revises and reaffirms DNFSB Recommendation 2020-1, Nuclear Safety Requirements, in response to DOE's June 11, 2020, response and to DOE's completion of the rulemaking. Given the revisions made to the Recommendation, the following reflects DOE's revised response.

While accepting Recommendation 2020-1, DOE accepts sub-recommendations 3.c, 5.d, and 5.e with the understanding that DOE cannot commit to a specific outcome in a future rulemaking as doing so would be inconsistent with its requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act. DOE will perform a regulatory analysis to evaluate whether changes to 10 CFR part 830 should be pursued through a future rulemaking effort.

Sub-Recommendation 1.a. Develop and implement an integrated approach—including requirements—for the management of aging infrastructure that includes formal processes to identify and perform infrastructure upgrades necessary to ensure facilities and structures, systems, and components can perform their safety functions.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation. DOE believes its nuclear safety regulatory framework has requirements in place to ensure facilities and safety structures, systems, and components (SSCs), both active and passive, perform their safety functions. In the Department's December 17, 2019, response to the Draft Recommendation, the Department included an extensive discussion regarding DOE's expectations for the performance of safety SSCs within DOE's policy documents. At the highest level, compliance with 10 CFR part 830, including the requirement in 10 CFR 830.204(b)(4) to “. . . demonstrate the adequacy of these [hazard] controls to eliminate, limit, or mitigate identified hazards . . .”, is required for all Hazard Category (HC) 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, and applies to new and existing facilities.

DOE will benchmark existing successful aging management processes, such as the Extended Life Program at Y-12, and infrastructure upgrade programming systems, such as Science-based Infrastructure Stewardship, to enhance its processes to identify, prioritize, and plan safety-related infrastructure upgrades at Defense Nuclear Facilities. DOE will ensure funding necessary to complete upgrades designated through these evaluation and prioritization processes is clearly identified as part of the federal budgeting process. Given the multiple government-wide priorities that are considered as part of the budgeting process, DOE recognizes that not all upgrades are likely to be able to be funded in any given budgeting cycle. DOE will continue its risk-based budgeting prioritization approach and will continue taking other mitigating steps, as appropriate, to continue to maintain adequate safety. The Implementation Plan will further describe the steps that will be taken to address this sub-recommendation.

Sub-Recommendation 2.a. Revise DOE Standard 1027-2018 to address the deficiencies noted in the Board's letter dated January 19, 2021.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation. During the DNFSB staff's recent 2020 review of the content and technical basis of DOE Standard 1027-2018, Change Notice 1, Hazard Categorization of DOE Nuclear Facilities, DOE and the DNFSB staff had multiple meetings to discuss the DNFSB staff's questions and concerns. The DNFSB staff's outstanding issues were identified in the Board's letter dated January 19, 2021. The letter was provided to DOE for information. DOE has reviewed this letter and will work with the Board staff to further understand these concerns as part of future work on DOE Standard 1027 (as described in response to sub-Recommendation 2.b, below). Further, it should be noted that as a result of the Board's review of hazard categorization, NNSA Supplemental Directive (SD) Guide (G)-1027, Admin Change 2, was issued on May 10, 2021, that clarified the use of the calculated threshold quantities and provided additional historical perspective on use of International Commission for Radiation Protection (ICRP) guidance. DOE believes that the changes address some of the Board's concerns identified in the letter.

Sub-Recommendation 2.b. Mandate use of the updated version of DOE Standard 1027 when performing facility hazard categorization of new defense nuclear facilities.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation. DOE plans future work on DOE Standard 1027, including an evaluation of DOE-STD-1027-2018, a potential revision of the Standard, and a potential revision to 10 CFR part 830 to incorporate Standard(s) used by the Department for hazard categorization. This work will inform any requirements to be considered for the future. As part of this effort DOE will perform a regulatory analysis to evaluate potential changes to the Rule.

DOE's current approach is consistent with 10 CFR part 830, which allows updates to DOE-STD-1027, such as in DOE-STD-1027-2018, that are consistent with the methodology of DOE-STD-1027-92, Change Notice 1. In DOE's June 11, 2020 response, we noted that if DOE were to propose a new methodology for categorization, DOE would need to undertake a new rulemaking effort that would include proposing the revised methodology for public comment and reference the new Standard that includes the methodology. This remains the case. The Implementation Plan will further describe the steps that will be taken to address this sub-recommendation.

Sub-Recommendation 2.c. Review existing hazard category 3 and below hazard category 3 defense nuclear facilities to confirm they are appropriately categorized.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation. The DNFSB's review does not provide sufficient data, nor has DOE's oversight indicated that use of the hazard categorization standards has led to under categorization that would necessitate additional reviews. However, concurrent with DOE's resolution to sub-Recommendation 2.b, DOE will evaluate the nuclear safety management framework ( i.e., DOE directives and technical standards) to determine the best approach to establish requirements that would provide greater confidence that defense nuclear facilities, including below hazard category 3 facilities, are appropriately categorized. The Implementation Plan will identify the specific steps that will be taken to address this sub-recommendation.

Sub-Recommendation 3.a. Establish requirements in DOE Standard 1104 for timely periodic DOE reviews of facility safety bases to ensure they meet the requirements of 10 CFR 830.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation. DOE commits to evaluating DOE Standard 1104 or other DOE directive(s) and revising directives and technical standards, as necessary, to incorporate DOE's expectations for the review of facility safety bases to ensure they meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 830. The Implementation Plan will further describe the steps that will be taken to address this sub-recommendation.

Sub-Recommendation 3.b. Establish clear requirements in DOE Standard 1104 for DOE approval of JCOs and ESSs for PISAs that result in a positive USQ determination.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation. The Implementation Plan will further describe the steps that will be taken to address this sub-recommendation.

Sub-Recommendation 3.c. Update 10 CFR 830 to incorporate the requirements established per items 3.a and 3.b.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation with the understanding that while the Department has accepted sub-recommendations 3.a and 3.b, any future resulting requirements can be implemented in several policy documents ( i.e., DOE rules, directives, or technical standards) and DOE cannot commit to a specific outcome in a future rulemaking. However, DOE will perform a regulatory analysis to evaluate whether any changes to 10 CFR part 830 should be proposed through a future rulemaking process.

Sub-Recommendation 4.a. Conduct an independent review of contractor and federal processes to identify and evaluate the underlying issues that prevented the annual submittal and approval of high-quality safety basis documents, and use the findings to improve the relevant processes.

DOE accepts this sub-Recommendation. This sub-Recommendation is related to the Board's concerns with the deletion of the requirement for review and approval of the annual updates to the DSA in the recent 10 CFR part 830 Rulemaking (final Rule published October 19, 2020, 85 FR 66201). DOE's acceptance of this sub-Recommendation does not constitute its agreement that there is a safety concern associated with the October 19, 2020, final Rule, nor that there were underlying safety issues with the annual submittal and approval of high-quality safety basis documents. However, DOE is committed to continuous improvement and will conduct an independent review of the current safety basis development processes to determine whether improvements may be made for future submittals.

Sub-Recommendation 5.a. Establish clear requirements for USQs and JCOs in an order or invoked standard, including elevation of key concepts and guidance from DOE Guide 424.1-1. While developing these requirements, address issues discussed in the Board's letter dated July 10, 2020.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation. DOE will evaluate the nuclear safety management framework ( i.e., DOE directives and technical standards) to determine the best approach to establish requirements for USQs and JCOs. The Board's July 10, 2020, letter will be considered as part of this effort. The Implementation Plan will further describe the steps that will be taken to address this sub-recommendation.

Sub-Recommendation 5.b. Establish clear requirements for TSRs in an order or invoked standard, including elevation of key concepts and guidance from DOE Guide 423.1-1. While developing these requirements, address issues discussed in DNFSB Technical Report 45, Violations of the Nuclear Safety Basis.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation. DOE will evaluate the nuclear safety management framework ( i.e., DOE directives and technical standards) to determine the best approach to establish requirements for Technical Safety Requirements. The Board's Technical Report 45 will be considered as part of this effort. The Implementation Plan will further describe the steps that will be taken to address this sub-recommendation.

Sub-Recommendation 5.c. Establish requirements for SACs by invoking DOE Standard 1186 in an appropriate DOE order.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation. DOE will evaluate the nuclear safety management framework ( i.e., DOE directives and technical standards) to determine the best approach to establish requirements for Specific Administrative Controls. The Implementation Plan will further describe the steps that will be taken to address this sub-recommendation.

Sub-Recommendation 5.d. Update 10 CFR 830 to incorporate the requirements established per items 5.a through 5.c.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation with the understanding that while the Department has accepted sub-recommendations 5.a through 5.c, any future resulting requirements can be implemented in several policy documents ( i.e., DOE rules, directives, or technical standards) and DOE cannot commit to a specific outcome in a future rulemaking effort. However, DOE will perform a regulatory analysis to evaluate whether any changes to 10 CFR part 830 should be proposed through an additional rulemaking process.

Sub-Recommendation 5.e. Establish requirements in 10 CFR 830 regarding the concept of defense-in-depth.

DOE accepts this sub-recommendation with the understanding that while the Department agrees to evaluate the need for additional requirements regarding the concept of defense-in-depth, DOE cannot commit to a specific outcome in a future rulemaking process. However, DOE will perform a regulatory analysis to evaluate whether any changes to 10 CFR part 830 should be proposed through an additional rulemaking process.

The Commission Miscellaneous Investigation File notice is being modified. The notice includes 11 new routine uses, including two prescribed routine uses that will permit FERC to disclose information as necessary in response to an actual or suspected breach of its own records or to assist another agency in its efforts to respond to a breach. This notice also addresses the system's manager and location change, while also providing additional specificity on the category of employees and employee matters contained in the system of records.