Agency: USDA, AMS.

Title: Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program (LFS).

OMB Number: 0581-NEW.

Type of Request: Emergency Approval of a New Information Collection.

Abstract: The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et. seq. ), as amended, directs and authorizes USDA to administer Federal cooperative agreements programs. AMS cooperative agreement programs are administered according to the OMB Guidance for Grants and Cooperative Agreements under the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) (85 FR 49506; December 13, 2020). The information collection requirements in this emergency request are needed for AMS to administer a new noncompetitive cooperative agreement program, in accordance with section 5(c) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(c)), for the purchase of local foods for distribution to schools.

Because the LFS is a voluntary program, respondents request or apply for this specific non-competitive cooperative agreement, and in doing so, they provide information. The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of USDA, AMS, Commodity Procurement Program to certify that cooperative agreement participants are complying with applicable program regulations, and the data collected is the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the program requirements.

The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the program.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.5 hours.

Respondents: Cooperative Agreement applicants; or Cooperative Agreement recipients.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Total Annual Responses including Recordkeeping: 650.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.5.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents and Recordkeepers: 3,154 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the new collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Obtaining OMB's approval of this new information collection enables AMS to publish a Request for Applications (RFA) to establish application requirements, the review and approval process, and cooperative agreement administration procedures. This will enable eligible entities to develop appropriate cooperative agreement applications for the program so that AMS can adequately evaluate these new proposals and obligate the funds as required by the Act.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

FSIS administers a regulatory program under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) that is intended to ensure that meat and meat food products distributed in commerce are wholesome; not adulterated; and properly marked, labeled, and packaged. As part of its inspection program, FSIS collects samples of these products for laboratory analysis (21 U.S.C. 642(a)).

Salmonella bacteria are among the most frequent causes of foodborne illness. These bacteria reside in the gastrointestinal tract and hide or hair of food animals; therefore, they also are good indicators for food product contamination with enteric pathogens. Salmonella are often introduced during the rearing of live animals ( e.g., Salmonella may contaminate the exterior of an animal on the farm, remain attached to the animal's hide or hair, or be transferred to the carcass, and can contaminate raw products during slaughter and subsequent fabrication and further processing). Currently, events that cause contamination of pork carcasses cannot be completely eliminated from commercial slaughter, fabrication, or further processing operations. Contamination can be minimized, however, with the use of proper sanitary dressing procedures and through the application of antimicrobial interventions during the slaughter, fabrication, and further processing of pork carcasses into products, including raw comminuted pork and raw intact or non-intact pork cuts. 1

FSIS began its Salmonella verification testing program with the final rule entitled, “Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems” (PR/HACCP Rule), published on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 38805). Among other things, the PR/HACCP Rule established Salmonella pathogen reduction performance standards for establishments that slaughter selected classes of food animals and/or that produce selected classes of raw meat products, including pork carcasses, based on FSIS baseline study data (9 CFR 310.25(b)). 2 In 2012, FSIS stopped sampling and testing for Salmonella in pork carcasses because percent positive findings were very low  3 and the carcass sampling was not a good use of Agency resources. In the 2019 rule to modernize swine slaughter, FSIS removed the Salmonella pathogen reduction performance standards associated with pork carcasses and sausages from the regulations (84 FR 52300; Oct. 1, 2019). In that rule, FSIS also noted that it is testing pork cuts and comminuted pork products for Salmonella and expected to decide in 2019 whether to develop new pathogen performance standards for these products (82 FR 52318).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) first estimated the role of pork products in salmonellosis cases by analyzing outbreak data collected between 1998 and 2008. 4 The estimated percentage of foodborne illnesses attributed to pork for this time period was 6.2 percent, with lower- and upper-bound estimates of 3.6 and 11.4 percent, respectively. 5 In 2011, the CDC, Food and Drug Administration, and FSIS teamed up to form the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC). Using outbreaks between 1998 and 2017, the IFSAC estimates suggest pork is responsible for 10.3 percent of domestic cases of salmonellosis among all foods, with lower- and upper-bound estimates of 7.7 and 13.1 percent, respectively. 6 This represents about 30 percent of all domestic foodborne Salmonella illnesses among FSIS-regulated products. This makes pork the second highest contributor to Salmonella illnesses associated with products regulated by FSIS, behind chicken.

In 2013, FSIS committed to a 25-percent reduction in annual salmonellosis illnesses attributed to the products it regulates. 7 The 25-percent reduction goal was set to meet Healthy People 2020 objectives. FSIS will continue to use a 25-percent reduction as its intended target for salmonellosis illness reductions to meet Healthy People 2030, under which the objectives are unchanged. 8 FSIS requests comment on this intended target for salmonellosis illness reductions and whether the Agency should consider a more stringent reduction ( e.g., 30 percent).

On October 19, 2021, USDA announced that FSIS would be mobilizing a stronger and more comprehensive effort to reduce Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products. 9 A key component of this effort is identifying ways to incentivize use of preharvest controls to reduce Salmonella contamination coming into the slaughterhouse.

In November 2021, FSIS held roundtable listening sessions with industry and consumer groups to answer questions about establishment pilot projects. On December 3, in its Constituent Update, FSIS invited poultry slaughter and processing establishments to submit proposals for pilot projects that will test different control strategies for Salmonella contamination in poultry products. 10 FSIS explained that Pilot projects will last for a defined period of time, during which establishments will experiment with new or existing pathogen control and measurement strategies and share data collected during the pilots with FSIS. FSIS also explained that data will be analyzed by FSIS to determine whether it supports changes to FSIS' existing Salmonella control strategies.

In this notice, FSIS is proposing Salmonella performance standards for certain pork products. If we adopt a revised approach to performance standards for Salmonella in poultry, the Agency may also propose future changes to the pork standards.

There have been multiple outbreaks attributed to the consumption of pork in recent years. Between 2014 and 2016, CDC identified a total of approximately 772 persons sickened and 93 persons hospitalized with Salmonella resulting from 19 pork associated outbreaks. One individual died. 11 Two of these outbreaks resulted in recalls. In 2015, the CDC confirmed a multi-state outbreak of Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:- and Salmonella Infantis that resulted in 192 illnesses and 30 hospitalizations. 12 This outbreak led to a recall of approximately 523,000 pounds of pork products. 13 In 2016, the CDC confirmed a single-state outbreak of Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:- that resulted in 15 illnesses. This outbreak led to a recall of approximately 11,700 pounds of pork products. 14 Between 2017 and 2019, a total of approximately 475 persons were sickened and 93 persons hospitalized with Salmonella resulting from 15 pork associated outbreaks. One individual died. 15

The outbreaks referenced here suggest that Salmonella in raw pork is a continuing public health concern. The changes described below will apply to most of the pork consumed in the United States and will likely improve FSIS' ability to detect Salmonella by focusing increased sampling on the largest establishments that produce the greatest amount of product. Also discussed below, FSIS has developed performance standards that will likely lead establishments producing raw pork products to strengthen their own Salmonella control measures. Such changes at establishments will likely have a positive impact on public health.

On February 11, 2016, the Agency explained how it would assess performance using a moving window of FSIS sampling results in poultry establishments subject to Salmonella and Campylobacter pathogen reduction performance standards (81 FR 7285). FSIS stated that the moving window would be 52 weeks and that the Agency would collect samples more frequently in higher-volume establishments and less frequently in lower-volume establishments. The 52-week window obviates the need to account directly for seasonal fluctuations in contamination frequency. 16 FSIS intends to use this moving window approach for pork establishments that produce raw comminuted pork and/or raw intact or non-intact pork cuts that will be subject to the new Salmonella performance standards.

In preparation for the implementation of the new performance standards, FSIS has begun Salmonella sampling in all pork establishments that produce greater than 1,000 pounds of raw comminuted pork and greater than 1,000 pounds of raw intact or non-intact pork cuts per day. 17 FSIS currently assigns samples five times per month in pork establishments producing greater than 6,000 pounds per day of raw comminuted pork and/or greater than 50,000 pounds per day of raw intact or non-intact pork cuts. FSIS samples less frequently in the lower-volume establishments.

FSIS will use the results of this sampling to gain additional information on the prevalence of Salmonella in these products and to make sure the data continue to support the standards. FSIS ensures that result information is made available to establishments. Note that FSIS does not recognize Salmonella in raw pork products as a pathogen that would ordinarily render the product injurious to health, and thus an adulterant within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(1). As such, currently and when new standards are in place, individual Salmonella sample results will not result in regulatory control actions.

As explained above, FSIS has committed, with its public health partners, to a 25-percent reduction in annual cases of salmonellosis. Using published results, 18 FSIS estimates a median of about 122,000 annual cases of salmonellosis associated with the consumption of raw pork contaminated with Salmonella. FSIS estimates that approximately 34,000 of these illnesses are associated with raw comminuted pork and 88,000 of these illnesses are associated with raw intact or non-intact pork cuts. Thus, to meet the 25-percent reduction goal, there would need to be about 8,300 and 21,600 fewer annual Salmonella illnesses from raw comminuted pork and raw intact or non-intact pork cuts, respectively.

With the goal of reducing Salmonella in raw pork products, the Agency is proposing two new pathogen reduction performance standards—one for Salmonella in raw comminuted pork and another for Salmonella in raw intact or non-intact pork cuts. 19

Sampling evidence suggests that these two pork product classes differ with respect to Salmonella contamination occurrence. The prevalence of Salmonella in raw comminuted is about 30% while the combined percent positive for raw intact or non-intact pork cuts is about nine percent. Therefore, FSIS is proposing separate performance standards for each of these product classes.

The modeling methods for developing the proposed pathogen reduction performance standards and predictions for the public health effect of those standards are described in FSIS' Public Health Effects of Performance Standards for raw Comminuted Pork and raw Pork Cuts (2020 Pork Risk Assessment)(cite when posts).

Because the pork product industry is relatively concentrated by production volume, that is, a relatively small number of establishments produce most of the raw pork, FSIS developed pathogen reduction performance standards for each of the above product classes based on an average daily production volume threshold. The proposed performance standards would be applicable to establishments producing greater than 6,000 pounds per day in the case of raw comminuted pork and/or greater than 50,000 pounds per day in the case of raw intact and/or non-intact pork cuts. This approach would account for approximately 96 percent of raw comminuted pork and 91 percent of raw intact and non-intact pork cuts produced annually. And as further explained in the 2020 Pork Risk Assessment, the approach would also focus Agency resources on that part of the pork industry where Salmonella contamination is most clustered.

FSIS intends to collect and analyze 52 samples per year for each establishment subject to the performance standards. Analyzing this number of samples would provide strong evidence that an establishment is meeting the performance standard.

FSIS has opted at this time not to propose pathogen reduction performance standards in lower-volume establishments ( i.e., those producing less than or equal to 6,000 pounds per day of raw comminuted pork and/or less than or equal to 50,000 pounds per day of raw intact or non-intact pork cuts). A summary of the new performance standards is provided in Table 1.

For raw comminuted pork, FSIS is proposing a pathogen reduction performance standard for Salmonella of 13 allowable positives out of 52 samples. This standard would be applied to establishments producing greater than 6,000 pounds of raw comminuted pork per day (approximately 10 percent of establishments that produce this product class, 138 establishments). As mentioned above, FSIS would continue to assign samples five times per month in all establishments producing greater than 6,000 pounds of eligible product per day with the intention of collecting and analyzing 52 samples in a 52-week window.

FSIS predicts that approximately 44 percent of establishments (about 61 establishments) would initially not meet this performance standard. Once implemented, if about half (45%) of the establishments producing greater than 6,000 pounds of raw comminuted pork per day that are not meeting the proposed performance standard subsequently begin to meet this standard, this should result in about a 25-percent reduction in Salmonella illnesses from that product. The median expected number of illnesses avoided per year would be about 8,300 (95% uncertainty interval: 3,600-16,300).

For both raw intact and non-intact pork cuts, FSIS is proposing a single pathogen reduction performance standard for Salmonella of 6 allowable positives out of 52 samples in a 52-week window. This standard would be applied to establishments producing greater than 50,000 pounds of these products per day (approximately 4 percent of establishments producing this product class, 38 establishments). Approximately 39 percent of these establishments (about 15 establishments) are predicted to initially not meet this performance standard ( i.e., would be categorized as Category 3 ). Once implemented, if about half (45%) of the establishments producing greater than 50,000 pounds of raw intact or non-intact pork cuts per day that are not meeting the proposed performance standard subsequently begin to meet this standard, this should result in about a 25-percent reduction in Salmonella illnesses from that product. The median expected number of illnesses avoided per year would be about 21,600 (95% uncertainty interval: 10,000-40,000).

As stated, the performance standard is intended to apply to 52 samples in a 52-week window. If FSIS analyzes more than 52 samples in a 52-week window, the most recent 52 sample results in that 52-week window would be used to categorize the establishment. Although unlikely, there may be rare occasions when fewer than 52 samples are analyzed in these establishments within a 52-week window. If fewer than 52 samples are analyzed, the establishment's status would be reported as “N/A,” provided the establishment has fewer than the minimum number of allowable Salmonella positives for that product class in that window. Any establishment with more than the minimum number of allowable Salmonella positives for that product class in a 52-week window would be categorized as Category 3 (outlined below), regardless of the number of samples collected/analyzed in that window.

Should FSIS move forward with finalizing the proposed pathogen reduction performance standards for Salmonella in raw comminuted pork and raw intact or non-intact pork cuts, FSIS would announce the final standards and the sample dates FSIS will use to assess whether establishments meet the standards in a subsequent Federal Register notice. About one year after FSIS starts assessing whether establishments meet the standards, FSIS would determine individual establishment performance based on the last 52 FSIS Salmonella sample results and then report on the FSIS website the category of each establishment subject to the performance standard using the following criteria:

• Category 1: Establishments with 50% or less of the allowable number of positive Salmonella sample results for that product class during the most recent 52-week window, based on the last 52 FSIS Salmonella sample results.

• Category 2: Establishments with greater than 50% but not more than the allowable number of positive Salmonella sample results for that product class during the most recent 52-week window, based on the last 52 FSIS Salmonella sample results.

• Category 3: Establishments with more than the allowable number of positive Salmonella sample results for that product class during the most recent 52-week window, based on the last 52 FSIS Salmonella sample results.

During the period after FSIS begins to make performance assessments based on the proposed standards, and before the performance standards are implemented, FSIS intends to make available monthly aggregate information relative to status ( i.e., Category 1, Category 2, or Category 3 ) for all establishments subject to sampling under the final performance standards, using the most recent FSIS Salmonella sample results. This information will be aggregated and will not identify any specific establishment. FSIS would make this information available to give industry and other stakeholders timely information about progress being made to reduce Salmonella contamination in raw comminuted pork and raw intact or non-intact pork cuts.

An establishment that does not meet a pathogen reduction performance standard or produces product that has been associated with an outbreak may not have adequately addressed the food safety hazard, Salmonella, in its HACCP system. If the establishment considers Salmonella reasonably likely to occur and addresses Salmonella in its HACCP plan, it must take corrective actions as required in 9 CFR 417.3(a). If the establishment considers Salmonella not reasonably likely to occur, it must take corrective actions and reassess its HACCP plan for that product to determine whether the plan needs to be modified to address Salmonella as a hazard reasonably likely to occur (9 CFR 417.3(b)). To maintain an adequate HACCP system, the establishment may need to address the pathogen Salmonella in its HACCP plan, rather than through Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (Sanitation SOPs) or another prerequisite program. Corrective actions taken in response to exceeding a pathogen reduction performance standard would need to be documented in records subject to verification by FSIS as required in 9 CFR 417.3(c)).

When a pork establishment does not meet a Salmonella performance standard ( i.e., when the number of positive samples within a specified timeframe exceeds the number of allowable positives for that product class), FSIS may conduct follow-up sampling after the establishment is categorized as Category 3 to verify the adequacy of corrective actions taken by the establishment. The follow-up samples would not count towards the samples collected as part of the moving window procedure for assessing whether the establishment meets the standard. Follow-up sampling for establishments that do not meet the raw comminuted pork and/or raw pork cuts performance standard for an extended period of time, or that fluctuate between meeting or not meeting one or both of these performance standards, would occur at a frequency determined by FSIS. 20

In addition, FSIS may conduct a Public Health Risk Evaluation (PHRE), a decision-making process that is used by Agency enforcement and investigation personnel, for any pork establishment that (a) does not meet a Salmonella pathogen reduction performance standard; (b) has produced products with repetitive Salmonella serotypes of public health concern  21 or repetitive antibiotic-resistant Salmonella; and/or (c) has Salmonella whole-genome sequencing (WGS) matching those found in recent outbreaks or epidemiologically linked to illnesses (see FSIS Directive 5100.4 at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/6c30c8b0-ab6a-4a3c-bd87-fbce9bd71001/5100.4.pdf?MOD=AJPERES ). FSIS would use the results of the PHRE to determine whether to schedule a Food Safety Assessment (FSA)  22 at the establishment.

As explained above, and also consistent with existing FSIS practices, 23 after notifying a pork establishment that it is in Category 3 (has not met a pathogen reduction performance standard), FSIS would conduct an assessment of the establishment's HACCP plan and Sanitation SOPs, through a PHRE and possible subsequent FSA, focusing on the establishment's corrective actions, HACCP plan reassessment (if applicable), and the effectiveness of the establishment's system for controlling Salmonella in raw pork products. In addition, when necessary, FSIS would develop a plan to verify whether the establishment implemented corrective actions. If, after 120 days from not meeting the standard, the establishment has not been able to demonstrate reduced variability of process control, as determined from FSIS' follow-up and routine sampling and in some cases from the results of a PHRE or an FSA, and the establishment has not taken corrective actions, FSIS would likely take an enforcement action, such as issuing a Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE) or suspending inspection, under the conditions and according to the procedures described in 9 CFR part 500. FSIS would not issue an NOIE or suspend inspection based solely on the fact that an establishment did not meet a pathogen reduction performance standard for Salmonella .

Although establishments producing less than or equal to 6,000 pounds per day of raw comminuted pork and/or less than or equal to 50,000 pounds per day of raw intact or non-intact pork cuts would not be subject to the proposed performance standards, FSIS may initiate follow-up sampling and/or conduct a PHRE or a FSA in these establishments when there is evidence of a high level of Salmonella contamination and for any of the reasons listed above, other than failing to meet the performance standard.

Establishments producing less than or equal to 1,000 pounds per day would not be sampled and are not eligible for performance standards. However, recognizing that establishments producing greater than 1,000 pounds per day but less than or equal to 6,000 pounds per day of raw comminuted pork, and greater than 1,000 pounds per day but less than or equal to 50,000 pounds per day of raw intact or non-intact pork cuts, would not be subject to the proposed performance standards, FSIS would continue the current sampling program discussed above to monitor this population of lower volume establishments. 24 FSIS would sample and test product from these establishments at a yearly rate that would allow the Agency to determine whether there has been a significant change in Salmonella prevalence at these establishments by +/−5 percent. FSIS would review changes in prevalence over time in aggregate for this population of establishments and determine whether it is improving. If not, FSIS may increase sampling at that volume class in order to assess what is happening at the establishment level.

As previously announced in a 2012 Federal Register notice on Agency verification procedures, if any livestock establishment produces product associated with a Salmonella illness outbreak identified through epidemiological and/or traceback investigations, FSIS likely will consider the product to be adulterated under 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(3) because the product is “unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food” (77 FR at 72689; Dec. 6, 2012). In such cases, the Agency would request that the establishment recall the product if it is still in commerce. Additionally, in such situations, even if the establishment is meeting a Salmonella performance standard, FSIS will scrutinize its corrective actions closely and may conduct an Incident Investigation Team review (see FSIS Directive 5500.3 at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf3095f8-c6aa-4ed7-b819-45668c05c44b/5500.3.pdf?MOD=AJPERES ).

FSIS monitors relevant databases ( e.g., those maintained by the CDC and the National Institutes of Health) for clinical isolates  25 that match (via WGS) food isolates obtained by FSIS in its sampling of products produced by official establishments. This monitoring gives FSIS early warning that an outbreak involving an establishment's product could be developing. FSIS may alert its public health partners if it appears there are human illness (clinical isolates) and food isolate matches indicating a potential emerging outbreak. In such situations, FSIS may also collect distribution information ( e.g., the consignee list) for product produced, so as to focus its attention on the geographic area in which the affected product was distributed.

FSIS has considered the economic effects of the proposed pathogen reduction performance standards for Salmonella in raw comminuted pork and raw intact or non-intact pork cuts. The full analysis is published on the FSIS website as supporting documentation to this notice ([insert link]). FSIS is seeking comment on the information and assumptions used in the cost-benefit analysis. A summary of the analysis follows.

FSIS predicts that approximately 44 percent of the medium and higher-volume raw comminuted pork establishments (about 61 establishments) and 39 percent of the higher-volume intact or non-intact pork cuts establishments (about 15 establishments) would not initially meet the standards. Establishments meeting the performance standards would not have any cost associated with these standards. In order to ensure their HACCP systems are functioning correctly, establishments not meeting the performance standards would incur cost associated with a HACCP plan reassessment and possibly with an Agency Food Safety Assessment (FSA), the associated primary industry costs being $18,203 and $1,361, respectively, annualized at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years.

Establishments that initially do not meet the proposed standards but aspire to do so, would incur additional cost. For those establishments initially not meeting the performance standards, FSIS assumes approximately 45 percent would start making changes after one year and eventually would meet the standards in two years by making changes to their production process. Based on available information, FSIS expects that these establishments would most likely add antimicrobial interventions and equipment to their production process to meet the performance standard, with an associated primary cost of $1,236,391, annualized at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years. These establishments may also add Salmonella testing to their existing sampling program or start Salmonella sampling and testing, with an associated primary cost of $122,451, annualized at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years. These establishments would also likely validate their HACCP plans, and/or conduct training, with an associated total primary industry cost of $114,903 and $11,097, annualized at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years, respectively.

Total industry cost ranges from $1,163,796 to $1,842,518, with a primary estimate of $1,504,406, annualized at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years, table 2. The majority of these costs are associated with antimicrobial equipment maintenance and labor incurred by establishments that initially do not meet the performance standards but attempt to meet the standards. Establishments that meet the performance standards would incur minimal cost associated with lost product due to FSIS Salmonella sampling.

The raw comminuted pork and raw intact or non-intact performance standards would require FSIS sampling, which would incur Agency cost for follow-up sampling. FSIS estimates that total sampling for the performance standards, including follow-up sampling and lower-volume sampling, would be 12,232 samples. However, in 2021 FSIS planned for 8,640 raw comminuted pork Salmonella samples and 2,400 raw intact or non-intact pork cuts samples for a total of 11,040 samples  26 for the Raw Pork Sampling Program. 27 The raw comminuted pork and raw intact or non-intact performance standards would replace the Raw Pork Sampling Program, leading to a net increase of 1,192 samples, which are attributed to follow-up sampling. The primary cost estimate for the additional 1,192 follow-up samples is $81,508, annualized at the 7 percent discount rate over ten years.

FSIS would also incur costs from PHREs and FSAs. Pork establishments that do not meet the Salmonella pathogen reduction performance standards would be prioritized for a PHRE. A portion of the establishments that receive a PHRE would also have an FSA. 28 The combined PHRE and FSA primary cost estimate is $20,988, annualized at the 7 percent over 10 years.

The total Agency cost for follow-up sampling, PHREs and FSAs ranges from $0.06 million to $0.18 million, with a primary estimate of $0.10 million, annualized at the 7 percent over 10 years, table 2.

As pork establishments subject to the proposed performance standards make changes to their production processes and reduce the prevalence of Salmonella in raw comminuted pork and intact or non-intact pork cuts, public health benefits would be realized in the form of averted illnesses. The Agency's policy of web-posting establishments' process control performance may stimulate improvement in industry performance. FSIS data show that sharing this information provides an incentive for establishments to further reduce Salmonella levels, which is necessary to reduce foodborne illness due to salmonellosis and protect consumers. For instance, in the poultry industry, after the Agency's announcement in 2006 that it was considering posting the names of broiler and turkey slaughter establishments with their respective performance standard categories based on Salmonella verification testing, the number of broiler slaughter establishments that had been in Category 3 decreased by 55 percent. 29 As discussed in the 2020 Risk Assessment, FSIS estimated the annual Salmonella foodborne illnesses associated with pork products. FSIS then estimated the number of annual illnesses attributed to products subject to the updated or new performance standards. Finally, FSIS estimated the number of illnesses averted if 45 percent of the establishments that do not initially meet the standards, meet the standards over the course of two years. Additionally, FSIS estimated the cost savings associated with the percentage reduction in human illnesses as calculated in the 2020 Risk Assessment. The estimated public health benefits from the illnesses averted because of the proposed Salmonella pork performance standards ranges from $49.09 million to $203.24 million, with a primary estimate of $107.94 million, annualized at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years, table 2.

FSIS expects that industry would benefit from reduced outbreak-related recalls. The negative impacts of recalls on industry include the loss of sales revenue, the loss of consumer confidence and consumers shifting away from meat products. 30 Recalls negatively impact consumers by creating anxiety and time-consuming inconveniences ( e.g., looking for recall information, checking the products purchased, returning or disposing of products identified by the recalls, and so on). FSIS expects the proposed raw comminuted pork and intact or non-intact pork cuts performance standards would lead to fewer contaminated products, because of industry actions taken to reduce Salmonella in these products to meet the proposed performance standards. The reduction in Salmonella would result in less exposure to Salmonella for consumers that eat pork products and fewer illnesses, outbreaks, and recalls.

Table 2 displays the total costs and benefits expected from the implementation of the performance standards for raw comminuted pork and raw intact or non-intact pork cuts establishments. There would be 138 establishments subject to the raw comminuted pork performance standard and 38 establishments subject to the intact or non-intact pork cuts performance standard. These establishments represent 96 and 91 percent of total production volume, respectively. The proposed performance standards would lead to industry cost for these establishments and FSIS would incur Agency cost implementing these standards. Benefits would occur once establishments who initially do not meet the standard make changes to meet the performance standards. The net benefits are the public health benefits minus the industry and agency cost. The estimated net benefits associated with the proposed Salmonella pork performance standards range from $47.87 million to $201.22 million, with a primary estimate of $106.33 million, annualized at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years, table 2.

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

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication online through the FSIS web page located at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will announce and provide a link to it through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

This notice has been determined to be not significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

The affected programs are listed in the Assistance Listings ( https://beta.sam.gov/ ) under No. 10.553, No. 10.555, No. 10.556, No. 10.558, and No. 10.559 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR part 415).

Pursuant to sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 1766(c)(4)), and sections 3(a)(6) and 4(e)(1)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772(a)(6) and 1773(e)(1)(A)), the Department annually issues the Income Eligibility Guidelines for free and reduced price meals for the National School Lunch Program (7 CFR part 210), the Commodity School Program (7 CFR part 210), School Breakfast Program (7 CFR part 220), Summer Food Service Program (7 CFR part 225) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR part 226) and the guidelines for free milk in the Special Milk Program for Children (7 CFR part 215). These eligibility guidelines are based on the Federal income poverty guidelines and are stated by household size. The guidelines are used to determine eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk in accordance with applicable program rules.

In accordance with the Department's policy as provided in the Food and Nutrition Service publication Eligibility Manual for School Meals, “income,” as the term is used in this notice, means income before any deductions such as income taxes, Social Security taxes, insurance premiums, charitable contributions, and bonds. It includes the following: (1) Monetary compensation for services, including wages, salary, commissions or fees; (2) net income from nonfarm self-employment; (3) net income from farm self-employment; (4) Social Security; (5) dividends or interest on savings or bonds or income from estates or trusts; (6) net rental income; (7) public assistance or welfare payments; (8) unemployment compensation; (9) government civilian employee or military retirement, or pensions or veterans payments; (10) private pensions or annuities; (11) alimony or child support payments; (12) regular contributions from persons not living in the household; (13) net royalties; and (14) other cash income. Other cash income would include cash amounts received or withdrawn from any source including savings, investments, trust accounts and other resources that would be available to pay the price of a child's meal.

“Income”, as the term is used in this notice, does not include any income or benefits received under any Federal programs that are excluded from consideration as income by any statutory prohibition. Furthermore, the value of meals or milk to children shall not be considered as income to their households for other benefit programs in accordance with the prohibitions in section 12(e) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and section 11(b) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1760(e) and 1780(b)).

The following are the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be effective from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. The Department's guidelines for free meals and milk and reduced price meals were obtained by multiplying the year 2022 Federal income poverty guidelines by 1.30 and 1.85, respectively, and by rounding the result upward to the next whole dollar.

This notice displays only the annual Federal poverty guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services because the monthly and weekly Federal poverty guidelines are not used to determine the Income Eligibility Guidelines. The chart details the free and reduced price eligibility criteria for monthly income, income received twice monthly (24 payments per year); income received every two weeks (26 payments per year) and weekly income.

Income calculations are made based on the following formulas: Monthly income is calculated by dividing the annual income by 12; twice monthly income is computed by dividing annual income by 24; income received every two weeks is calculated by dividing annual income by 26; and weekly income is computed by dividing annual income by 52. All numbers are rounded upward to the next whole dollar. The numbers reflected in this notice for a family of four in the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, Guam and the territories represent an increase of 4.7 percent over last year's level for a family of the same size.

Authority: Section 9(b)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1)(A)).

Title: Land Exchanges.

OMB Number: 0596-0105.

Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2022.

Type of Request: Extension without revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Land exchanges are discretionary, voluntary real estate transactions between the Secretary of Agriculture (acting by and through the Forest Service) and a non-Federal exchange party (or parties). Land exchanges can be initiated by a non-Federal party (or parties), an agent of a landowner, a broker, a third party, or a non-Federal public agency.

Each land exchange requires preparation of an Agreement to Initiate as required by title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 254, subpart A—section 254.4—Agreement to Initiate. The Agreement to Initiate document specifies the preliminary and non-binding intentions of the non-Federal land exchange party and the Forest Service in pursuing a land exchange. The Agreement to Initiate can contain such information as the description of properties being considered in the land exchange, an implementation schedule of action items, identification of the party responsible for each action item, as well as target dates for completion of each action item.

As the exchange proposal develops, the Forest Service and the non-Federal land exchange party may enter into a binding Exchange Agreement, pursuant to Title 36 CFR part 254, subpart A, section 254.14—Exchange Agreement. The Exchange Agreement documents the conditions that must be met to complete the exchange. The Exchange Agreement can contain information such as identification of parties, description of lands and interests to be exchanged, identification of all reserved and outstanding interest, and all other terms and conditions necessary to complete the exchange.

The Forest Service collects the information from the non-Federal party (or parties) necessary to complete the Agreement to Initiate and the Exchange Agreement. The information is collected by Forest Service personnel from parties involved in the exchange via telephone, email or in person. Data from this information collection is unique to each land exchange and is not available from other sources. No standardized forms are associated with this information collection.

Agreement to Initiate: 3 hours.

Exchange Agreement: 1 hour.

Type of Respondents: Non-Federal party (or parties) that can include landowners, agents of landowners, brokers, a third party or a non-Federal public agency.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 25.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.826.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 88.

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

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

Title: Fire & Aviation Management Medical Qualifications Program.

OMB Number: 0596-0164.

Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2022.

Type of Request: Renewal with revisions of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The Protection Act of 1922 (16 U.S.C. 594) authorizes the Forest Service to fight fires on National Forest System lands. This information collection is an approved Forest Service collection. The collection covers the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior and contains the information collection activities and burden hours for both agencies.

Wildland firefighters perform long hours of arduous labor in adverse environmental conditions. It is imperative that these firefighters be in sufficient physical condition to avoid injury to themselves or their coworkers. Federal employees and private individuals seeking employment as a firefighter with the Forest Service, or the Department of Interior complete the health capability forms. This information collection covers the forms and burden hours associated with the private individuals who apply for firefighter positions with the aforementioned agencies.

Form FS-5100-30, Work Capacity Test—Informed Consent. The form is signed by those deemed to be in sufficient health to undergo a Work Capacity Test. The Work Capacity Test determines the level of an individual's aerobic fitness, level of muscular strength, and muscle endurance. The consent form is necessary to ensure the individual taking the test is aware of the various testing levels (arduous, moderate, and light) and the risks involved. The individual indicates the following:

• They have read the information on the form, the brochure “Work Capacity Test” and understand the purpose, instructions, and risks of the test;

• They have read the information, understood, and truthfully answered the Health Screen Questionnaire; and

• Test to be taken—pack test (arduous), field test (moderate), or walk test (light).

Failure to collect this data could result in injuries or deaths during the “Work Capacity Test” and while working on wildland fires. The information provided by an applicant for Federal employment is stored in secured electronic official files, maintained according to Agency regulations. The information gathered is not available from other sources.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 5.5 Minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 20,504.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondents: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,845 hours.

Form FS-5100-31, Health Screening Questionnaire. Prospective fire personnel must complete this form when seeking employment as new fire personnel with the Forest Service or Department of the Interior. This form collects the following information:

The information collected pertains to an individual's health status and health history in an effort to determine if any physical conditions exist that might result in injury or death during fitness testing or when fighting a wildfire. If Federal Agency officials determine, based on the collected information, that an individual may not be physically able to train for or take a Work Capacity Test; the agency will require the individual to undergo a physical examination by a physician.

Failure to collect this data could result in injuries or deaths during the “Work Capacity Test” and while working on wildland fires. The information provided by an applicant for Federal employment is stored in secured electronic official files, maintained according to Agency regulations. The information gathered is not available from other sources.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 10 Minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 20,504.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondents: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,417 hours.

Form FS-5100-41, USFS Wildland Firefighter Medical Qualifications Program Physical Exam. Federal employees and private individuals seeking employment as a firefighter with the Forest Service will complete the form every three years (years 0, 3, 6, etc.). The form collects the following information:

The information collected pertains to an individual's health status and health history in an effort to determine if any medical or physical conditions exist that might result in injury or death during fitness testing or when fighting a wildfire. If Federal Agency officials determine, based on the collected information, that an individual may not be medically or physically able to train for or take a Work Capacity Test or meet the Medical Standards of arduous duty fire positions, the individual may request a waiver.

The information provided by a firefighter for Federal employment is stored in secured official files, maintained according to Agency regulations. The information gathered is not available from other sources.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 2 to 3 hours.

Type of Respondents: Individuals.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 10,252.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondents: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 20,504-30,756 hours.

Form FS-5100-42, Self-Certification Statement and Blood Pressure Check. Federal employees and private individuals seeking employment as a firefighter with the Forest Service will complete the form the years in which the individual does not complete an Arduous Duty Examination. The form collects the following information:

The information collected pertains to an individual's health status and health history in an effort to determine if any medical or physical conditions exist that might result in injury or death during fitness testing or when fighting a wildfire. If Federal Agency officials determine, based on the collected information, that an individual may not be medically or physically able to train for or take a Work Capacity Test or meet the Medical Standards of arduous duty fire positions, the individual may request a waiver.

The information provided by a firefighter for Federal employment is stored in secured official files, maintained according to Agency regulations. The information gathered is not available from other sources.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 10 Minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 10,252.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondents: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,709 hours.

TOTAL Estimate of Annual Burden: 145.5-205.5 Minutes.

TOTAL Type of Respondents: Individuals.

TOTAL Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 20,504.

TOTAL Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondents: 1.

TOTAL Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 27,475-30,756 hours.

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

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

Committee meetings are available to the public through the meeting link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. 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 the conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email ero@usccr.gov at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Sarah Villanueva at svillanueva@usccr.gov . Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (310) 464-7102.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, South Carolina Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at the above email or street address.

On August 17, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited interested parties to comment. 1 These final results cover 20 companies for which an administrative review was initiated and not rescinded. The sole mandatory respondent in this administrative review is Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan Mannesmann) and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (Istikbal) (collectively, Borusan). 2 The producers/exporters not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice. On September 30, 2021, Borusan and Wheatland Tube Company (Wheatland), petitioner, submitted their case briefs. 3 On October 12, 2021, Borusan and Wheatland submitted their rebuttal briefs. 4 On November 23, 2021, we extended the deadline for the final results by 58 days to February 11, 2021. 5 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The scope of the Order covers circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 7

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

Based on our analysis of the comments received, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes from the Preliminary Results.

In the Preliminary Results, we found that the following thirteen companies made no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR: (1) Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.; (2) Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S.; (3) Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S.; (4) Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.; (5) Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S.; (6) Yucelboru Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.S.; (7) Cinar Boru Profil San Ve Tic. AS; (8) Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.; (9) Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic; (10) Borusan Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S.; (11) Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S.; (12) Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation; and (13) Borusan Ithicat ve Dagitim A.S. No parties commented on this determination. For the final results of review, we continue to find that these companies made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

With respect to Istikbal, one of the companies that certified no shipments during the POR, we continue to find Istikbal to be part of the single entity, Borusan, and we find no record evidence that warrants altering this treatment. Therefore, because we find that Borusan had shipments during this POR, we have not made a determination of no shipments with respect to Istikbal.

For these final results, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period May 1, 2019, through April 30, 2020:

For the rate for non-selected respondents in an administrative review, 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. 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 segment of the proceeding, we calculated a margin for Borusan that was not zero, de minimis, or based on facts available. Accordingly, in the instant review, we have applied the margin calculated for Borusan to the non-individually examined respondents.

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

Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For Borusan, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the entries by that importer will be liquidated without regard to antidumping duties. For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Borusan for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 8 For the companies identified above that were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the rates established in these final results of review.

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

The following cash deposit requirements for estimated antidumping duties will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies subject to this review will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 14.74 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation of this proceeding. 9 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

The following listed species are covered in this notice:

Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): Threatened Lower Columbia River (LCR); threatened Puget Sound (PS); threatened Snake River (SnkR) spring/summer-run (spr/sum); threatened SnkR fall-run; endangered Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run; threatened Upper Willamette River (UWR); threatened Central Valley spring-run (CVS); endangered Sacramento River (SacR) winter-run; threatened California Coastal (CC).

Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): Threatened LCR; threatened Middle Columbia River (MCR); threatened PS; threatened SnkR; threatened UCR; threatened UWR; threatened Northern California (NC); threatened Central California Coast (CCC); threatened California Central Valley (CCV); threatened South-Central California Coast (SCCC); endangered Southern California (SC).

Chum salmon ( O. keta ): Threatened Hood Canal Summer-run (HCS), threatened Columbia River (CR).

Coho salmon ( O. kisutch ): Threatened LCR; threatened Oregon Coast (OC) coho; threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC), endangered Central California Coast (CCC).

Sockeye salmon ( O. nerka ): Endangered SnkR; threatened Ozette Lake (OL).

Eulachon ( Thaleichthys pacificus ): Threatened southern distinct population segment (SDPS).

Green sturgeon ( Acipenser medirostris ): Threatened SDPS.

Rockfish ( Sebastes spp. ): Endangered Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB).

Bocaccio ( Sebastes paucispinis ); threatened PS/GB yelloweye rockfish ( S. ruberrimus ).

Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are seeking to modify a permit that for more than two decades has allowed them to annually take listed SnkR Chinook salmon and steelhead while conducting research designed to (1) monitor adult and juvenile fish in key upper Snake River subbasin watersheds, (2) assess the utility of hatchery Chinook salmon in increasing natural populations in the Salmon River, and (3) evaluate the genetic and ecological impacts hatchery Chinook salmon may have on natural populations. The modification would involve increasing the number of adult spr/sum Chinook the Tribes may observe and handle by permitting them to work at a currently unused weir in the East Fork Salmon River (Idaho). The modification would also involve greatly decreasing the number of juvenile salmon the Tribes capture and sample in the Yankee Fork of the Salmon River. The fish would continue to benefit from the research in two primary ways. First, the research would broadly be used to help guide restoration and recovery efforts throughout the Snake River basin. Second, the research would be used to analyze how hatchery supplementation can be used as a tool for salmon recovery.

The researchers would use screw traps, weirs, electrofishing, and hook-and-line angling gear to capture the listed fish. Once captured, the fish would undergo various sampling, tagging, and handling regimes, after which they would be allowed to recover and released. Some tissue samples would be taken from adult fish carcasses, and the researchers would conduct some snorkeling surveys and redd counts. In all cases, trained crews would conduct the operations and no adult salmonids would be electrofished. All activities would take place in the Salmon River subbasin. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the fish they capture, but some may die as an unintended result of the research.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is seeking to renew a permit that for more than 20 years has authorized them to take juvenile LCR steelhead in the Wind River subbasin (Washington). The purpose of the study is to provide information on LCR steelhead growth, survival, habitat use, and life histories. This information would improve understanding of habitat associations and life history strategies for LCR steelhead in the Wind River and that, in turn, would help state, tribal, and Federal efforts to restore LCR steelhead. The USGS proposes to capture juvenile LCR steelhead using backpack electrofishing equipment, hold the fish in buckets of aerated water, anesthetize them with MS-222, measure their length and weight, tag age-0 and age-1 fish with passive integrated transponders (PIT-tags), and release all fish at the site of collection after they recover from anesthesia. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish but a small number may die as an unintended result of research activities.

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to take juvenile LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, and LCR and MCR steelhead in the Cowlitz River subbasin (Lewis, Cowlitz, and Washougal Rivers) and middle Columbia-Hood subbasin (Wind, Little White Salmon, and Big White Salmon Rivers) in Washington State. The purpose of this research is to describe fish species presence, distribution, spawning areas, and habitat conditions on lands that the GPNF administers. The GPNF and other agencies would use that information in forest management, habitat restoration, and species recovery efforts. The GPNF proposes to use backpack electrofishing and seines to capture juvenile salmonids, hold them for short periods in buckets of aerated water, identify them, and then release them at the site where they were captured. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of research activities.

The Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) under the authority of the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is seeking to renew for 5 years its permit to annually take adult and juvenile SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon and SnkR steelhead while conducting research in a number of the tributaries to the Imnaha River (Cow, Lightning, Horse, Big Sheep, Camp, Little Sheep, Freezeout, Grouse, Crazyman, Mahogany, and Gumboot Creeks), the Grande Ronde River (Joseph Creek, Wenaha and Minam rivers), the Clearwater River (South Fork Clearwater River and Lolo Creek), and the Snake River (Lower Granite Dam adult trap). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde Rivers are in northeastern Oregon, the Clearwater River is in Idaho, and the work in the Snake River would take place in Washington. The renewed permit would allow the NPT to continue work they have been conducting for over 2 decades.

The purpose of the research is to acquire information on the status (escapement abundance, genetic structure, life history traits) of juvenile and adult steelhead in the Imnaha, Grande Ronde, and Clearwater River basins. The research would benefit the listed species by providing status information that fishery managers may use to determine whether recovery actions are helping increase wild Snake River salmonid populations. Baseline information on steelhead populations in the Imnaha, Grande Ronde, and Clearwater River basins would also be used to help guide future management actions. Adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead would be observed, handled, and marked. The researchers would use temporary/portable picket and resistance board weirs and rotary screw traps to capture the fish and would then sample them for biological information (fin tissue and scale samples). They may also mark some of the fish with opercule punches, fin clips, dyes, and PIT, floy, and/or Tyvek disk tags. Adult steelhead carcasses would also be collected and sampled. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are seeking to renew for 5 years their permit to take SnkR sockeye salmon and SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon while conducting research designed to estimate their overwinter survival and downstream migration survival and timing. The researchers would also conduct limnological studies on Petit and Alturas Lakes (Idaho) and monitor sockeye rearing. This research—which has been conducted every year since 1996—would continue to provide information on the relative success of the Pettit and Alturas Lakes sockeye salmon reintroduction programs and thereby benefit the listed fish by improving those programs.

Juvenile SR sockeye salmon, spr/sum Chinook salmon, and steelhead would be collected using rotary screw traps and weirs. The fish would be sampled for biological information and released or tagged with passive integrated transponders and released. In addition, to determine trap efficiencies, a portion of the tagged juvenile SnkR sockeye salmon would then be released upstream of the traps, captured at the traps a second time, and re-released. Adult fish may be trapped as well if any are released above Sawtooth Fish Hatchery (run by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game); these fish would be tissue-sampled and then immediately released above a temporary weir to spawn in Petit Lake. The Tribes do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, and PS steelhead. The WDFW administers a multitude of water bodies through the state of Washington, and this permit would cover their work throughout Puget Sound and the Lower Columbia River basin. The purpose of the warmwater fish surveys is to assess stocks of inland game fish communities and thereby improve fishery management. The research would benefit salmonids by helping managers write warmwater fish species harvest regulations in a manner that would reduce potential impacts on listed salmonids. The WDFW proposes capturing fish using boat electrofishing, fyke nets, and gillnets. After being captured, the listed salmon and steelhead would be placed in aerated live wells, identified, and immediately released before other species are processed. The researchers would avoid salmonids and do not propose to kill any, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The CRITFC is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to take adult and juvenile UCR steelhead and Chinook while conducting research designed to (1) increase what we know about the status and productivity of various fish populations, (2) collect data on migratory and exploitation (harvest) patterns, and (3) develop baseline information on various population and habitat parameters in order to guide salmonid restoration strategies. Much of the work in the permit has been conducted for nearly 20 years—first under permit 1134, and then under seven previous versions of 1379. The permit would comprise three studies: Project 1—Juvenile Upriver Bright Fall Chinook Sampling at the Hanford Reach; Project 2—Adult Sockeye Sampling at Tumwater and Wells Dams; and Project 3—Acoustic trawl survey for Lake Wenatchee juvenile sockeye salmon.

The research, as a whole, would benefit listed fish by helping managers set in-river and ocean harvest regimes so that they have minimal impacts on listed salmonid populations. It would also help managers prioritize projects in a way that gives maximum benefit to listed species—including projects designed to help the listed fish recover. The researchers would use beach- and stick seines to capture and tag juvenile fish in the Hanford reach of the Columbia River and capture fish during mid-water trawls in Lake Wenatchee (Washington). Those fish that are not immediately released upon capture would be transported to a holding facility where they would be anesthetized, examined for marks, adipose-clipped, coded wire tagged, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers would also collect, anesthetize, tissue-sample, and tag adult salmonids at Priest Rapids and Wells Dams in Washington State. The CRITFC researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon, SnkR fall-run Chinook salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, CR chum salmon, LCR coho salmon, OL sockeye salmon, SnkR sockeye salmon, LCR steelhead, PS steelhead, MCR steelhead, SnkR steelhead, and UCR steelhead. The purpose of the research is to investigate the occurrence and concentrations of toxic contaminants in non-anadromous freshwater fish tissue, sediment, and water at sites all across Washington. The WDOE conducts this research in order to meet Federal and state regulatory requirements. This research would benefit listed species by identifying toxic contaminants in resident and prey fish and thereby inform pollution control actions. The WDOE proposes to capture fish using various methods including backpack and boat electrofishing, beach seining, block, fyke, and gill netting, and angling. All captured salmon and steelhead would either be released immediately or held temporarily in an aerated live well to help them recover before release. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish but a small number may die as an unintended result of research activities.

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to modify a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult CVS, LCR, PS, SacR winter-run, SnkR fall-run, SnkR spr/sum, UCR, and UWR Chinook salmon; CR chum salmon; LCR, OC, and SONCC coho salmon; SnkR sockeye salmon; and LCR, MCR, SnkR basin, UCR, and UWR steelhead while conducting a study of the Columbia River plume and the surrounding ocean environment off the coasts of Oregon and Washington. The NWFSC research may also cause them to take SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The modification would largely entail increasing take for some species ( e.g., juvenile SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon) and decreasing take for other species ( e.g., SnkR Fall Chinook salmon). The purposes of the research are to (1) determine the abundance, distribution, growth, and condition of juvenile Columbia River salmonids in the river's plume and characterize its physical and biological features as they relate to salmonid survival; (2) determine the impact that predators and food supply have on survival among juvenile Columbia River Chinook and coho salmon as they migrate through the Columbia River estuary and plume; and (3) synthesize the early ocean ecology of juvenile Columbia River salmonids, test mechanisms that control salmonid growth and survival, and produce ecological indices that forecast salmonid survival.

The research would benefit the affected species by (1) providing data to improve understanding of how the ocean and Columbia River plume conditions affect juvenile salmonids, (2) helping predict how changing ocean conditions would affect salmonid growth and survival, and (3) helping improve salmon management actions in relation to river, plume, and ocean conditions. This study would work in conjunction with another NWFSC study (permit 22369-2M) by capturing salmonids using a different capture method at deeper locations. The NWFSC proposes to capture fish using a surface trawl, which can cause lethal crushing and descaling injuries to juvenile salmonids and eulachon. Juvenile salmonids would be identified to species, measured for length, and frozen for further analysis ( i.e. weight, growth, genetics, diet (stomach contents), parasites, pathogens, and physiological condition). Adult salmonids would be held in an aerated livewell, identified to species, measured for length, checked for tags and marks, and released. Eulachon would either be returned to the capture location or retained for further scientific research activities at the NWFSC. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed adult salmonids, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile threatened SnkR steelhead, threatened SnkR fall Chinook salmon, threatened SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon, and endangered SnkR sockeye salmon during the course of two research projects designed to ascertain the condition of many Idaho streams. The purposes of the research are to (a) determine whether aquatic life is being properly supported in Idaho's rivers, streams, and lakes, and (b) assess the overall condition of Idaho's surface waters. The fish would benefit from the research because the data it produces would be used to inform decisions about how and where to protect and improve water quality in the state. The researchers would use backpack- and boat electrofishing equipment to capture the fish. They would then be weighed and measured (some may be anesthetized to limit stress) and released. The IDEQ does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The University of Washington (UW) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile natural- and hatchery-origin PS Chinook and steelhead while conducting research designed to monitor the success of habitat restoration projects in the Duwamish River estuary. The goal of these projects is to understand changes in population characteristics among Chinook salmon in response to restoration actions. The habitat restoration work is conducted in association with several entities including King County, the City of Seattle, Long Live the Kings, and Vigor Shipyards. The researchers propose to capture fish using enclosure nets and beach seines. Juvenile salmon and steelhead would be handled (anesthetized, weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. Juvenile steelhead and a subsample of Chinook salmon captured may have their stomach contents non-lethally sampled via gastric lavage. The UW researchers do not propose to kill any listed animals as part of this project, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The NWFSC is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile, subadult, and adult PS Chinook salmon, and juvenile PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, and Bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish. The purpose of the work is to characterize how wild juvenile PS Chinook salmon and various forage fish species use nearshore habitats in the oceanographic basins of the Puget Sound, the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and the San Juan Islands in Washington State. The permit would also allow the researchers to take adult SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The goals of this project are to help managers develop protection and restoration strategies and monitor the effects of recovery actions. To accomplish this, the proposed work would help researchers (a) determine if nearshore populations are increasing or decreasing; and (b) establish baseline abundance, composition, and genetic structure metrics for nearshore populations throughout the Puget Sound. The researchers propose to capture fish using beach seines, Nordic surface trawls, and hook-and-line sampling. Juvenile salmon and steelhead would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. A subset of juvenile Chinook salmon would have fin clip samples collected. Adult Chinook salmon may have fin clip or scale samples collected. Captured rockfish, eulachon, and steelhead would be handled and released. A small subset of juvenile Chinook salmon would be lethally sacrificed for contaminant, otolith, and stomach content analyses. Any fish found dead at the time of capture or unintentionally killed during sampling would be used in place of fish that would otherwise be intentionally sacrificed. Aside from the subset to be lethally sampled, the NWFSC does not propose to kill any fish being captured as part of this project—though a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The USGS's Western Fisheries Research Center is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, juvenile PS steelhead, and juvenile HCS chum salmon while conducting two research projects designed to explore the influence of large river deltas on nearshore ecosystem processes and the impacts urbanization has on such processes in the Puget Sound, Washington. The permit would also allow the researchers to take adult SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The goals of this work are to understand physio-chemical processes related to nearshore habitat changes that alter trophic webs, community dynamics, and forage fish populations. This information, in turn, would benefit listed fish by helping managers better grasp the processes and considerations critical to understanding (and thereby mitigating) human impacts on nearshore salmonid habitats.

The researchers propose to capture fish using lampara seines, dip nets, beach seines, gill nets, and hook-and-line sampling, and would only target forage fish species ( i.e., sand lance, surf smelt, and Pacific herring). Though this study does not target ESA-listed species, some may be unintentionally captured as part of this work. Any such fish would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags) and released near their capture location. The USGS does not propose to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon, SnkR fall-run Chinook salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, CR chum salmon, LCR coho salmon, OL sockeye salmon, SnkR sockeye salmon, LCR steelhead, PS steelhead, MCR steelhead, SnkR steelhead, and UCR steelhead. The WSDOT research may also cause them to take SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sample sites would be located throughout the state of Washington. The purpose of the study is to determine the distribution and diversity of anadromous fish species in waterbodies crossed by or adjacent to the state transportation systems (highways, railroads, airports, etc.).

This information would be used to assess what impacts projects proposed at those facilities may have on listed species. The research would benefit the listed species by helping WSDOT minimize project impacts on listed fish to the greatest extent possible. Depending on the size of the stream system, the WSDOT proposes to capture fish using dip nets, stick seines, baited minnow traps, or backpack electrofishing. The captured fish would be identified to species and immediately released. The researchers do not propose to kill any listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is seeking to renew a 5 year permit to annually take adult and juvenile CC Chinook; CCC and SONCC coho; and NC, SCCC, SC and CCC steelhead in watersheds throughout coastal California. The project goal is to restore salmon and steelhead productivity in coastal California streams through a comprehensive restoration program. The specific goals of this research project are to assess fish abundance and distribution in various streams slated for restoration work. This research would benefit listed species by providing data to help managers assess and direct habitat restoration projects across much of the salmonid-bearing waters of California. Fish would be captured by backpack electrofishing, beach seines, minnow traps, and weirs; they would also be observed during snorkel and spawning ground surveys. Some captured fish would be anesthetized, measured, weighed, tagged, and tissue-sampled for genetic information. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the proposed activities.

The NWFSC is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take natural juvenile SnkR spr/sum Chinook and SnkR steelhead in various places in the Salmon River drainage in Idaho and at Little Goose and Lower Granite Dams on the lower Snake River. The purpose of the research is to continue monitoring parr-to-smolt survival and outmigration behavior among wild SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon populations from Idaho. Steelhead juveniles that are inadvertently collected would also be tagged to help supplement an ongoing Idaho Department of Fish and Game study.

The research would benefit the fish by continuing to supply managers with the information they need to budget water releases at hydropower facilities in ways designed to help protect migrating juvenile salmonids. The information gained would also be used to build long-term data sets on parr-to-smolt migration behavior and survival rates. This information, coupled with water quality, weather, and climate data, is intended to provide a foundation for understanding these populations' life histories—the knowledge of which is critical to planning effective recovery actions. The listed fish would be captured (using seines, dip nets, and electrofishing), anesthetized, tagged, and released. A portion of these fish would also be re-captured at a smolt bypass facility, anesthetized, weighed, measured, and released. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The NWFSC is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile threatened SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon and juvenile threatened SnkR steelhead at various places in the Snake River in Idaho and in various streams of Southeast Washington and Northeast Oregon. Most of the activities under this permit have been under way for nearly 20 years—first under Permit 1406 and then under previous versions of Permit 13382. Under the permit, the listed fish would be variously captured (using seines, dip nets, traps, and electrofishing), anesthetized, tissue sampled, weighed, measured, and released. In addition, a small number of juvenile fish would be caught using electrofishing methods, anesthetized, and then held in aerated containers of water with varying temperature regimes to measure their cardiac performance. The fish would then in all cases be allowed to recover and returned live to the place of their capture.

The purposes of the research are therefore (1) to continue monitoring the effects of supplementation among steelhead and spr/sum Chinook salmon populations in Idaho, and (2) measure cardiac performance in juvenile salmonids. The research would benefit the fish by generating baseline information on elevated temperature effects and continuing to supply managers with the information they need when seeking to use hatchery programs to conserve listed species. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but some may die as an unintended result of the process.

The Sonoma County Water Agency is seeking to renew a 5 year permit to annually take adult and juvenile CC Chinook, CCC coho and CCC steelhead in the Russian River watershed, California. The project's goal is to detect and depict trends in ESA-listed salmonid populations in the Russian River watershed and to monitor the results of salmonid habitat enhancement efforts. This research would benefit listed species by providing life cycle and habitat-specific estimates of residence time, growth, and survival so that resource management agencies can better identify and prioritize key restoration actions in the Russian River watershed.

Fish would be captured by downstream-migrant trapping (rotary screw traps, fyke nets, and pipe/funnel nets), electrofishing (backpack and boat), otter trawl, hook-and-line sampling, and beach seining. Fish would also be observed during snorkel and spawning surveys. Some fish would be anesthetized, measured, weighed, tagged, scale-sampled, and/or tissue-sampled for genetic information. The stomach contents of a small subset of fish would be sampled using non-lethal gastric lavage. A maximum of 130 juvenile steelhead and 150 juvenile Chinook would be sacrificed for otolith microchemistry analysis. Beyond these subsets, the researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, and any that are inadvertently killed would be used in place of the animals that would otherwise be sacrificed.

TRPA Fish Biologists is seeking to renew a 5 year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult CCV steelhead in Lower Putah Creek in the lower Sacramento River basin, California. The project's goal is to monitor the distribution and relative abundance of fish populations in lower Putah Creek downstream from the Putah Diversion Dam. This research would benefit listed steelhead by providing information on fish response to river flows, and generating baseline information on the distribution and diversity of rainbow trout/steelhead in Putah Creek. Fish would be captured by backpack and boat electrofishing. Captured fish would be identified by species, measured, weighed, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

TRPA Fish Biologists is seeking to renew a 5 year research permit to annually take adult and juvenile CCC steelhead in Suisun Creek, Green Valley Creek, and Ledgewood Creek in Solano and Napa Counties, California. The project's goal is to monitor fish distribution, population structure, relative abundance, condition, and general health. The research would benefit CCC steelhead by producing data that would be used to help develop the Solano Habitat Conservation Plan in as fish-friendly a manner as possible. Listed fish would be captured by backpack and boat electrofishing; they would then be identified by species, measured, weighed, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The WDFW is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, Bocaccio, and yelloweye rockfish, and adult SDPS green sturgeon while conducting research to estimate the relative numerical and biomass abundance of bottom fish in the basins of Puget Sound, Washington. They would also collect other distributional and biological information for key marine resources. The researchers may also capture adult and juvenile SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibition. The goals of this work are to develop a fishery-independent method for tracking population trends over time and provide managers and stakeholders with information about ecosystem productivity, community structure, and trends. This information would benefit listed species by informing an array of future management decisions.

The researchers would use bottom trawls to capture fish and would not target listed species, but they may unintentionally encounter some during the course of the work. All listed animals that may be captured would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags) and released near their capture location. The WDFW does not propose to kill any listed fish as part of this project, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the proposed activities.

The WDFW is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, Bocaccio, and yelloweye rockfish while conducting research to estimate the abundance of pelagic forage fish species in key areas of the Puget Sound, Washington. The researchers would also encounter SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The goals of this work are to compare pelagic species stock abundances over time and gather growth, mortality, and recruitment information about the populations. This information would benefit listed species by informing an array of future fishery management decisions.

The researchers propose to capture fish using midwater trawls and, while they would not target listed species, some may be captured during the course of the work. Any ESA-listed salmon, steelhead, or rockfish captured would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), tissue-sampled (scale or fin clip), and released near their capture location. Any SDPS eulachon captured would be handled and released. The WDFW does not propose to kill any listed fish as part of this project, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The WDFW is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, Bocaccio, and yelloweye rockfish, and SDPS green sturgeon while conducting research to study the stock structure, biology, food web relationships, and abundance of groundfish species in inland marine waters of Puget Sound, Washington. The researchers may also capture adult SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The goal of this work is to improve understanding of groundfish stock structure, life history, biology, geographic distribution, habitat use, and food web relationships. The researchers propose to capture fish using hook-and-line angling and live-capture traps and, though they are not targeting ESA-listed species, they may inadvertently capture some. In addition, the researchers propose to use modified dinglebar trolling gear, although it will only be deployed in habitats where they do not anticipate encountering ESA-listed species. All captured rockfish would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), sampled for stomach contents, tissue-sampled, floy-tagged, and released near the site of their capture. Any ESA-listed salmon, eulachon, or green sturgeon captured would be handled and swiftly released. The WDFW does not propose to kill any ESA-listed species as part of this project, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the proposed activities.

The City of Portland is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, UWR Chinook salmon, SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon, SnkR fall-run Chinook salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, CR chum salmon, LCR coho salmon, SnkR sockeye salmon, LCR steelhead, UWR steelhead, MCR steelhead, SnkR steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon in the Columbia and Willamette rivers and some of their tributaries in Oregon. The researchers may also take some adult SDPS eulachon (a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions). This research is part of the Portland Watershed Management Plan—a series of projects designed to improve watershed health in the Portland area. Project staff would annually sample 37 sites across all Portland watersheds and record data on local hydrology, habitat, water chemistry, and biological communities.

The research would benefit listed salmonids by providing information to help managers assess watershed health, critical habitat status, effectiveness of watershed restoration actions, and compliance with regulatory requirements. The City of Portland proposes to capture juvenile fish using backpack and boat electrofishing equipment, hold them in a bucket of aerated water, take caudal fin clips for genetic analysis, and release them. The researchers would avoid contact with adult fish. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish but a small number may die as an unintended result of the proposed activities.

The WDFW is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, Bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, and adult SDPS green sturgeon while monitoring English sole ( Parophrys vetulus ) for (1) chemical contaminant levels in fish tissues, (2) pathological disorder frequency, and (3) other biomarkers signifying biological effects in in the Puget Sound, Washington. The researchers may also capture SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The goal of this work is to monitor contaminants in this indicator benthic fish to better understand toxic contaminant impacts on the benthic food web, measure changes in toxic contaminant levels at a local level, and prioritize cleanup efforts in the Puget Sound. This information would benefit listed fish by helping managers make informed decisions regarding habitat restoration efforts throughout the Puget Sound. The researchers propose to capture fish using bottom trawls and, though they are not targeting listed species, they may capture some as part of this work. Any viable ESA-listed species captured would be handled, allowed to recover, and quickly released. The WDFW does not propose to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

Hagar Environmental Services is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile CCC coho and juvenile CCC and SCCC steelhead in Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo counties, California. The purpose of this study is to gather data on salmonid abundance and distribution and quantify various habitat parameters with the goal of improving watershed management across three counties. This research would benefit listed species by helping managers draft a fish-friendly habitat conservation plan for the City of Santa Cruz and, in general, better inform land management decisions throughout the area. Fish would be captured by backpack electrofishing and beach seines and observed during snorkel surveys. Some fish would be anesthetized, measured, weighed, tagged, and scale- and tissue-sampled for genetic information. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The WDFW is seeking a to renew for 5 years their permit to annually capture, handle, and release juvenile UCR steelhead and Chinook salmon in the Hanford reach of the Columbia River and near the Tri-Cities, Washington. The purpose of the research is to gather data on fall Chinook abundance, length frequency distribution, and fish losses in the area. The information collected from these surveys is used to evaluate protections for juvenile fall Chinook under the Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement; it has also been used to gauge the efficacy of the coded-wire-tagging program for marking wild up-river bright fall Chinook in the Hanford Reach. These surveys provide biologists and managers with definitive data on fish presence and the impacts both listed and non-listed Chinook and steelhead experience when residing in near-shore habitats in this area of the Columbia River. These data have been (and would continue to be) used to help guide management actions for the benefit of the listed species. The researchers would use beach seines and backpack electrofishing equipment to capture the fish. The captured fish would be anesthetized, measured, allowed to recover, and released back to the river. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The NWFSC is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and steelhead and adult SDPS eulachon (a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions) while conducting research designed to characterize how wild juvenile PS Chinook salmon use habitats in the Snohomish River estuary and delta in the Puget Sound, Washington. The goal of this project is to identify the life history types of juvenile PS Chinook salmon present, characterize their spatial and temporal distribution, and assess their feeding ecology and interactions with other biota. The gathered data would benefit listed fish by better informing Snohomish-area land management decisions as conditions and opportunities change.

The researchers propose to capture fish using beach seines and fyke nets. Juvenile salmon and steelhead would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. A small subset of hatchery- and naturally-produced juvenile Chinook salmon would be lethally sacrificed for stable isotope, otolith, and stomach contents analysis. Any fish found dead at the time of capture or unintentionally killed during sampling would be used in place of fish that would otherwise be intentionally sacrificed. Aside from this subset, the NWFSC does not propose to kill any other fish being captured as part of this project, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

NMFS's Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) is seeking to renew a 5 year research permit to annually take adult and juvenile CC Chinook, CCC and SONCC coho, and NC, SCCC, SC and CCC steelhead. Sampling would be conducted in California on a variety of coastal salmonid populations. The purposes of this research are to: (1) Estimate population abundance and dynamics; (2) evaluate factors affecting growth, survival, reproduction, and other life history patterns; (3) assess life-stage specific habitat use and movement; (4) evaluate physiological performance and tolerance; (5) determine the genetic structure of populations; (6) evaluate the effects of water management and habitat restoration; and (7) develop improved sampling and monitoring methods. The research would benefit the coastal California salmon stocks by providing critical information to support their conservation, management, and recovery.

The listed fish would be captured using backpack electrofishing, hook-and-line sampling, hand- and dipnets, beach seines, fyke nets, panel, pipe or rotary screw traps, and weirs. They would also be observed during spawning ground and snorkel surveys. Some fish would be anesthetized, measured, weighed, tagged (coded wire, elastomer, radio, acoustic, PIT, or sonic), and tissue-sampled for genetic information. A small number of juvenile fish would be sacrificed to support laboratory experiments and assess mercury levels and RNA expression, but otherwise the researchers do not intend to kill any of the captured fish—though some may die as an inadvertent result of the activities.

The SWFSC is seeking to renew a 5 year research permit to annually take adult and juvenile CCV steelhead, SacR winter-run and CVS Chinook salmon, and SDPS green sturgeon while conducting research activities in the California Central Valley. The overall goal of this project is to provide critical information to support California salmonid stock conservation and management. The SWFSC would conduct comparative studies on salmon ecology across all Central Valley habitats (streams, rivers, and delta) to increase our knowledge of California's Chinook salmon and steelhead life histories. The proposed action would include six study efforts: (1) Producing telemetry data to assess river habitat use, behavior, and survival; (2) estimating predator impacts on salmon; (3) making physiological measurements of aerobic scope across stocks; (4) examining otoliths to identify stocks of salmonids and thereby inform Central Valley project operations and Bay-Delta monitoring; (5) annually updating strontium and sulfur isoscape validation tools for reconstructing juvenile habitat use; and (6) applying isotope methods to reconstruct salmon habitat use and growth studies. The research would benefit the affected species by providing critical information to inform life-cycle modeling efforts at the SWFSC and help guide NMFS's West Coast Region and various Central Valley agencies in their resource management efforts. In addition, results would also be integrated into the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and thereby help prioritize habitat restoration actions.

In situations where the SWFSC are unable to rely on collaborators to capture fish, collection methods would include rotary screw traps, fyke nets, backpack- and boat electrofishing, beach seining, tangle netting, DIDSON (sonar) observations, hook-and-line sampling, and spawning ground and snorkel surveys. Some fish would be anesthetized, measured, weighed, tagged (coded wire, elastomer, radio, acoustic, PIT, or sonic), and tissue sampled (fin clip, scales, stomach lavage). Another subset would be tested in the laboratory to measure aerobic scope under a range of temperature and flow combinations. Most of the fish to be captured would experience no long-term adverse effects, however, a number of hatchery fish that have had their adipose fins removed would be sacrificed to collect otoliths for age/growth analysis, organ tissues for isotope, biochemical and genomic expression assays and parasite infections, and to assess tag effects/retention. It should be noted that there are no take prohibitions for such fish and they are by definition considered excess to the species' recovery needs.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently authorizes them to capture threatened MCR steelhead (adults and juveniles) in the upper Deschutes River, Oregon. The various proposed activities would include adult and juvenile snorkel surveys throughout the basin, screw trapping, backpack and boat electrofishing and mark/recapture studies, hook and line surveys, telemetry, seining, spawning ground surveys using weirs and redd counts, monitoring habitat restoration projects, and setting traps and nets in reservoirs for population monitoring. Most captured fish would be identified, measured and released, though some would also be tissue sampled and/or floy- or PIT-tagged. Data collected from this work would be used to inform management decisions in the Deschutes River watershed for the benefit of MCR steelhead. Biologists from the ODFW have been conducting this work in the area for decades. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may be killed as an inadvertent result of the activities.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arcata Field Office, is seeking to renew a 5 year research permit to annually take adult and juvenile CC Chinook salmon, SONCC coho salmon, and NC steelhead in watersheds throughout Northwest California—including the Mattole River, Eel River, the Lost Coast region tributaries to the Pacific Ocean, and some Humboldt Bay tributaries. The purpose of this research is to monitor how current management actions under the Northwest Forest Plan's Aquatic Conservation Strategy are affecting anadromous salmonids and their habitats. In order to monitor land management actions and implement the Northwest Forest Plan in northern California, the BLM needs to obtain updated information on fish distribution and habitat. Thus, the information to be gathered would benefit listed species by informing adaptive management strategies intended to aid salmon recovery.

Fish would be captured using backpack electrofishing, hand/or dip nets, beach seines and observed during spawning and snorkel surveys. Some fish would be anesthetized, measured, and weighed. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The CDFW Bay Delta Region's Central Coast Watershed Restoration and Fisheries Management Program is seeking to renew a 5 year research permit to annually take adult and juvenile CC Chinook salmon, CCC coho salmon, and NC, CCC and SCCC steelhead in Sonoma, Mendocino, Napa, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, California. The purpose of this research is to assess salmonid stock status throughout the seven counties and identify factors that may be limiting population growth and recovery. The proposed studies are: (1) Juvenile salmonid occurrence, distribution and habitat monitoring; (2) adult salmonid occurrence, passage, and distribution; (3) spawning ground surveys; (4) life cycle station monitoring; and (5) juvenile steelhead lagoon seining and habitat monitoring. This research would benefit listed species by informing proposed habitat restoration project designs, helping prioritize watershed restoration efforts, and helping managers mitigate the negative impacts of various management actions.

Fish would be captured via backpack electrofishing, beach seining, rotary screw trapping, fyke/pipe trapping, and weirs. They would also be observed during spawning and snorkel surveys and at electronic counting stations (by DIDSON (sonar) array, Vaki Riverwatcher, and video weirs). Most juvenile fish would be handled, measured for fork length, weighed, and released. Various subsets of the captured juvenile fish would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled (fin clip) for genetic analysis, scale sampled, marked with an upper caudal fin clip, and/or PIT-tagged. Captured adult salmon would be handled (identified, measured, weighed, and scale- and tissue-sampled), tagged (bi-colored Floy tags and/or opercule-punched), and released. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The University of California, Davis (UC Davis) Biogeochemistry & Fish Ecology Lab is seeking to renew a 5 year research permit to annually take juvenile SacR winter-run and CVS Chinook, juvenile and adult CCC and CCV steelhead, and juvenile SDPS green sturgeon in the San Francisco Bay Area and tributaries. The purpose of this research is to determine the degree to which Longfin Smelt use tributaries of San Pablo and San Francisco bays as spawning and rearing habitat. This information would improve the understanding of how bay tributaries contribute to the overall population of Longfin Smelt and that information, in turn, would benefit listed salmonids by improving our understanding of tributary habitat health in areas not previously monitored.

Although this study principally targets longfin smelt, SacR winter-run and CVS Chinook, CCC and CCV steelhead and SDPS green sturgeon may be encountered during sampling. Fish would be captured with beach seines, fyke nets, and trawls (otter and Kodiak). Captured fish would be identified by species, enumerated, and released. A sub-sample of 30 individuals per species would be measured. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish but a small number may die as an unintended result of research activities.

The Pacific Shellfish Institute is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon in eelgrass and mudflat habitats in Samish Bay in the Puget Sound and in Willapa Bay on the coast of Washington. The researchers may also capture SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The researchers are also requesting to expand their work to include sites in Hood Canal, South Puget Sound, and Grays Harbor, Washington; Coos Bay, Oregon; and Humboldt Bay, California. They would also seek to also take juvenile HCS chum salmon, OC coho salmon, SONCC coho salmon, CC Chinook salmon, and NC steelhead. The research is designed to quantify the effects shellfish culture and burrowing shrimp have on seagrass and its function as habitat for fish and invertebrates. The researchers would examine the spatial relationships between existing shellfish culture, burrowing shrimp, and seagrass in several Pacific Northwest estuaries. They would also synthesize data and parameterize production functions for higher trophic level species of interest across habitat types. The goal of this project is to help develop a landscape-scale understanding of the influence aquaculture has on estuarine habitats and thereby help managers develop environmentally and economically sustainable shellfish farming practices that would also help conserve listed salmonids and other fish.

The researchers propose to capture fish using beach seines, open-ended fyke nets with cameras, and Breder traps. Captured fish would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. A small subset of fish from all species captured may also be lethally sacrificed for stable isotope and stomach contents analyses. Any fish found dead at the time of capture or unintentionally killed during sampling would be used in place of fish that would otherwise be intentionally sacrificed. In addition to those intentionally sacrificed, a small number of listed juvenile fish may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The ODFW is seeking to renew a permit a permit that currently authorizes research in lake, river, backwater, slough, and estuary habitats in the Willamette and Columbia basins (Oregon) and on the Oregon coast. The permit would continue to allow the ODFW to take juvenile CR Chum, LCR Columbia Chinook, UCR Chinook, SnkR spr/sum Chinook, SnkR fall Chinook, UWR Chinook, LCR Coho, LCR Steelhead, MCR Steelhead, UCR Steelhead, SnkR Steelhead, UWR Willamette Steelhead, SnkR Sockeye Salmon, OC Coho, and adult SDPS green sturgeon. The permit would also allow ODFW to take adult SDPS eulachon—a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The information to be collected would be used to monitor population structure and abundance for many species across the landscape. This, in turn, would be used to improve a suite of listed-fish-affecting management actions throughout much of Oregon.

The permit would cover the following projects: (1) Warmwater and Recreational Game Fish Management, (2) District Fish Population Sampling in the Upper Willamette Basin, and (3) Salmonid Assessment and Monitoring in the Deschutes River. The researchers propose to use boat electrofishing to sample fish. Most juveniles and all adults would be allowed to swim away without being handled after they are electroshocked, but some juveniles would be netted, identified, and released immediately. A subset of captured juveniles would be anesthetized, weighed and measured, allowed to recover, and then released. All ESA-listed fish would be processed and released before any non-listed fish are processed. The ODFW does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and steelhead while conducting research to validate and correct existing Washington Department of Natural Resources channel water-type classifications regarding tributaries to the Puget Sound and the Deschutes River (Washington). The goal of this work is to generate data that can be used to identify wild fish habitat restoration opportunities and thereby (a) improve regulatory protection of sensitive aquatic habitats for ESA-listed Chinook salmon and steelhead, and (b) help land use planners implement better recovery strategies. The researchers propose to capture fish using backpack electrofishing. Any juvenile PS steelhead captured would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), tissue-sampled (fin clip or opercule punch), and released. Juvenile PS Chinook salmon captured would be handled and released. The WFC does not propose to kill any listed fish as part of this project, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Battelle Memorial National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Program is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently authorizes them to capture adult and juvenile threatened LCR steelhead in Martha Creek, Washington while conducting research designed to monitor climate change, land use alterations, and invasive species distribution. The NEON researchers would continue to use instream and riparian sensors in combination with field sampling to characterize chemical, physical, and biological properties of the stream and riparian ecosystem. The aquatic sampling suite would consist of chemical measurements of surface and shallow ground water, physical measurements of stream and riparian habitat, and biological measurements of the aquatic community (biofilms, macrophytes, algae, invertebrates, and fish).

During times when no LCR steelhead adults or redds are present, NEON would survey fish using three-pass backpack electrofishing with block nets placed at the upper and lower boundaries of each survey reach. The captured fish would be held in buckets of cool stream water, anesthetized with a eugenol solution, identified, photographed, measured, allowed to recover, and then released back to the stream. If any adult steelhead are encountered during electrofishing, NEON would immediately turn off the electrofishing unit, let the fish swim away, and halt surveys until the researchers determine through consultation with NMFS and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest that listed adults or redds are no longer present in the research area. Although NEON's standardized fish survey protocols describe tissue sampling and vouchering fish specimens, NEON does not propose to tissue-sample or intentionally kill any O. mykiss at the Martha Creek research site. However, a small number of juvenile LCR steelhead may die as an unintended consequence of the activities.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon and steelhead while conducting research to document fish presence and abundance in Jim Creek in Snohomish County, Washington. The goal of this work is to provide data regarding fish distribution and abundance in Jim Creek to help the U.S. Navy refine their Integrated Natural Resources Management plan for Naval Radio Station Jim Creek. The Navy would then use this information to design and carry out habitat restoration for the benefit of the listed fish.

The researchers propose to capture fish using backpack electrofishing; they would also conduct snorkel and spawning surveys. Any juvenile PS Chinook salmon or steelhead captured would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags) and released. Some juvenile steelhead may also be tissue-sampled (fin clip or opercule punch). The USFWS does not propose to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The NWFSC is seeking to modify a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, OL sockeye salmon, SnkR fall-run Chinook salmon, SnkR spr/sum Chinook salmon, SnkR sockeye salmon, SnkR steelhead, UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, UWR Chinook salmon, MCR steelhead, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, CR chum salmon, OC coho salmon, SONCC coho salmon, CC Chinook salmon, SacR winter-run Chinook salmon, CV spring-run Chinook salmon, and SDPS green sturgeon. The researchers may also capture SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The research involves using pop-up satellite tags and acoustic tags to identify the ocean distribution of salmonids off the coast of Washington and mouth of the Columbia River. The researchers wish to modify their permit by increasing the amount of take allowed for some of the species they may encounter.

The primary goal of this project is to investigate nearshore behavior, distribution, and migration patterns, diet, growth rates, and habitat use among Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. The researchers would also use tissue samples to determine the captured fishes' genetic origins. The researchers propose to capture fish using hook-and-line angling. Coho, chum, and sockeye salmon, as well as eulachon and green sturgeon, would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. Chinook and steelhead would be anesthetized, tagged with PIT and internal acoustic tags, and have scale and tissue samples collected. A small subset of juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead would be lethally sacrificed to collect diet, age, and growth information. Aside from this subset, the NWFSC does not propose to kill any other fish being captured as part of this project, though a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

Michael Rogner, Senior Restoration Ecologist at River Partners is seeking a new, 5 year research permit that would allow him to take juvenile SacR winter-run and CVS Chinook salmon, and CCC and CCV steelhead in the Sacramento River, CA. The project's goal is to measure the effectiveness of an experimental approach to prolonging floodplain inundation for the purpose of maximizing growth and survival among outmigrating juvenile salmon. This research would benefit listed species by helping managers find new ways to convert floodplain areas throughout the Central Valley into habitat suitable for rearing juvenile salmon. Fish would be captured with fyke nets and anesthetized, measured, weighed, tagged, and tissue-sampled for genetic information. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

ICF Consulting is seeking a new, 5 year research permit to annually take juvenile CCV spring-run Chinook and juvenile CCV steelhead in the Lower Yuba River. The purpose of this research is to quantify habitat productivity and juvenile salmonid growth in seasonally available habitats in the Lower Yuba River. The information would benefit listed fish by improve our understanding of how juvenile salmonids use these habitats for rearing. The researchers would survey main channel, side-channel, and intermittently inundated gravel bar habitats and identify environmental factors underlying differences among the various sites. This information, in turn, would be used to evaluate some of the assumptions about juvenile salmonid growth and habitat suitability that currently guide scientific and restoration efforts—thus improving such efforts' efficacy.

The researchers would employ single-pass transect backpack electrofishing to capture salmonids. Fish would be anesthetized, measured, clipped, weighed, and photographed. While electrofishing collection efforts would target salmonids, the researchers also expect to encounter known salmonid predators ( e.g., Sacramento Pikeminnow). Each captured predatory fish would be measured and released. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

Steve Zeug, Senior Scientist at Cramer Fish Sciences is seeking a new, 5 year research permit to take adult and juvenile CCV steelhead in the Stanislaus River. The project's goal is to provide information on the river's O. mykiss population: Annual growth rates, age and spatial structure, contribution of resident and anadromous parents to juvenile production, probability of juvenile outmigration, abundance and survival of downstream migrants, and timing, age, and size structure of outmigrating fish. This research would benefit listed steelhead by improving our fundamental understanding of Central Valley O. mykiss biology and ecology—information that would be used to better manage and conserve the species.

The fish would be captured by backpack and raft electrofishing, hook-and-line sampling, beach seines, fyke nets and rotary screw traps. Some fish would be anesthetized, measured, weighed, tagged, and tissue-sampled for genetic information. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The ODFW is seeking a new, 5 year research permit to conduct research on hatchery salmon that may become infected with a harmful parasite ( Ceratonova shasta ) between their release into the Deschutes River (Oregon) and their arrival at the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. The purpose of this research is to determine whether this parasitic infection is a causal mechanism related to poor smolt-to-adult return rates among non-listed hatchery Chinook salmon originating at the Round Butte hatchery on the Deschutes River. It would also indirectly inform the currently ongoing listed MCR steelhead reintroduction program on the Deschutes River. Both of these efforts would benefit listed salmonids by helping managers quantify the degree of adverse effect the parasite is having in the Deschutes and Columbia Rivers.

Under this permit, PIT-tagged juvenile hatchery spring Chinook would be sampled at the Bonneville Dam juvenile bypass system. The sort-by-code system at the structure would be set to separate PIT-tagged Round Butte Hatchery spring Chinook from the rest of the outmigrating salmon as they move through the dam. The segregated fish would be diverted by watered pipe into a holding tank, transferred as quickly as possible to buckets of aerated fresh water, and passed through a PIT-tag reader to confirm their identity as target fish. The target fish (which are not listed under the ESA) would then be euthanized, but all captured ESA-listed fish would swiftly be transferred to the bypass release tank at the juvenile fish facility and returned to the river without anesthesia or further handling. No listed fish would be killed during the course of this research.

Dr. Robert Lusardi, Research Ecologist at the Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis, is seeking a new, 5 year research permit to annually take juvenile SacR winter-run chinook and CCV steelhead in the Sacramento River, CA, below Keswick Dam. The project's goal is to gather data on how different environmental variables affect juvenile steelhead growth in spring-fed, runoff, and regulated reaches of the Sacramento River. This research would benefit listed species by providing data to improve our understanding of the mechanisms affecting salmonid growth in different ecosystems across the landscape, but specifically those effects in regulated rivers below dams.

The fish would be captured by minnow traps, beach seines, and hook-and-line sampling. The majority of fish would be captured, handled and released without harm, but 25 juvenile CCV steelhead would be sacrificed each year in order to conduct otolith analysis. It is also possible that a very small number of juvenile SacR winter-run Chinook would die as an unintended consequence of the proposed action.

The WDFW is seeking a new, 5 year research permit to sample for invasive European Green Crab (EGC) at several locations in the Puget Sound, along the Washington Coast, and in the Lower Columbia River estuary. Though the researchers would not target listed species, they may encounter juvenile PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, OL sockeye salmon, SR fall-run Chinook salmon, SR spr/sum Chinook salmon, SRB steelhead, SR sockeye salmon, UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, UWR Chinook salmon, UWR steelhead, CR chum salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR steelhead, and LCR coho salmon while conducting this work in the lower Columbia River. They may also encounter adult SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The researchers would conduct this work in conjunction with the Northwest Straits Commission (under Permit 26352) and Washington Sea Grant (under Permit 26359).

The goal of the research is to determine the extent of the threat posed by the EGC invasion in the in Washington State and, where possible, help mitigate it. The research would benefit listed species by monitoring, trapping, and removing individuals of an invasive species that is known to greatly damage eelgrass beds—an important habitat type upon which juvenile salmonids depend for rearing and food production. The researchers propose to use minnow traps, shrimp traps, and Fukui traps (and equivalent modifications of such traps) to capture the crabs. Trap configurations and locations would be adjusted to minimize the risk of encountering adult salmonids or hindering adult passage through main migration channels. The researchers do not propose to anesthetize, tag, sample, or kill any of the captured fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the trapping activities.

Mount Hood Environmental is seeking a new, five-year research permit to conduct an inventory of all fish and their relative abundances in the Grande Ronde River in Eastern Oregon. The work would concentrate specifically on predators that may target listed salmonids. It is thought that such predators are a major source of listed salmonid mortality in the Grande Ronde subbasin. This research would help determine if that is the case and, ultimately, help managers design actions ( e.g., predator mitigation) to benefit the listed animals.

The researchers would use backpack or boat-mounted electrofishing, fyke netting, seining, angling, and minnow trapping to perform the inventories in each study reach. Fyke and minnow traps would be deployed for several days and checked every 4-6 hours during the day. Electrofishing, beach seining, and angling would be take place in conjunction with the trapping efforts. All ESA-listed fish would be released immediately following capture and identification. If any of these fish exhibit sign of stress (gill flaring, loss of equilibrium, slow reaction to touch, etc.) they would be allowed to recover in a holding tank (or bucket) of aerated water before being released. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The ODFW is seeking a new, five-year research permit to implant acoustic tags in adult MCR steelhead at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River and monitor the fishes' subsequent migration patterns and routes. The fish would be taken and tagged as they pass through the Bonneville Dam adult fish facility. Captured adult steelhead would be anesthetized, held in an oxygenated, river-temperature tank, and implanted with an acoustic transmitter once they are fully anesthetized. Following their recovery from anesthesia, tagged adult steelhead would be released immediately upstream of the adult fish trap and allowed to proceed up the fish ladder to cross Bonneville Dam. The fish would then be tracked by acoustic receiver arrays in upstream reservoirs and dams and at a location near the confluence of the Columbia and John Day Rivers.

The research is intended to generate information about adult MCR steelhead migration and, in particular, it is intended to help managers address the question of why so many steelhead that originate in the John Day River tend to swim past that river and continue up the Columbia River when they return as adults. Currently, approximately 60% of the returning steelhead overshoot the John Day River when they return as adults. If managers can figure out why that is the case and develop measures to reduce that percentage ( i.e., help the fish find their way back to their spawning grounds), it could potentially greatly increase their survival and, therefore, improve spawning success and overall steelhead numbers in the John Day River. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being tagged, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the capturing and tagging activities.

Dr. Robert Lusardi, Research Ecologist at the Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis, is seeking a new, five-year research permit that would allow him to annually take juvenile CCC coho in the Walker Creek drainage, CA. The project's goal is to study juvenile coho movement and characterize how they use over-summering habitat in the drainage. This research would benefit CCC coho by providing data on habitat use and outmigration timing—information that would be used to inform habitat restoration and species recovery efforts. The fish would be dip-netted and observed during snorkel surveys. Some of the captured fish would be anesthetized, measured, weighed, PIT tagged, and tissue-sampled for genetic information. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed salmonids but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Northwest Straits Commission is seeking a new, five-year research permit that would allow them to interact with listed fish while capturing, monitoring, and removing EGCs at multiple locations in the North Puget Sound, Washington. Though the researchers would not target listed species, they may encounter adult and juvenile PS Chinook and PS steelhead. The researchers would conduct this work in conjunction with the WDFW (under Permit 26287) and Washington Sea Grant (under Permit 26359).

The goal of the research is to determine the extent of the threat posed by the EGC invasion in the North Puget Sound in Washington State and, where possible, help mitigate it. The research would benefit listed species by monitoring, trapping, and removing individuals of an invasive species that is known to greatly damage eelgrass beds—an important habitat type upon which juvenile salmonids depend for rearing and food production. The researchers propose to use minnow traps, shrimp traps, and Fukui traps (and equivalent modifications of such traps) to capture the crabs. Trap configurations and locations would be adjusted to minimize the risk of encountering adult salmonids or hindering adult passage through main migration channels. The researchers do not propose to anesthetize, tag, sample, or kill any of the captured fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the trapping activities.

Washington Sea Grant (WSG) is seeking a new, five-year research permit that would allow them to interact with listed fish while capturing, monitoring, and removing EGCs at several locations in Puget Sound and along the coast of Washington. Though the researchers would not target listed species, they may encounter adult and juvenile PS Chinook and PS steelhead, HCS chum, OL sockeye, and SDPS green sturgeon while sampling and removing the invasive crabs. The researchers may also encounter adult and juvenile SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no take prohibitions. The WSG researchers would carry out this work in conjunction with the WDFW (under permit 26287 ) and the Northwest Straits Commission (under permit 26352 ).

The goal of the research is to determine the extent of the threat posed by the EGC invasion in Washington State and, where possible, help mitigate it. The research would benefit listed species by monitoring, trapping, and removing individuals of an invasive species that is known to greatly damage eelgrass beds—an important habitat type upon which juvenile salmonids depend for rearing and food production.

The researchers propose to use minnow traps, shrimp traps, and Fukui traps (and equivalent modifications of such traps) to capture the crabs. Trap configurations and locations would be adjusted to minimize the risk of encountering adult salmonids or hindering adult passage through main migration channels. All listed animals that may be captured would be handled only long enough to identify them to species. They would then swiftly be removed from the trap and released. The researchers do not propose to anesthetize, tag, sample, or kill any of the captured fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the trapping activities.

The South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (SPSSEG) is seeking a new, 5 year research permit that would allow them to annually take adult and juvenile PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and HCS chum salmon while conducting research designed to help plan and monitor habitat restoration projects in several watersheds that drain into central and southern Puget Sound. The goals of this work are to (1) identify potential restoration sites based on fish presence, (2) investigate options to improve restoration design at planned sites, and (3) record and evaluate changes in salmon and steelhead population characteristics in response to estuarine habitat restoration actions.

The researchers propose to capture juvenile fish using electrofishing, minnow traps, beach seines, and hook and line sampling. Juvenile salmon and steelhead would be handled (anesthetized, weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. A subset of juvenile salmon and steelhead may be PIT-tagged and have their stomach contents non-lethally sampled via gastric lavage. No adult fish would be targeted for sampling, though some may be unintentionally captured in juvenile sampling gear. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish at all but some may die as an unintended result of the activities.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register .

The webinar advance registration is at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4379173811123072784. The HSRP meeting agenda, draft meeting documents, presentations, and background materials are posted and updated online which can be downloaded prior to the meeting at: https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/hsrp.html and https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/meetings.html.

The agenda, speakers, and time are subject to change; please refer to these websites for the most updated information. Past HSRP recommendation letters, issue and position papers are located online at: https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/recommendations.html.

Public comments are encouraged and requested in advance and during the meeting on the navigation, observations, and positioning data, products, and services for NOS' Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, National Geodetic Survey, Office of Coast Survey, and the University of New Hampshire's and NOAA's Joint Hydrographic Center (JHC) and the Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping. Written statements received in advance of the meeting will be shared with the HSRP members, on the meeting website, and in the meeting public record. Due to the condensed nature of the meeting, each individual or group providing public comments will be limited to one comment of three minutes per public comment period with no repetition of previous comments. Comments can also be submitted in writing during the public comment portion of the webinar. Comments will be read into the record as time allows as well as transcribed and become part of the meeting record. Due to time constraints, all comments may not be addressed during the meeting.

The HSRP is a Federal Advisory Committee established to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the NOAA Administrator, on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, as amended, and such other appropriate matters that the Under Secretary refers to the Panel for review and advice.

The panel is convening on issues relevant to NOAA's navigation, observations and positioning services and suggestions for improvements, including: Data sharing and data licensing especially for bathymetry to use for ocean mapping, charts, modeling, and other NOAA products; bridge heights, datums, and air gap sensors to address safe navigation and the possible technology solutions from the transition to the new National Spatial Reference System (NSRS); and a discussion about the changes to raster paper charts and the improvements to Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC). HSRP regularly discusses stakeholder use of NOAA's navigation, observations and positioning data, products and services, and topics related to hydrographic surveys, nautical charting, coastal shoreline and ocean mapping, the NSRS modernization efforts, navigation services contributions to resilience and coastal data and information systems to support planning for resilience to climate change and sea level rise, contributions to the blue economy, coastal and ocean modeling and remote sensing, PORTS® (Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System) sensor enhancements and expansion, Precision Marine Navigation, the transition from raster paper charts to ENC, the scientific mapping and technology research projects of the cooperative agreements between NOAA and partners at the University of New Hampshire and the University of Southern Florida, and other topics. The meeting may include an update on the plans to address and implement two ocean and coastal mapping strategies— the Alaska Coastal Mapping Strategy (ACMS) and the “Establishing a National Strategy for Mapping, Exploring, and Characterizing the U.S. EEZ” (NOMEC), including the Standard Ocean Mapping Protocol (SOMP). Navigation services include the data, products, and services provided by the NOAA programs and activities that undertake geodetic observations, gravity modeling, coastal and shoreline mapping, bathymetric mapping and modeling, hydrographic surveying, nautical charting, tide and water level observations, current observations, flooding, resilience, inundation and sea level rise, marine and coastal modeling, geospatial and LIDAR data, and related data and topics. This suite of NOAA products and services support safe and efficient navigation, the blue economy, resilient coasts and communities, and the nationwide positioning information infrastructure to support America's climate needs and commerce. The Panel will hear about the missions and uses of NOAA's navigation, observations and positioning services, the value these services bring, and what improvements could be made. Other matters may be considered.

This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and there will be sign language interpretation. Please direct requests for other auxiliary aids to Melanie.Colantuno@noaa.gov at least 10 business days in advance of the meeting.

This request is for revision and extension of a current information collection. This information collection, 0648-0212, is sponsored by the Data Processing & Quality Branch, which falls under the Analysis & Program Support Division located at the Greater Atlantic Regional Office. Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for management of the nation's marine fisheries. Fishing vessels permitted to participate in Federally-permitted fisheries in the Northeast are required to submit logbooks containing catch and effort information about their fishing trips. The information submitted is needed for the management of the fisheries. The only change to this collection is that all information collected is required to be submitted via electronic means.

Required information is required to be reported electronically (internet).

OMB Control Number: 0648-0212.

Form Number(s): 80-30, 80-140.

Type of Review: Regular submission (revision of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,160.

Estimated Time per Response: Vessel Trip Report: 5 minutes; Shellfish Log: 12.5 minutes; Web Forms (Spawning Blocks, Monkfish DAS, Exempted Fishery Permit (EFP), Herring, Research Set-Aside (RSA), and Tilefish): 3 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,069.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ).

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.

The Connecting Minority Communities Pilot Program (CMC), authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Division N, Title IX, Section 902 (c), Public Law 116-260, 134 stat. 1182 Dec. 27, 2020) (Act), aims to address the lack of broadband access, connectivity, adoption, and equity to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), and their surrounding anchor communities. NTIA will make up to 268,000,000 available for federal assistance to eligible entities and programs to facilitate educational instruction and learning, purchase or lease eligible equipment and devices for student or patron use and hire and train information technology personnel who are a part of the eligible anchor institution, MBE, or tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization.

On August 3, 2021, NTIA published the program's Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) on Grants.gov to describe the requirements under which it will award grants for the CMC. 1 The NOFO required award recipients to submit financial reports, performance (technical) reports, and annual reports to the NTIA Federal Program Officer and the NOAA Grants Officer and Grants Specialist. Award recipients must follow the reporting requirements described in Sections A.01, Reporting Requirement, of the Department of Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions (dated November 12, 2020). Additionally, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, all recipients of a federal wared were made on or after October 1, 2010, must comply with reporting requirements under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282).

NTIA will use the information collected from each award recipient to effectively administer and monitor the grant program to ensure the achievement of CMC program purposes and account for the expenditure of federal funds to deter waste, fraud, and abuse.

Award recipients will submit financial and performance reports on a semi-annual basis for the periods ending March 31st and September 30th of each year, and an annual report no later than one year after receiving grant funds and until they have expended all funds. The Baseline Report is a one-time collection of information from award recipients covering project plans and details about key outputs and outcomes that is due within 45 days of the issuance of the award. NTIA will collect data through electronic submission.

OMB Control Number: 06XX-XXXX.

Form Number(s): TBD.

Type of Review: New information collection.

Affected Public: Grant award recipients consisting of Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs); Tribal Colleges or Universities (TCUs); Minority-serving institutions (MSIs); or consortiums that are led by a historically Black college or university, Tribal College or University, or Minority-serving institution and that also include: (a) An MBE; or (b) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 183.

Estimated Time Per Response: 33.22.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,055.7.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $447,712.13.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Division N, Title IX, Section 905, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182 (Dec. 27, 2020).

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.

(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.

The Broadband Infrastructure Program was authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Division N, Title IX, Section 905, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182 (Dec. 27, 2020) (ACT). This program seeks to provide federal funding to deploy broadband infrastructure to eligible service areas of the country. The program will make up to $288,000,000 grant available on a competitive basis to covered partnerships for covered broadband projects. On May 19, 2021, NTIA published the program's Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) on Grants.gov to describe the requirements under which it will award grants for the BIP. 1 The NOFO required award recipients to submit financial reports, performance (technical) reports, and annual reports to the NTIA Federal Program Officer and the NOAA Grants Officer and Grants Specialist. Award recipients must follow the reporting requirements described in Sections A.01, Reporting Requirement, of the Department of Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions (dated November 12, 2020). Additionally, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170, all recipients of a federal award made on or after October 1, 2010, must comply with reporting requirements under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282).

NTIA will use the information collected from each award recipient to effectively administer and monitor the grant program to ensure the achievement of BIP program purposes and account for the expenditure of federal funds to deter waste, fraud, and abuse.

Award recipients will be required to submit financial and performance reports on a semi-annual basis for the periods ending March 31 and September 30 of each year and an annual report no later than one year after receiving grant funds and annually thereafter until the funds have been expended. NTIA will collect data through electronic submission.

OMB Control Number: 06XX-XXXX.

Form Number(s): TBD.

Type of Review: New information collection.

Affected Public: Selected covered partnerships, defined as a partnership between (a) a State, or one or more political subdivisions of a State; and (b) a provider of a fixed broadband service.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 240.

Estimated Time per Response: 33.22.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,254.4.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $407,092.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Division N, Title IX, Section 905, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182 (Dec. 27, 2020).

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department 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.

(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.

The Commission voted 3-1 to authorize issuance of this Complaint. Chair Hoehn-Saric, Commissioners Feldman and Trumka voted to authorize issuance of the Complaint. Commissioner Baiocco voted to take other action. The text of the Complaint appears below.

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

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

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

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

5. Respondent is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business located at 130 E 10th Street, Ada, Oklahoma.

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

7. The Podsters consist of various models of infant lounging pillows that were manufactured and/or distributed in U.S. commerce and offered for sale to consumers for their personal use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, school, in recreation, or otherwise.

8. The Podsters are manufactured at Respondent's facilities in Ada, Oklahoma.

9. Upon information and belief, the Podsters include, but are not limited to, the following models: Podster, Podster Plush, Bummzie, and Podster Playtime.

10. Upon information and belief, approximately 180,000 Podsters have been manufactured and distributed in U.S. commerce since 2009. The Podster and Podster Plush models have been sold from 2009 to present; the Bummzie was sold exclusively at Walmart from 2010 to 2018; and the Podster Playtime was sold from 2014 to 2017.

11. Upon information and belief, the retail price for the Podsters ranges from approximately $49 and $89.

12. The Podsters are sold at various retail chains including, but not limited to, Amazon.com, Bed Bath and Beyond, Buy Buy Baby, Kohls, Macy's, Toys R Us/Babies R Us, and Walmart.

13. The Podster is a product marketed for caregivers to use for infant lounging and to “provide[ ] a warm and cozy caress for infants.” It was designed to permit a caregiver to keep an infant in a safe environment, allowing for hands-free supervision.

14. The Podster is not and has never been advertised by Respondent as a sleep product.

15. The Podster contains warnings that the product should not be used for sleep and that adult supervision is always required.

16. The Podster contains warnings that the product should only be used on the floor, and not in another product, such as a crib, on a bed, table, playpen, counter, or any elevated surface.

17. The Podster contains warnings that infants should not be placed prone or on their side in the product.

18. The Podster contains instructions that it should be used for infants not to exceed 16 pounds, and should not be used if an infant can roll over.

19. The Podster contains warnings and instructions that use of the product in contravention to these warnings could result in serious injury or death.

20. Despite the warnings and instructions, it is foreseeable that caregivers will use the Podster without supervision. It is also foreseeable that caregivers will use the Podster for infant sleep.

a. The Podsters are marketed for use with infants, and caregivers may trust that the products are safe places to leave infants. Because the Podsters appear simple to use, are likely to be used frequently, and do not appear dangerous, it is foreseeable that some caregivers may disregard or not fully read the Podsters' warnings.

b. If an infant falls asleep in the Podster, a caregiver may choose not to disturb the infant and may leave the infant asleep in the product.

c. Caregivers facing difficulties in getting their infant to sleep may choose to use the Podster for that purpose if the Podster appears to help with sleep or if the infant appears to be comfortable in the Podster, even if the caregiver is aware of the contrary product warnings.

d. Caregivers with an infant who are traveling or who are dealing with significant financial hardship may be more likely to allow an infant to sleep in the Podster, as they may not have a crib or safe infant sleep product readily available.

e. If an infant falls asleep in the Podster, it is foreseeable that the caregiver may intentionally sleep while the infant is asleep, may accidentally fall asleep while the infant is asleep, may use the time that the infant is asleep to catch up on work or chores, or otherwise may leave the infant unsupervised.

21. Unsupervised infants can roll or move on the Podster into a position where their nose and mouth are obstructed by the Podster.

22. Unsupervised infants can roll or move off the Podster into a position where their nose and mouth are obstructed by another object, such as soft bedding.

23. Despite warnings and instructions, some caregivers may not place infants on their backs in the Podster and may place infants in positions where their nose and mouth may be obstructed by the Podster.

24. The Podster is defective because it can cause airflow obstruction if an unsupervised infant rolls, moves, or is placed in a position where the infant's nose and mouth are obstructed by the Podster.

25. The Podster is defective because it is constructed of thick, soft padding that has a concave shape which can envelop an infant's face and cause airflow obstruction if an unsupervised infant rolls, moves, or is placed in a position where the infant's nose and mouth are obstructed by the Podster.

26. The Podster is defective because it lacks rigid underlying components, which can impede the ability of an infant to self-rescue in the event that the infant rolls, moves, or is placed in a position where the infant's nose and mouth are obstructed by the Podster.

27. The Podster is defective because it facilitates an infant's movement on the Podster, enhancing the risk that the infant's nose and mouth will be obstructed by the Podster.

28. The Podster is defective because it facilitates an infant's movement off the Podster, enhancing the risk that the infant's nose and mouth will be obstructed by another object in the infant's environment, such as soft bedding.

29. The design of the Podster allows infants to bend their knees and push off the raised edges of the Podster with their feet, allowing an infant to roll or move on or off the Podster.

30. The Podster may allow an infant to roll, even if the infant is not able to roll on a flat surface, such as in a crib or bassinet.

31. The Podster's design also can lead to unsafe bedsharing where the infant sleeps in an adult bed with one or more adult caregivers.

32. The Podster may be attractive to caregivers who wish to bedshare with an infant because it is soft and portable, and caregivers may believe that the product's high sides will act as a sufficient barrier between the adult and the infant to keep the infant secure in the Podster.

33. Bedsharing with an infant in a Podster can result in an infant moving into a compromised position within the Podster and suffocating, or moving outside the Podster and suffocating on another person or object, such as soft bedding or the adult bed.

34. If an infant rolls, moves, or is placed in a position where the infant's nose and mouth are obstructed by the Podster or another object, such as soft bedding, the infant can suffocate and die in three to 10 minutes.

35. The Podster's defects have led to the deaths of at least two infants.

36. Upon information and belief, on or about December 16, 2015, a 4-month-old infant suffocated after being placed face-up or on their side in the Podster in a crib. The infant was found face-down on the Podster and later died of complications from asphyxia.

37. Upon information and belief, on or about January 27, 2018, a 17-day-old infant suffocated after being placed face up in the Podster on an adult bed between two caregivers. Upon information and belief, the infant had moved off the Podster onto the adult bed after one of the caregivers rolled onto the Podster and infant.

38. It is foreseeable that caregivers will use the Podster for infant sleep, despite the instructions and warnings. It is also foreseeable that caregivers will use the Podster without supervision.

39. It is foreseeable that some caregivers will not place infants on their backs in the Podster.

40. It is foreseeable that caregivers will place infants in Podsters and use the Podster for bedsharing in an adult bed.

41. If an infant rolls, moves, or is placed in a position where the infant's nose and mouth are obstructed by the Podster itself or by another object or person with whom the infant is bedsharing, the infant may not be able to self-rescue and can suffocate within minutes.

42. Upon information and belief, at least two infants, members of a vulnerable population, have suffocated and died after being placed in the Podster for unsupervised sleep.

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

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

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

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

47. In assessing whether a product contains a defect, the Commission may consider a consumer's foreseeable use or misuse of the product. See 16 CFR 1115.4.

48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

49. The Podsters are consumer products.

50. The Podsters contain defects because it is foreseeable that caregivers will use the product for infant sleep and it is foreseeable that caregivers will leave infants unattended in the product, and:

a. The Podster can cause airflow obstruction leading to suffocation if an infant rolls, moves, or is placed in a position where their nose and mouth are obstructed by the Podster;

b. The design of the Podster prevents infants from self-rescuing once their nose and mouth are obstructed by the Podster;

c. The design of the Podster facilitates infant movement on the Podster, which can result in an infant's nose and mouth becoming obstructed by the Podster;

d. The design of the Podster facilitates movement off the Podster, which can result in an infant's nose and mouth being obstructed by another object in the infant's environment, such as soft bedding; and

e. The design of the Podster may lead to it being used for bedsharing, which can facilitate an infant's rolling off the product onto an adult bed, leading to the infant's nose and mouth being obstructed by another object or an individual sleeping in the bed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4) Mail and email notice to each distributor and retailer, of the Podsters; and

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

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

(1) Refund the purchase price of the Podster;

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

(3) Submit a plan satisfactory to the Commission, within ten (10) days of service of the Final Order, directing that actions specified in Paragraphs B(1) through (5), above and C(1) through (2) be taken in a timely manner;

(4) Submit monthly reports, to the Commission, documenting the progress of the corrective action program ordered pursuant to this matter;

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

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

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

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

1. Claims, complaints, records, reports, CPSC's In-Depth Investigations, and lawsuits concerning incidents or injuries involving infant lounging pillows manufactured and distributed by Respondent Leachco, Inc. (“Podsters”).

2. CPSC Product Safety Assessments.

3. Correspondence between Respondent and CPSC staff related to the Podsters.

4. Documents and information related to the Podsters, including notices issued regarding the Podsters and similar products.

I hereby certify that on February 9th, 2022, I served the foregoing Complaint and List and Summary of Documentary Evidence upon all parties of record in these proceedings by emailing a copy to counsel, as follows:

Email: cfalvey@crowell.com .

On December 10, 2021, CPSC published a notice in the Federal Register to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information. 86 FR 70475. The Commission received no comments. Accordingly, CPSC seeks renewal approval for the following collection of information:

Title: Notification Requirements for Coal and Wood Burning Appliances.

OMB Number: 3041-0040.

Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of coal and wood burning appliances.

Estimated Number of Respondents: An estimated five submissions annually.

Estimated Time per Response: Three hours per submission and 30 minutes for collecting and mailing the information to the CPSC.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 17.5 hours (5 submissions × 3.5 hours).

Total Estimated Annual Cost to Respondents: $1,238, based on an average total hourly employee compensation rate of $70.73 for management, professional, and related occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics: Total compensation rates for management, professional, and related occupations in private goods-producing industries, Table 4, March 2021) (17.5 hours × $70.73).

General Description of Collection: 16 CFR part 1406, Coal and Wood Burning Appliances—Notification of Performance and Technical Data requires that manufacturers and importers provide consumers with written notification regarding certain technical and performance information related to safety on each coal and wood burning appliance. Manufacturers are also required to provide to the CPSC a copy of the notification to consumers and an explanation of all clearance distances contained in the notification. For existing models, all known manufacturers are believed to have already satisfied the requirements. Accordingly, there is no new burden associated with the requirements of 16 CFR part 1406, except in cases where existing models are changed, or new models are introduced. Fewer than five submissions are estimated annually from new stove models coming into the market, or new firms entering the market.

On December 10, 2021, CPSC published a notice in the Federal Register to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information. 86 FR 70476. The Commission received no comments. Accordingly, CPSC seeks renewal approval for the following collection of information:

Title: Safety Standard for the Flammability of Carpets and Rugs and Standard for the Flammability of Small Carpets and Rugs.

OMB Number: 3041-0017.

Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of carpets and rugs.

Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 120 firms are subject to the information collection requirements under the FFA. An estimated 100 firms issue a general conformity certificate (GCC) or a children's product certificate (CPC). In addition, an estimated 20 firms elect to issue a guaranty of compliance with the FFA. Staff estimates that the average firm issuing a GCC, CPC, or guaranty under the FFA is required to conduct, on average, 100 tests per year, although the actual number of tests required by a given firm may vary, depending upon the number of carpet styles and the annual production volume.

Estimated Time per Response: For firms issuing a GCC or CPC, staff estimates that the time to conduct each test is 2.0 hours, including the time required to establish and maintain the test records. For firms issuing a guaranty of compliance, staff estimates that the time to conduct each test is 2.5 hours, including the time required to establish and maintain the test records.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: Staff estimates the total annualized burden to respondents to be 25,000 hours (20,000 hours for firms that issue a GCC/CPC plus 5,000 hours for firms that issue a guaranty of compliance).

Total Estimated Annual Cost to Respondents: The total annualized costs to all respondents for the hour burden for collection of information is estimated to be as high as $1,557,750 using a mean hourly employer cost-per-hour-worked of $62.31 (Bureau of Labor Statistics: Total compensation rates for management, professional, and related occupations, June 2021) (25,000 hours × $62.31).

General Description of Collection: The Standard for the Surface Flammability of Carpets and Rugs (16 CFR part 1630) and the Standard for the Surface Flammability of Small Carpets and Rugs (16 CFR part 1631) establish requirements to reduce the flammability of carpets and rugs. The standards' provisions include requirements for testing and recordkeeping for manufacturers and importers who furnish guaranties subject to the carpet and rug flammability standards. Separate from the guaranties, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) established product certification requirements for applicable consumer product safety standards and rules. 15 U.S.C. 2063. Manufacturers and importers of carpets and rugs intended for general use must certify in a GCC that the product complies with the applicable standards based on testing or a reasonable testing program. Manufacturers and importers of children's carpets and rugs must certify in a CPC that the product complies with the applicable standards based on testing by a CPSC accredited third-party conformity assessment body.

Pursuant to the Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies (USE IT) Act, Public Law 116-260, div. S, 102, 134 Stat. 1182, 2243 (2020), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is issuing this guidance for Federal agencies on the facilitation of reviews associated with the deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) projects and carbon dioxide pipelines, and to support the efficient, orderly, and responsible deployment of CCUS projects and carbon dioxide pipelines, where appropriate. This guidance is consistent with CEQ's report, “Council on Environmental Quality Report to Congress on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration” (CEQ CCUS Report or Report) issued in June 2021. 1

The CEQ CCUS Report  2 recognized that to reach the President's ambitious climate goal of net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050, the United States will likely have to capture, transport, and permanently sequester significant quantities of carbon dioxide. There is growing scientific consensus that, while the first priority for addressing climate change must be to avoid emissions, CCUS technologies and permanent sequestration are likely needed to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. CCUS deployment can and should reduce emissions of other kinds of pollution in addition to carbon pollution, protect communities from increases in cumulative pollution, and maintain and create good, union-friendly jobs across the country.

CCUS refers to a set of technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the emissions of point sources or the atmosphere, and either transport it, compress it, and inject it deep in the earth's crust (and monitor sites to verify safe and secure storage operations), or transform it for use in industrial processes or as feedstock for useful commercial products. Technical and economic feasibility of carbon capture at significant rates has been established in the literature. 3

In many cases, the carbon dioxide must be transported, usually by pipeline, for permanent and verifiable sequestration. There are important differences between point-source carbon capture and carbon dioxide removal from the ambient air (CDR). However, per Congressional direction, and, for the purposes of this guidance, CCUS includes approaches such as direct air capture (DAC), which captures carbon dioxide from the ambient air, and bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS) techniques, where transportation and permanent and verifiable sequestration is required to meet climate goals. The Administration recognizes the imperative for CCUS actions to be considered in a timely manner and in the context of a strong regulatory regime that includes early consultation with Tribal Nations and meaningful engagement with communities, stakeholders, and other sovereigns.

To advance these aims, the President is committed to increasing support for CCUS research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D), enhancing the Section 45Q tax incentive for CCUS (Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 45Q”)), appropriately implementing the robust and effective regulatory regime that exists in the United States, and ensuring that CCUS technologies are informed by community perspectives and are consistent with the Administration's climate, public health, and economic goals.

To reach the President's ambitious domestic climate goal of net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050, the United States will likely have to capture, transport, and permanently sequester significant quantities of carbon dioxide. As explained in more detail below, deploying CCUS technologies will require agencies to manage and complete sound, effective, and efficient environmental analyses under a variety of statutes, while also ensuring that CCUS systems deliver desired societal outcomes with broad and deep public support. These outcomes should generate societal net benefits, including emissions reductions. In short, the successful widespread deployment of responsible CCUS will require strong and effective permitting, efficient regulatory regimes, meaningful public engagement early in the review and deployment process, and measures to safeguard public health and the environment. Agencies have already taken actions in the past decade to develop a robust CCUS regulatory framework to protect the environment and public health across multiple statutes. This framework requires monitoring and compliance with a variety of reporting requirements. This guidance is intended to address opportunities for clarifications and improvements to ensure that CCUS is responsibly scaled in a timely manner, while maintaining the integrity of public health, the environment, and the economy.

CEQ issues the following guidance to facilitate reviews associated with the deployment of CCUS and to promote the efficient, orderly, and responsible development and permitting of CCUS projects at an increased scale in line with the Administration's climate, economic, and public health goals.

The process for permitting a CCUS project is similar to that for any industrial activity, and the CEQ CCUS Report  4 recognized that the Federal Government has an existing regulatory framework that is capable of safeguarding the environment, public health, and public safety as CCUS projects move forward. The Report also provided an inventory of Federal permits and reviews that are potentially relevant to any CCUS project.

Likewise, the Report identified a number of areas where CEQ could work with agencies to continue to facilitate efficient, orderly, and responsible deployment of CCUS. For example, federally funded CCUS projects or CCUS activities on federally managed lands may trigger obligations under a variety of statutes including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the National Historic Preservation Act; the Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; the Endangered Species Act (ESA); the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act; the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act. Other safety, environmental, and ecological requirements may also apply.

To facilitate the deployment of CCUS in the United States, in line with the Administration's climate and economic goals, agencies should consider developing programmatic environmental reviews, 5 such as tiered documents or programmatic environmental impact statements (PEISs) under NEPA, or programmatic biological opinions under the ESA, where such analyses can facilitate more efficient and effective environmental reviews of multiple projects while maintaining strong community engagement. 6

For example, a PEIS could be prepared for a region where agencies anticipate review of multiple CCUS projects. In 2012, the Department of Energy (DOE) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) completed a PEIS that evaluated actions that would facilitate utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in six southwestern states. 7 That same year, BLM also worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete a programmatic consultation under the ESA addressing the solar energy program's potential effects on listed species. 8 Agencies could apply a similar approach in the CCUS context, preparing programmatic analyses assessing impacts associated with the deployment of CCUS, such as to help identify appropriate areas for CCUS project deployment.

As always, agencies conducting NEPA analyses regarding proposed CCUS actions must analyze all reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, including cumulative pollution from numerous sources. Agencies should work with communities and Tribes during the scoping phase to identify alternatives to the proposed action, including alternatives that reduce environmental impacts, especially on overburdened and underserved communities.

The USE IT Act established CCUS as a sector under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST-41) Act. However, the Federal Permitting Infrastructure Permitting Council has not received any CCUS project applications for FAST-41 coverage as of the issuance of this guidance; therefore, agencies have not had the opportunity to develop a comprehensive permitting timetable for any CCUS project. CEQ recommends that the Permitting Council Executive Director, in consultation with the Permitting Council member agencies, establish an appropriate facilitating agency for each general CCUS project category. CEQ also recommends that the Permitting Council Executive Director, in consultation with the Permitting Council member agencies, develop for each category of CCUS project recommended performance schedules. Identification of the environmental reviews and authorizations most commonly required will help facilitate timely reviews of such projects. Separately, agencies may also consider implementing memoranda of understanding to establish the process by which they will collaborate on anticipated CCUS projects and related activities.

Carbon dioxide pipelines and permanent sequestration are critical to the future nationwide deployment of CCUS. Extensive analysis identifies the priority pathways and necessary pipeline infrastructure required to achieve CCUS and permanent sequestration at a climate-relevant scale across all industries, but significant investments, planning, and community engagement and analysis are required. An expanded carbon dioxide pipeline and sequestration network in the United States should be accompanied by close monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations and development of new tools to monitor and improve safety while also reducing the number of incidents that result in leakage of carbon dioxide.

To facilitate effective permanent sequestration, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the IIJA) provides additional funding for implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, including funds that could enable increased staff capacity and training at agencies with geological sequestration permitting authorities, and providing grants for States with UIC Class VI primary enforcement authority (primacy) or to States seeking primacy. The IIJA also expands the Carbon Storage Validation and Testing Demonstration Program at DOE to include a large-scale carbon storage commercialization program to demonstrate the feasibility, site characterization, permitting and construction stages of permanent, commercial-scale geologic sequestration projects. In addition, the IIJA amended the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant leases, easements, and rights-of-way to support CCUS activities on the outer continental shelf (OCS). It also required the Department of the Interior (DOI) to promulgate related regulations within a year. CEQ will collaborate with agencies and monitor progress related to these activities and regulations in the coming months, including authorizing use of geologic pore space on Federal lands.

To build public confidence and increase transparency in geologic carbon sequestration activities, CEQ further recommends that agencies responsible for greenhouse gas inventories and related reporting, such as EPA, include provisions that increase transparency regarding CCUS activities in the United States. For example, the EPA could consider enhancing reporting for CCUS and carbon capture and utilization (CCU) in proposed rule revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

Transparently and reliably quantifying the amount of carbon dioxide permanently sequestered also requires monitoring and verification, which is required as part of the EPA's UIC Class VI permitting and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requirements for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. For additional transparency regarding geologic sequestration activities in the United States, agencies such as DOI, DOE, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should consider expanding existing efforts, and (when feasible) implementing a national program for monitoring deep geologic carbon sequestration.

On pipelines, the IIJA establishes the Carbon Dioxide Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program to provide flexible Federal loans and grants for building carbon dioxide pipelines designed with excess capacity. Because multiple Federal and State agencies will be responsible for planning and permitting priority pipeline pathways, and in order to ensure that these actions are aligned with climate, economic, and public health objectives, CEQ will convene the relevant agencies to assess opportunities for improvement in carbon dioxide pipeline permitting.

CEQ also recommends that the agencies with oversight authority for carbon dioxide pipelines update regulations, as appropriate, to address the deployment of CCUS technologies. For example, the impacts of climate change should be planned for and addressed in the design, construction, and maintenance of carbon dioxide pipelines. Agencies with regulatory authority, such as the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, should consider updating criteria for geohazard risk evaluation and emergency planning and enforce the application of those criteria to carbon dioxide and other pipeline operations in the United States. In addition, agencies should provide updated training for first responders regarding potential carbon dioxide pipeline incidents. Agencies should also consider developing and applying protocols for safety monitoring and enforcement that also consider the company's capacity to respond to an incident should one occur, evaluating financial risk.

The scale of implementation of CCUS likely to be required to achieve climate goals understandably raises concerns about public health and environmental impacts, as well as questions about who stands to benefit from the deployment of these systems. Responsible CCUS projects should engage communities and Tribes in co-development of projects and approaches; protect communities from pollution; and incorporate environmental justice and equity considerations, especially in communities that are already exposed to multiple pollution sources.

CEQ recommends that agencies undertake measures to facilitate a transparent process and meaningful public engagement. In addition to developing robust Tribal consultation and stakeholder engagement plans and conducting regular engagement, agencies should prioritize the development and application of environmental justice best practices for CCUS efforts. 9 Actions that should be taken include:

• Evaluating the impacts of proposed CCUS actions on potential host communities early in the planning process;

• Providing information about the impacts, costs and benefits of CCUS in advance of Tribal consultation and stakeholder engagement;

• Consulting Tribal Nations on potential CCUS projects in a manner that strengthens Nation-to-Nation relationships;

• Avoiding the imposition of additional burdens on overburdened and underserved communities, including by evaluating direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and identifying and implementing appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures; and

• Ensuring transparent decisions and accountability to Tribes and communities with respect to any applicable mitigation measures designed to reduce environmental impacts.

When feasible, CEQ further recommends that agencies with substantial CCUS technology development and deployment activities initiate interdisciplinary RDD&D programs and robust community engagement in the context of CCUS technology deployment. This can help to ensure that RDD&D on CCUS is informed by diverse academic perspectives and aligned with community objectives and goals. These agencies include DOE, EPA, DOT, and the National Science Foundation. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy should coordinate this interdisciplinary research.

The CEQ CCUS Report also highlighted the need to further assess and quantify potential impacts on local criteria air pollutants and other emissions resulting from carbon capture retrofits at industrial facilities in response to concerns regarding potential cumulative emissions from single and/or multiple sources. 10 In addition to assessing criteria pollutants associated with CCUS activities, agencies should also assess carbon dioxide emissions from project infrastructure. OCS sequestration projects should further consider possible impacts on water column carbonate chemistry.

CEQ recommends that agencies, including EPA and DOE, collaborate on studies regarding the effect of carbon capture deployment on air quality in the United States. Such studies will be coordinated by CEQ, and may include evaluating use of air dispersion modeling as part of comprehensive air quality impacts analysis and will be used to develop additional guidance for considering air quality impacts as part of the planning and permitting process for CCUS activities. CEQ also recommends that agencies, including DOE, EPA, DOI, and NOAA, collaborate on additional studies that are needed to better monitor and verify CCUS results and understand the impacts to living marine resources associated with geologic sequestration and monitoring efforts on the OCS.

In addition, CEQ recommends that agencies share best practices with respect to data collection and reporting on CCUS projects. For example, DOE now requires recipients of funding to collect and report data regarding the non-carbon dioxide air emissions associated with carbon capture projects.

Each technical approach for CCU and CDR differs in technical maturity, market potential, cost, and carbon dioxide reduction potential. Each may also have different societal and environmental impacts and benefits. Enabling commercialization of CCU and CDR will ultimately require increased transparency to build public confidence in the emissions reductions associated with these projects and their durability. Such transparency can be accomplished through publicly available analyses, such as life-cycle analyses, and/or the establishment of standards or certification for products. Commercialization of CCU and CDR can be further expedited through Federal procurement and other economic incentives. The IIJA supports engineered carbon removal, including by creating regional DAC hubs.

Agencies with activities and responsibilities for CCU and CDR regulations, standards, and greenhouse gas reporting, such as EPA, DOE, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and other relevant agencies, should consider consolidating and publishing a repository for life-cycle analysis (LCA) methodology, results, and information related to CCU and CDR, building on existing collaboration through the Federal LCA Commons. As DOE further develops standards and certifications needed to facilitate the commercialization of CCU technologies as required in the IIJA, CEQ recommends that DOE and other agencies with equities in CCUS standards consider evaluating how standards and certifications can increase Federal procurement of CCU, CCUS, and CDR technologies.

On December 20, 2021, the Department published an NIA for the SFEC competition in the Federal Register (86 FR 71880). However, the SFEC application package was not posted on Grants.gov until January 10, 2022. Therefore, we are extending the deadline for transmittal of applications for the competition by 21 days until March 11, 2022, at 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Time. This extension will allow applicants more time to prepare and submit their applications. Applicants that have already timely submitted applications under the FY 2022 SFEC competition may resubmit applications but are not required to do so. If a new application is not submitted, the Department will use the application that was submitted by the original deadline. If a new application is submitted, the Department will consider the application that is last submitted and timely received.

All other requirements and conditions stated in the NIA remain the same.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7241-46.

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

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

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

Purpose of Program: The Javits program supports evidence-based   1 research, demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and similar activities designed to build and enhance the ability of elementary schools and secondary schools nationwide to identify gifted and talented students and meet their special educational needs. A major emphasis of the program is on identifying and serving students traditionally underrepresented in gifted and talented programs (including economically disadvantaged individuals, individuals who are English learners, and children with disabilities ), including the training of personnel in the identification and education of gifted and talented students and in the use, where appropriate, of gifted and talented services, materials, and methods, for all students.

Background: Through this competition, the Department seeks to increase the focus on students who are traditionally underserved and underrepresented in gifted and talented programs by funding projects that are designed to develop new information that assists schools in identifying, and providing services to, gifted and talented students (including economically disadvantaged individuals, individuals who are English learners, and children with disabilities ) who may not be identified and served through traditional assessment methods.

Schools and districts have an opportunity to better identify and serve the educational needs of children with disabilities who are gifted and talented . According to the Report on the Condition of Education 2021 from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), approximately 7.3 million students (ages 3 through 21) received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in school year 2019-20. Based on the NCES data, the most common category of children with disabilities receiving IDEA services are students with learning disabilities. 2 Unfortunately, researchers have been unable to collect accurate data on the number of children with disabilities who are gifted and talented largely because of the unique characteristics of this group of students. Research has also demonstrated that teachers and administrators may struggle to identify gifted and talented children with disabilities because the disability could mask the giftedness or vice versa. 3

The use of appropriate assessments can help identify gifted and talented students who are children with disabilities and measure not only improvements in academic achievement but growth and development in other areas, such as social and emotional development, critical thinking, and behavioral skills. Appropriate monitoring and continuous assessments are necessary elements of a successful strategy for addressing the needs of gifted and talented students. Cao, Jung and Lee (2017) list a number of assessments that are typically used to identify gifted and talented students, such as ability tests, achievement tests, norm-referenced achievement tests, performance-based tests, and dynamic assessments. 4

Some of these traditional methods of assessing gifted and talented students may be limited in their current form in reflecting the needs of underrepresented groups. Nontraditional assessment methods can provide comprehensive analyses that reduce bias related to the student's education, background, or culture and provide greater opportunities for identifying gifted and talented students who are underserved (including students who are economically disadvantaged, individuals who are English learners, and children with disabilities ) than traditional assessment methods may afford. Additionally, there are nontraditional assessment methods that focus on changes to student performance over time, rather than student performance at a single point in time, such as process-oriented assessments that evaluate a student's performance of an actual task rather than an output.

The absolute priority in this notice requires applicants to develop “new information” that assists schools in the identification of, and provision of services to, gifted and talented students (including economically disadvantaged individuals, individuals who are English learners, and children with disabilities ) who may not be identified and served through traditional assessment methods. In proposing projects that would develop “new information,” we encourage applicants to propose nontraditional and nondiscriminatory methods of identifying and teaching gifted and talented students, such as utilizing a combination of valid and reliable assessments; process-oriented and performance-based assessments ( e.g., portfolios of the student's work over a period of time, open-ended essays, project work that involves collaboration with peers, and artistic and musical skills and abilities); behavioral characteristic checklists; and interviews with teachers, family members, and community members who are familiar with the student's abilities and performance.

Competitive Preference Priority 1 focuses on training personnel to identify and educate gifted and talented students who are children with disabilities . Competitive Preference Priority 2 emphasizes the importance of utilizing nontraditional methods for assessing gifted and talented students, particularly as they relate to the identification of, and provision of services to, gifted and talented students who are children with disabilities, because traditional assessment methods, on their own, may not provide a complete evaluation of a potential gifted and talented student's knowledge, skills and abilities and could potentially lead to the misidentification of a gifted and talented child with a disability .

Another important goal of the Javits program is to increase equity in identifying and providing services to gifted and talented students from underrepresented groups. 5 In his research, Grissom (2016) found that underserved students, such as Black and Hispanic students, are less likely to be identified as gifted and talented, in part, because many schools in low socio-economic status communities do not have gifted and talented programs. Concomitantly, Grissom (2016) provides evidence that suggests Black and Hispanic students excel in gifted and talented programs in schools where there are larger numbers of educators who are also Black and Hispanic. 6

Competitive Preference Priority 3 addresses projects designed to increase the number and proportion of experienced, fully certified, in-field, and effective educators, and educators from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds or the communities they serve, in order to support the needs of gifted and talented students who are traditionally underserved students . In this context, with respect to in-field educators, we encourage applicants to propose projects that are designed to increase the number and proportion of experienced and effective educators who are certified to identify and teach gifted and talented students.

Priorities: This notice contains one absolute priority and three competitive preference priorities. The absolute priority and Competitive Preference Priority 2 are from section 4644(f)(1)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7294(f)(1)(B)). Competitive Preference Priority 1 is from section 4644(b)(1) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7294(b)(1)), and Competitive Preference Priority 3 is from the Final Priorities and Definitions—Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this absolute priority.

This priority is:

Identification of, and Provision of Services to, Gifted and Talented Students Who May Not Be Identified through Traditional Assessment Methods .

Projects designed to develop new information that assists schools in the identification of, and provision of services to, gifted and talented students (including economically disadvantaged individuals, individuals who are English learners, and children with disabilities ) who may not be identified and served through traditional assessment methods.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 5 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 1, Competitive Preference Priority 2, or Competitive Preference Priority 3, for a maximum of an additional 15 points.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Training Personnel in the Identification and Education of Gifted and Talented Students Who are Children with Disabilities . (up to 5 points)

Projects that include providing training to personnel in schools served under the project to assist such personnel in identifying and educating gifted and talented students who are children with disabilities . Such training may include, but is not limited to, workshops or programs that teach effective instructional and communication techniques, classroom practices and culture, and other strategies that support the social, emotional, developmental and academic needs of gifted and talented students who are children with disabilities .

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Identification of, and Provision of Services to, Gifted and Talented Students Who are Children with Disabilities . (up to 5 points)

Projects that include developing new information, that assists schools in the identification of, and provision of services to, gifted and talented students who are children with disabilities who may not be identified through traditional assessment methods.

Competitive Preference Priority 3—Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational Resources and Opportunities . (up to 5 points)

Projects designed to promote educational equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity for underserved students —

(1) In one or more of the following educational settings:

(i) Middle school.

(ii) Elementary school. 7

(iii) High school.

(iv) Career and technical education programs.

(v) Out-of-school-time settings;

(2) That examine the sources of inequity and inadequacy and implement responses, and that may include one or more of the following:

(i) Rigorous, engaging, and well-rounded ( e.g., that include music and the arts) approaches to learning that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status and prepare students for college, career, and civic life, including one or more of the following:

(A) Student-centered learning models that may leverage technology to address learner variability ( e.g., universal design for learning, K-12 competency-based education, project-based learning, or hybrid/blended learning) and provide high-quality learning content, applications, or tools.

(B) Middle school courses or projects that prepare students to participate in advanced coursework in high school.

(C) Advanced courses and programs, including dual enrollment and early college programs.

(D) Project-based and experiential learning, including service and work-based learning.

(E) High-quality career and technical education courses, pathways, and industry-recognized credentials that are integrated into the curriculum.

(F) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), including computer science coursework.

(ii) Increasing the number and proportion of experienced, fully certified, in-field, and effective educators, and educators from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds or the communities they serve, to ensure that underserved students have educators from those backgrounds and communities and are not taught at disproportionately higher rates by uncertified, out-of-field, and novice teachers compared to their peers. 8

Program Requirements: These program requirements are from sections 4644(c) and (g) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7294(c) and (g)). For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications, the following program requirements apply:

Uses of Funds: Programs and projects funded under this competition may include any of the following:

(a) Conducting evidence-based research on methods and techniques for identifying and teaching gifted and talented students and for using gifted and talented programs and methods to identify and provide the opportunity for all students to be served, particularly low-income and at-risk students.

(b) Establishing and operating programs and projects for identifying and serving gifted and talented students, including innovative methods and strategies (such as summer programs, mentoring programs, peer tutoring programs, service-learning programs, and cooperative learning programs involving business, industry, and education) for identifying and educating students who may not be served by traditional gifted and talented programs.

(c) Providing technical assistance and disseminating information, which may include how gifted and talented programs and methods may be adapted for use by all students, particularly low-income and at-risk students. (Section 4644(c) of the ESEA).

Equitable Participation of Private School Students and Teachers: Grant recipients under this program must provide for the equitable participation of students and teachers in private nonprofit elementary schools and secondary schools, including the participation of teachers and other personnel in professional development programs serving such students. (Section 4644(g) of the ESEA).

Application Requirements: These application requirements are from section 4644(b) and (c) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7294(b) and (c)). For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following application requirements apply:

Each application must describe how—

(1) The proposed identification methods, as well as gifted and talented services, materials, and methods, can be adapted, if appropriate, for use by all students;

(2) The proposed programs can be evaluated; and

(3) The proposed project will provide for training of personnel in the identification and education of gifted and talented students and in the use, where appropriate, of gifted and talented services, materials, and methods for all students.

Definitions: These definitions are from section 8101 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7801), 34 CFR 77.1, and the Supplemental Priorities. These definitions apply to the FY 2022 Javits grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Child with a disability (or children with disabilities), unless otherwise indicated, has the same meaning given that term in section 602 of IDEA, which is—

(1) A child—

(i) With intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in the IDEA as “emotional disturbance”), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and

(ii) Who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

(2) The term “child with a disability,” for a child aged three through nine (or any subset of that age range, including ages three through five), may, at the discretion of the State and the local educational agency, include a child—

(i) Experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in one or more of the following areas: physical development; cognitive development; communication development; social or emotional development; or adaptive development; and

(ii) Who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. (Section 8101(4) of the ESEA).

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

Disconnected youth means an individual, between the ages 14 and 24, who may be from a low-income background, experiences homelessness, is in foster care, is involved in the justice system, or is not working or not enrolled in (or at risk of dropping out of) an educational institution. (Supplemental Priorities). 9

Educator means an individual who is an early learning (as defined in the Supplemental Priorities) educator, teacher, principal or other school leader, specialized instructional support personnel ( e.g., school psychologist, counselor, school social worker, early intervention service personnel), paraprofessional, or faculty. (Supplemental Priorities).

Elementary school means a nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public elementary charter school, that provides elementary education, as determined under State law. (Section 8101(19) of the ESEA).

English learner, unless otherwise indicated, when used with respect to an individual, means an individual—

(1) Who is aged three through 21;

(2) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;

(3)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;

(ii)(A) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and

(B) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or

(iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and

(4) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—

(i) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;

(ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or

(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society. (Section 8101(20) of the ESEA).

Evidence-based, when used with respect to a State, local educational agency, or school activity, means an activity, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on—

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

(2) Moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or

(3) Promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias. (Section 8101(21) of the ESEA).

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

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

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

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

Gifted and talented, when used with respect to students, children, or youth, means students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (Section 8101(27) of the ESEA).

Military- or veteran-connected student means one or more of the following:

(1) A student enrolled in preschool through grade 12 or a student enrolled in career and technical education who has a parent or guardian who is a member of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101), in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space Force, National Guard, Reserves, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or Public Health Service or is a veteran of the uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C. 3311).

(2) A student who is a member of the uniformed services, a veteran of the uniformed services, or the spouse of a service member or veteran.

(3) A student enrolled in preschool through grade 12 or a student enrolled in career and technical education who has a parent or guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101). (Supplemental Priorities).

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

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

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

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

(i) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

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

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

(iv) Is based on a sample from more than one site ( e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (3)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement in this paragraph (3)(iv). (34 CFR 77.1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects.

This type of study, depending on design and implementation ( e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks. (34 CFR 77.1).

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

Secondary school means a nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public secondary charter school, that provides secondary education, as determined under State law, except that the term does not include any education beyond grade 12.

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

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

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

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

(i) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

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

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

(iv) Is based on a sample from more than one site ( e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (3)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this definition may together satisfy the requirement in this paragraph (3)(iv). (34 CFR 77.1).

Underserved student means a student (which includes students in K-12 programs and students in career and technical education, as appropriate)  10 in one or more of the following subgroups:

(1) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.

(2) A student of color.

(3) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.

(4) An English learner.

(5) A child or student with a disability.

(6) A disconnected youth.

(7) A technologically unconnected youth.

(8) A migrant student.

(9) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.

(10) A student performing significantly below grade level.

(11) A military- or veteran-connected student.

For the purpose of the definition of underserved student only—

“Child or student with a disability” means children with disabilities as defined in section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1401(3)) and 34 CFR 300.8, or students with disabilities, as defined in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(37), 705(202)(B)); and

“English learner” means an individual who is an English learner as defined in section 8101(20) of the ESEA, or an individual who is an English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. (Supplemental Priorities).

Universal design for learning means a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that—

(1) Provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and

(2) Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient. 11 (Supplemental Priorities).

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

Program Authority: Section 4644 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7294).

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations in 34 CFR part 299. (e) The Supplemental Priorities.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested $13,500,000 for awards for the Javits program for FY 2022, of which we intend to use an estimated $6,600,000 for this competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2023 and subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 to $730,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $600,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 9-15.

Project Period: 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: To be considered for an award under this competition, an applicant must be one or more of the following:

(1) State educational agency;

(2) Local educational agency;

(3) Bureau of Indian Education;

(4) IHE;

(5) Other public agency; or

(6) Other private agency or organization.

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

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

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

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

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73264) and available at www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-27979, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede the version published on February 13, 2019, and, in part, describe the transition from the requirement to register in SAM.gov a DUNS number to the implementation of the UEI. More information on the phase-out of DUNS numbers is available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ofo/docs/unique-entity-identifier-transition-fact-sheet.pdf.

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

Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

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

3. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

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

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 30 pages and (2) use the following standards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Need for the Project (up to 5 points).

The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.

(b) Quality of the Project Design (up to 30 points).

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

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

(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs;

(3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance;

(4) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;

(5) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence; and

(6) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.

(c) Quality of the Management Plan (up to 20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

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

(2) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project; and

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

(d) Quality of Project Services (up to 30 points).

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

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

(2) In addition, the Secretary considers the likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.

(e) Quality of Project Personnel (up to 5 points).

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

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

(2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors—

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

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

(f) Adequacy of Resources (up to 10 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

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

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

(3) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established the following performance measures for the Javits program: (1) The number of students newly identified as gifted and talented under the program; (2) The number of underserved students newly identified as gifted and talented under the program; (3) The percentage of students newly identified as gifted and talented under the program who were served under the program; (4) The percentage of underserved students newly identified as gifted and talented under the program who were served by the program; (5) Of the students served under the program who were in tested grades, the percentage who made gains on State assessments in mathematics; (6) Of the students served under the program who were in tested grades, the percentage who made gains on State assessments in science; (7) Of the students served under the program who were in tested grades, the percentage who made gains on State assessments in reading; and (8) The number of teachers and other educators who received services that enable them to better identify and improve instruction for gifted and talented students.

All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report that includes data addressing these performance measures to the extent that they apply to the grantee's project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title of Collection: HEERF Quarterly Budget and Expenditure Reporting.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0849.

Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 20,680.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 103,400.

Abstract: Section 18004(a)(1) of the CARES Act, Public Law 116-136 (March 27, 2020), authorizes the Secretary of Education to allocate formula grant funds to participating institutions of higher educations (IHEs). Section 18004(c) of the CARES Act allows the IHEs to use up to one-half of the total funds received to cover any costs associated with the significant changes to the delivery of instruction due to the coronavirus (with specific exceptions). Section 18004(a)(2) of the CARES Act authorizes the Secretary to make awards under parts A and B of title III, parts A and B of title V, and subpart 4 of part A of title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (“HEA”), to address needs directly related to the coronavirus. These awards are in addition to awards made in Section 18004(a)(1) of the CARES Act. Section 18004(a)(3) of the CARES Act, Pub. authorizes the Secretary to allocate funds for part B of Title VII of the HEA, for IHEs that the Secretary determines have the greatest unmet needs related to coronavirus.

This information collection request includes additions and revisions to the quarterly budget and expenditure reporting form used by grantees under these sections of the CARES Act, as well as comparable sections of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) (Pub. L. 116-260) and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) (Pub. L. 117-2). These revisions to the collection will ensure the Department will be able to more effectively monitor the use of funds by grantees that have received awards under these sections. The majority of the quarterly report aligns closely with the recently-approved annual reporting form, for which 60- and 30-day comment notices were published.

Additional Information: The Department is requesting emergency approval to allow the revisions to be implemented and announced prior to the first quarter reporting deadline on April 10, 2022. If the Department is unable to implement the changes in time for this reporting deadline, the Department will be lacking critical information needed to monitor and provide technical assistance to HEERF grantees. Given the amount of HEERF funds that have been distributed, it is imperative that the Department has the information needed to ensure that all uses of funds are in accordance with the governing statutes and program guidance.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Competitive Grants for State Assessments (CGSA) program is to enhance the quality of assessment instruments and assessment systems used by States for measuring the academic achievement of elementary and secondary school students.

Background: The Department recognizes the importance of high-quality assessment systems, which include diagnostic, formative, interim, and summative assessments that are valid and reliable for the purposes for which they are used and that provide relevant and timely information to help educators, parents or caregivers, and policymakers support students at the student, classroom, school, and system levels.

Statewide summative assessments are among multiple measures that can provide valuable information to students, parents or caregivers, educators, and the public about student outcomes and opportunity gaps. In its draft Frequently Asked Question document, Impact of COVID-19 on 2021-2022 Accountability Systems Required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), 1 the Department encourages States to explore “opportunities to improve statewide summative assessments, which may include, consistent with ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(B)(vi), the use of multiple measures of student academic achievement, including measures of higher-order thinking skills and understanding, which may include measures of student academic growth and may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks which can provide students with culturally and linguistically responsive ways of demonstrating progress.”  2 In particular, the available uses of funds for CGSA include developing or improving models to measure individual student growth and improving assessments for English learners and children and students with disabilities. For example, a State could develop statewide academic assessments in another language or form, if that would likely yield more accurate and reliable information on what such a student knows and can do, or use the principles of universal design for learning to improve the accessibility of their statewide assessments. Additionally, technology advancement can allow for assessments to be conducted with more frequency and less interruptions in instruction. These technology-enhanced assessments may be able to provide timely and tailored supports for teachers to inform instruction.

Further, this notice is aligned with the strategies outlined in the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities), which include developing and implementing high-quality assessments of student learning (for example, curriculum-aligned and performance-based tools aligned with State grade-level content standards and, for career and technical education, relevant industry standards) and strategies that allow educators to use the data from assessments to inform instructional design and classroom practices that meet the needs of all students and providing high-quality professional development to support educators in implementing these strategies. 3

Section 1203(b)(1)(A) of the ESEA identifies six allowable uses of funds under CGSA. In brief, these uses include (1) developing or improving assessments for English learners; (2) developing or improving models to measure and assess student progress or student growth on assessments; (3) developing or improving assessments for children with disabilities; (4) collaborating with institutions of higher education or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments; (5) measuring student academic achievement using multiple measures of student academic achievement from multiple sources; and (6) evaluating student academic achievement using comprehensive academic assessment instruments (such as performance and technology-based academic assessments, computer adaptive assessments, projects, or extended performance task assessments) that emphasize the mastery of standards and aligned competencies in a competency-based education model. The Department notes that, as set forth below in the Priorities section, the last two statutory uses of funds also are the two absolute priorities in this competition.

The Department notes that these allowable uses of funds are not mutually exclusive. An SEA, or consortium of SEAs, applying for funds must identify how the proposed project addresses at least one of the absolute priorities in this CGSA competition. An applicant may also propose any of the other four allowed uses of funds, as long as it also addresses either absolute priority.

Grants awarded from this competition are available for up to 48 months with a maximum budget request of $3,000,000 for the total project period.

Priorities: This competition includes two absolute priorities, one competitive preference priority, and one invitational priority to encourage State educational agencies (SEAs) to consider new approaches to their State assessment systems.

Absolute Priority 1 is from ESEA section 1201(a)(2)(K) and is intended to encourage the use of multiple measures of academic achievement. Projects under this absolute priority might promote deeper understanding of academic achievement of all student subgroups by supporting States in designing a statewide assessment system that meets Federal requirements and, for example, integrates information obtained from curriculum-embedded performance tasks with information obtained from an end-of-year assessment to produce a valid, reliable, and fair measure of student achievement of State academic standards.

Absolute Priority 2 is from ESEA section 1201(a)(2)(L) and is focused on the development of comprehensive academic assessments that emphasize the mastery of standards and aligned competencies in a competency-based education model. Projects under this absolute priority could, for example, strengthen statewide assessment systems by incorporating innovative, dynamic, and real-time tools for assessing student learning and progression and providing information to educators.

The competitive priority is from the Notice of Final Priorities—Enhanced Assessment Instruments, published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2016, (81 FR 52341) (2016 NFP). 4 The competitive priority focuses on improving the utility of information about student performance included in reports of assessment results and providing better and more timely information to educators and parents.

The invitational priority is from the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021, at 86 FR 70612. 5 The invitational priority is focused on supporting effective instruction and building educator capacity through the development of high-quality assessments of student learning and strategies that allow educators to use data from assessments to inform instruction.

For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these are the priorities.

Absolute Priorities: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one of these priorities. Absolute Priorities 1 and 2 each constitute their own funding categories. The Department may award grants under each of these absolute priorities provided that applications of sufficient quality are submitted. As a result, the Department may fund applications out of the overall rank order. To ensure that applicants are considered for the correct type of grant, applicants must clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed project addresses. If an SEA (or consortium of SEAs) is interested in proposing separate projects ( e.g., one that addresses Absolute Priority 1 and another that addresses Absolute Priority 2), the SEA (or consortium of SEAs) must submit separate applications.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1: Measuring student academic achievement using multiple measures of student academic achievement from multiple sources.

Absolute Priority 2: Evaluating student academic achievement through the development of comprehensive academic assessment instruments (such as performance and technology-based academic assessments, computer adaptive assessments, projects, or extended performance task assessments) that emphasize the mastery of standards and aligned competencies in a competency-based education model.

Competitive Preference Priority: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), the Department awards up to an additional 3 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets the priority. The competitive priority is: Improving assessment scoring and score reporting. (Up to 3 points)

Under this priority, SEAs must:

(a) Propose projects, in consultation with organizations representing parents (including parents of English learners and parents of students with disabilities), students, teachers, counselors, and school administrators to address needs related to score reporting and improve the utility of information about student performance included in reports of assessment results and provide better and more timely information to educators and parents;

(1) To respond to paragraph (a), applicants must include one or more of the following in their projects:

(i) Developing enhanced score reporting templates or digital mechanisms for communicating assessment results and their meaning (such as by providing clear and actionable next steps for parents);

(ii) Improving the assessment literacy of educators and parents to help them interpret test results and to support teaching and learning in the classroom (such as by providing training on test development and interpretation of test scores); and

(iii) Developing mechanisms for secure transmission and individual use of assessment results by teachers, students, and parents.

(b) Applicants proposing projects under paragraph (a) must provide a dissemination plan for sharing lessons learned and best practices such that their projects can serve as models and resources that can be shared with other States.

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets an invitational priority any preference over other applications.

The invitational priority is: Supporting effective instruction and building educator capacity by developing and implementing high-quality assessments (as defined in the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities  6 ) of student learning (for example, curriculum-aligned and performance-based tools aligned with State grade-level content standards or, for career and technical education, relevant industry standards) and strategies that allow educators to use the data from assessments to inform instructional design and classroom practices that meet the needs of all students, and providing high-quality professional development to support educators in implementing these strategies.

Application Requirement: For FY 2022, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, applicants must meet the following uses of funds application requirement from section 1203(b)(1)(B) of the ESEA, which refers to section 1201(a)(2)(C) and (H)-(L) of the ESEA.

Uses of Funds: As required by statute and stated earlier in this notice, applicants must demonstrate that their proposed uses of funds for CGSA would be to carry out one or more of the following activities:

(a) Developing or improving assessments for English learners, including assessments of English language proficiency as required under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the ESEA and academic assessments in languages other than English to meet the State's obligations under section 1111(b)(2)(F) of the ESEA.

(b) Developing or improving models to measure and assess student progress or student growth on State assessments under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA and other assessments not required under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA.

(c) Developing or improving assessments for children with disabilities, including alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities described in section 1111(b)(2)(D) of the ESEA, and using the principles of universal design for learning.

(d) Allowing for collaboration with institutions of higher education, other research institutions, or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments beyond the requirements for such assessments described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA.

(e) Measuring student academic achievement using multiple measures of student academic achievement from multiple sources.

(f) Evaluating student academic achievement through the development of comprehensive academic assessment instruments (such as performance and technology-based academic assessments, computer adaptive assessments, projects, or extended performance task assessments) that emphasize the mastery of standards and aligned competencies in a competency-based education model.

Definitions: For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following definitions apply. The definitions of “Child with a disability,” “English learner,” and “Universal design for learning” are from section 8101 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7801). The definitions of “Demonstrates a rationale,” “Logic model,” “Project component,” and “Relevant outcome” are from 34 CFR 77.1.

Child with a disability, as defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, means—

(A) A child—

(i) With intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in the IDEA as “emotional disturbance”), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and

(ii) Who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

(B) The term “child with a disability” for a child aged 3 through 9 (or any subset of that age range, including ages three through five), may, at the discretion of the State and the local educational agency, include a child—

(i) Experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in 1 or more of the following areas: Physical development; cognitive development; communication development; social or emotional development; or adaptive development; and

(ii) Who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

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

English learner, when used with respect to an individual, means an individual—

(A) Who is aged 3 through 21;

(B) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;

(C)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;

(ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and

(II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or

(iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and

(D) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—

(i) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;

(ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or

(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society.

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

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

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

Universal design for learning, as defined under section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, means a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that—

(a) Provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and

(b) Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient. 7

Program Authority: Section 1203(b)(1) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6363(b)(1)).

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The 2016 NFP. (e) The Supplemental Priorities.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $17,711,000. The Administration has requested $8,900,000 for new awards for this program for FY 2022. Congress has already appropriated $8,900,000 for FY 2021. The actual total amount of funding for this competition depends on final congressional action for FY 2022.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2023 (or later) from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards for the Project Period: $1,000,000 to $3,000,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards for the Project Period: $2,500,000.

Maximum Size of Awards for the Project Period: We will not make an award exceeding $3,000,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 3 to 6.

Project Period: Up to 48 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs, as defined in section 8101(49) of the ESEA, of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and consortia of such SEAs.

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

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

4. Other: An application from a consortium of SEAs must designate one SEA as the fiscal agent.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73264) and available at www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-27979, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede the version published on February 13, 2019, and, in part, describe the transition from the requirement to register in SAM.gov a DUNS number to the implementation of the UEI. More information on the phase-out of DUNS numbers is available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ofo/docs/unique-entity-identifier-transition-fact-sheet.pdf.

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

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

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

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

5. Recommended Page Limit: The project narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to the equivalent of no more than 65 pages and (2) use the following standards:

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

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

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

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

The recommended page limit applies to the project narrative, including the table of contents, which must include a discussion of how the application meets one of the absolute priorities, and how well the application addresses each of the selection criteria. The recommended page limit also applies to any attachments to the project narrative other than the items mentioned in Part 6 of the application package, including the references/bibliography. In other words, we recommend that the entirety of the project narrative, including the aforementioned discussion and any attachments to the project narrative, be limited to the equivalent of no more than 65 pages. The only allowable attachments other than those included in the project narrative are outlined in Part 6, “Other Attachments Forms,” in the application package.

The recommended 65-page limit, or its equivalent, does not apply to the following sections of an application: Part 1 (including the response regarding research activities involving human subjects); Part 2 (budget information); Part 3 (two-page project abstract); Part 5 (the budget narrative); Part 6 (memoranda of understanding or other binding agreement, if applicable; copy of applicant's indirect cost rate agreement; letters of commitment and support from collaborating SEAs and organizations; other attachments forms, including, if applicable, references/bibliography for the project narrative and individual résumés for project director(s) and key personnel); and Part 7 (standard assurances and certifications). Applicants are encouraged to limit each résumé to no more than five pages.

Please note, hyperlinks should not be used in an application. Reviewers will be instructed not to follow hyperlinks if included. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications that meet the page limit following the standards outlined in this section rather than submitting applications that are the equivalent of the page limit applying other standards.

6. Notice of Intent to Apply: We are better able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we have a better understanding of the number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding and which absolute priority the applicant intends to address. This notification should be brief and identify the SEA applicant and, in the case of consortia applicants, the SEA that it will designate as the fiscal agent for an award. Submit this notification by email to ESEA.Assessment@ed.gov with “Intent to Apply” in the email subject line or mail to Donald Peasley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W106, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Applicants that do not provide this notification may still apply for funding.

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

(a) Significance (up to 10 points).

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

(1) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population. (5 points)

(2) The likely utility of the products (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings. (5 points).

(b) Quality of the project design (up to 25 points).

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

(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (10 points)

(2) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students. (10 points)

(3) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice). (5 points)

(c) Quality of project services (up to 30 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

(1) The quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (10 points)

(2) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services. (10 points)

(3) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services. (10 points)

(d) Adequacy of resources (up to 10 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

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

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

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

(2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (10 points)

(f) Quality of the project evaluation (up to 5 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Performance Measures: For purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has developed three measures to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the CGSA program:

(1) The percentage of grantees, for each grant cycle, that demonstrate significant progress towards improving, developing, or implementing a new model for measuring the achievement of students.

(2) The percentage of grantees, for each grant cycle, that demonstrate collaboration with institutions of higher education, other research institutions, or other organizations to develop or improve State assessments.

(3) The percentage of grantees that, at least three times during the period of their grants, make available to SEA staff in non-participating States and to assessment researchers information on findings resulting from the CGSA program through presentations at national conferences, publications in refereed journals, or other products disseminated to the assessment community.

Grantees will be expected to include in their interim and final performance reports information about the accomplishments of their projects.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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: Connecting Adults to Success: Career Navigator Training Study (CATS Study).

OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 503,950.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,257.

Abstract: This demonstration study will examine the impact of training for career navigators—local adult education provider staff who provide services to address the challenges that learners face navigating the transition to the workforce and to further education and training. The study will compare the education and employment outcomes of learners enrolled in adult education sites whose career navigators are assigned by lottery to receive the study's training (the treatment group) with the outcomes of learners enrolled in the business-as-usual sites who are assigned by lottery to receive the study's training after the study period (the comparison group). Approximately 64 adult education sites from across five to seven states are expected to participate in the study. Impacts on learners' education and employment outcomes will be examined after 18 and 30 months.

DOE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO), in coordination with EERE's Advanced Manufacturing Office, seeks input on priority areas that will advance domestic manufacturing and recycling of clean hydrogen technologies, including fuel cells, storage equipment, and other hydrogen related components; and on priority areas that will advance electrolyzer technologies for affordable clean hydrogen production, in alignment with section 40314 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the mission of DOE's Hydrogen Energy Earthshot. 1 This RFI is issued to obtain feedback on the status of and opportunities for technologies that support goals in BIL Sec. 40314, amending the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT). The BIL added a new section 815 on clean hydrogen manufacturing and recycling research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) and a new section 816 for the establishment of the Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program to EPACT. Specifically, the EPACT Sec. 815 activities are grouped into a Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing Initiative (815a) focused on enhancing domestic manufacturing of clean hydrogen use, storage, and related equipment and a Clean Hydrogen Technology Recycling RD&D Program (815b) that covers recycling of equipment for clean hydrogen processing, delivery, storage, and use, including fuel cells. The Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program expands on DOE's existing, comprehensive Program on electrolysis and is a research, development, demonstration, commercialization, and deployment program aimed at improving efficiency, increasing durability, and reducing capital costs of electrolyzers, thus facilitating the commercialization of clean hydrogen electrolyzer technology. 2

Specifically, this RFI seeks feedback and other guidance from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, community groups, labor unions, energy users, environmental justice organizations, and other stakeholders regarding RD&D needs, critical barriers, or other activities needed in the following areas:

Specific questions can be found in the RFI. The RFI is available at: https://eere-Exchange.energy.gov/.

Confidential Business Information: Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 7, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 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 .

One key pathway to achieving large-scale, commercially viable deployment of hydrogen is through matching the scaleup of clean hydrogen supplies with a concomitant and growing regional demand. Co-locating large scale clean hydrogen production with multiple end-uses can foster the development of low-cost hydrogen and the necessary supporting infrastructure to jumpstart the hydrogen economy in various market segments, create jobs, and realize emissions reduction benefits. Section 40314 of the BIL amends section 813 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to authorize appropriations of $8 billion for the five (5) year period encompassing fiscal years (FYs) 2022 through 2026 for the development of Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs that aid the achievement of the clean hydrogen production standard developed under section 822(a), demonstrate the production, processing, delivery, storage, and end-use of clean hydrogen, and can be developed into a national clean hydrogen network to facilitate a clean hydrogen economy. The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, government agencies, state and local coalitions, academia, research laboratories, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders regarding the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub solicitation process and implementation strategy as DOE currently envisions it. Specifically, DOE is requesting input in the following categories:

Specific questions can be found in the RFI. The RFI [DE-FOA-0002664] is available at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/.

Confidential Business Information: Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 11, 2022, by Dr. Sunita Satyapal, Director, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, and DOE Hydrogen Program Coordinator, 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 .

Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room is closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further information about the EPA's public docket, Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744.

Abstract: This information collection request pertains to trade secrecy claims submitted under section 322 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). EPCRA contains provisions requiring facilities to report to state and local authorities, and EPA, the presence of extremely hazardous substances (section 302), inventory of hazardous chemicals (sections 311 and 312) and manufacture, process and use of toxic chemicals (section 313). Section 322 of EPCRA allows a facility to withhold the specific chemical identity from these EPCRA reports if the facility asserts a trade secret claim for that chemical identity. The provisions in section 322 establish the requirements and procedures that facilities must follow to request trade secret treatment of chemical identities, as well as the procedures for submitting public petitions to the Agency for review of the “sufficiency” of trade secret claims.

Trade secret protection is provided for specific chemical identities contained in reports submitted under each of the following sections of EPCRA: (1) Section 303(d)(2)—Facility notification of changes that have or are about to occur; (2) section 303(d)(3)—Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) requests for facility information to develop or implement emergency plans; (3) section 311—Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) submitted by facilities, or lists of those chemicals submitted in place of the MSDSs; (4) section 312—Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory forms (Tier I and Tier II); and (5) section 313—Toxic Chemical Release Inventory form.

Form Numbers: EPA Form 9510-1.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are manufacturer and non-manufacturer facilities subject to reporting under sections 303, 311, 312 or 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory if a respondent decides to make a trade secret claim for the chemical identity for any of the chemicals in any of the reports the respondent is required to submit under EPCRA sections 303, 311, 312 or 313.

Estimated number of respondents: 283 trade secret claims.

Frequency of response: Annual, with reports submitted under sections 312 and 313.

Total estimated burden: 2,689 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $164,989 (per year). There are no capital or operation and maintenance costs associated with this ICR.

Changes in estimates: The small increase in estimated burden from the previous ICR is because the actual number of claims submitted was slightly higher than what EPA estimated it would receive in the previous ICR. Therefore, the number of trade secret claims EPA expects to receive in the upcoming three-year renewal period is also higher.

The meeting discussion will focus on the performance scorecard that is being developed by the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council to assess the progress of federal agencies' in addressing current and historic environmental injustice. Executive Order 14008, Section 220 (d) tasks the IAC to develop clear performance metrics to ensure accountability, in consultation with the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council.

The Charter of the WHEJAC states that the advisory committee will provide independent advice and recommendations to the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and to the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council. The WHEJAC will provide advice and recommendations about broad cross-cutting issues, related but not limited to, issues of environmental justice and pollution reduction, energy, climate change mitigation and resiliency, environmental health, and racial inequity. The WHEJAC's efforts will include a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, community engagement, and economic issues related to environmental justice.

Registration: Individual registration is required for the virtual public meeting. Information on how to register is located at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/white-house-environmental-justice-advisory-council. Registration for the meeting is available through the scheduled end time of the meeting. Registration to speak during the public comment period will close 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on February 21, 2022. When registering, please provide your name, organization, city and state, and email address for follow up. Please also indicate whether you would like to provide public comment during the meeting, and whether you are submitting written comments at the time of registration.

The WHEJAC is interested in receiving public comments specific to the development of an annual public performance scorecard and the types of indicators or data that would be useful in a scorecard. This scorecard will provide a method for evaluation and accountability to assess progress on agencies' progress in addressing historic environmental justice. Every effort will be made to hear from as many registered public commenters during the time specified on the agenda. Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to three (3) minutes. Please be prepared to briefly describe your issue and what you want the WHEJAC to advise CEQ and IAC to do. Submitting written comments for the record are strongly encouraged. You can submit your written comments in three different ways, (1.) by creating comments in the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0050 at http://www.regulations.gov, (2.) by using the webform at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/white-house-environmental-justice-advisory-council#whejacmeeting, and (3.) by sending comments via email to wheja@epa.gov . Written comments can be submitted through March 10, 2022.

For information about access or services for individuals requiring assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, via email at whejac@epa.gov or contact by phone at (202) 564-0203. To request special accommodations for a disability or other assistance, please submit your request at least seven (7) working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

The EPA received the Petition from the Petitioners dated March 10, 2020, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O2546, issued by TCEQ to the Waha Gas Plant in Pecos County, Texas. The Petition claims the proposed permit must include a schedule addressing noncompliance at the Waha Gas Plant, fails to identify any emission unit(s) authorized by one Permit by Rule (PBR) and three Standard Exemptions incorporated as applicable requirements, fails to establish monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping provisions that assure compliance with PBR and Standard Exemption requirements, fails to include specific enforceable terms and conditions for applicable NSPS requirements, and the proposed permit's incorporation of ETC's PBR registrations is deficient.

On January 28, 2022, the EPA Administrator issued an Order granting the Petition. The Order explains the basis for EPA's decision.

Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information about the EPA's public docket, Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744.

Abstract: The authority for the emergency planning and emergency release notification requirements is sections 302, 303, and 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11002, 11003, and 11004). EPCRA established broad emergency planning and facility reporting requirements. Section 302 requires facilities to notify their State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) or Tribal Emergency Response Commission (TERC), Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) or Tribal Emergency Planning Committee (TEPC) with jurisdiction over their facility, of the presence of a threshold planning quantity of a listed extremely hazardous substance (EHS) at the facility. This activity was completed by existing facilities soon after the law was passed. Only new facilities that may become subject to these requirements must notify the SERC (or TERC) and the LEPC (or TEPC). Currently covered facilities are required to notify the LEPC (or TEPC) of any changes that occur at the facility that would be relevant to emergency planning. Section 303 requires the LEPC (or TEPC) to prepare local emergency response plans for their planning district using the information provided by facilities under Section 302. An LEPC (or TEPC) may request any information from facilities necessary to develop emergency response plans. Initial emergency response plans were developed within a few months after the law was passed. LEPCs (or TEPCs) are required to review and update the plan at least annually or more frequently as changes occur in the community. Section 304 requires facilities to report to SERCs (or TERCs) and LEPCs (or TEPCs) releases in excess of the reportable quantities listed for each EHS. This ICR also covers the notification and the written follow-up required under Section 304. The implementing regulations are codified in 40 CFR part 355.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those that have a threshold planning quantity of an EHS listed in 40 CFR part 355, appendix A and those that have a release of any EHS above a reportable quantity. Entities more likely to be affected by this action may include chemical manufacturers, retailers, petroleum refineries, utilities, etc.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (Sections 302, 303 and 304 of EPCRA).

Estimated number of respondents: 98,052. This figure includes 3,052 LEPCs (or TEPCs) and SERCs (or TERCs).

Frequency of response: EPCRA section 302 reporting is a one-time notification unless there are changes to the reported information; EPCRA section 304 notification happens only when a release occurs from a facility.

Total estimated burden: 226,261 hours (per year) (includes LEPCs (or TEPCs) and SERCs (or TERCs)). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: 10,851,328 (per year), including $8,470 in annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. There are no capital costs associated with this ICR.

Changes in estimates: The reduction in burden of approximately 22 percent for activities related to section 304 reporting requirements for facilities is attributable to a decrease in the number of release notifications reported to the National Response Center for the previous three years (reduced from 10,000 to 7,420), which EPA assumes will apply to the upcoming three years of this ICR renewal. The reduction in state and local government burden estimate of approximately 15,607 hours annually, is attributable to the reduction in the numbers of SERCs (or TERCs) and LEPCs (or TEPCs) in this ICR compared to the previous ICR (new total of 3,052 reduced from 3,556). In addition, EPA corrected a few minor calculation errors.

Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO) apply to oil and natural gas facilities that commence construction, modification or reconstruction after August 23, 2011 and on or before September 19, 2015, that are involved in the extraction and production of oil and natural gas, as well as for the processing, transmission, and distribution of natural gas. Affected facilities in the crude oil and natural gas source category that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after September 18, 2015 are instead subject to subpart OOOOa (40 CFR 60, subpart OOOOa). In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NSPS.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Oil and natural gas production and natural gas transmission and distribution facilities.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO).

Estimated number of respondents: 532 (total).

Frequency of response: Semiannually and annually.

Total estimated burden: 69,300 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $9,430,000 (per year), which includes $1,220,000 for annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the estimates: There is no change in burden from the most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This is due to two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) no new facilities will become subject to this regulation, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, there are also no changes in the capital/startup or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

EAS is built using a commercial off-the-shelf product called PRISM from Unison that includes a purchase request form and workflow. EAS is hosted, and its data stored, in Unison's AWS cloud hosting environment, which is FedRAMP authorized. EPA is moving applications like EAS to the cloud for scalability and improved security. EAS collects and stores personally identifiable information (PII) of EPA employees who initiate acquisition actions or are assigned to work on these actions. This information may include: Employee first name, last name, work email, work telephone number, and Local Area Network User Identification. This information is collected and used for internal EPA communication purposes and approval routing of the acquisition action. Privacy information is protected by limiting EAS access to authenticated users. Authentication is controlled using the agency's central authentication security controls.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314, USAGM publishes this notice announcing the individuals who will serve as members of the PRB for a term of one year. The PRB is responsible for: (1) Reviewing performance appraisals and ratings of Senior Executive Service and Senior Level members; and (2) making recommendations on other performance management issues, such as pay adjustments, bonuses, and Presidential Rank Awards. The names, position titles, and appointment types of each member of the PRB are set forth below:

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

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Complaints Submission Process under the No Surprises Act; Use: The No Surprises Act directs the Departments to establish a process to receive complaints regarding violations of the application of qualifying payment amount (QPA) requirements by group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health coverage. The No Surprises Act also directs HHS to establish a process to receive consumer complaints regarding violations by health care providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services regarding balance billing requirements and to respond to such complaints within 60 days. CMS will request information from non-federal governmental plans and issuers, health care providers, facilities, providers of air ambulance services, and individuals to review and process a complaint for potential violations of balance billing requirements. Form Number: CMS-10779 (OMB control number: 0938-1406); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 39,000; Total Annual Responses: 39,000; Total Annual Hours: 19,500. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Patrick Edwards at 301-492-4371.)

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: End Stage Renal Disease Application and Survey and Certification Report; Use: The Form CMS-3427 is required for each new ESRD facility seeking initial certification and for each existing facility seeking recertification, relocation, expansion/change of service(s), or change of ownership. The form is also used for information collection purposes related to a complaint survey of an ESRD facility. The Form CMS-3427 information is currently collected on paper as a manual option or may be completed in an online fillable format based on facility preference. This online form is a step in the direction towards electronic submission. Form Number: CMS-3427 (OMB control number: 0938-0360); Frequency: Every three years; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 7,883; Total Annual Responses: 2,601; Total Annual Hours: 866. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Jennifer Milby at 410-786-8828.)

Description: The LIHEAP Quarterly Performance and Management Report will provide OCS information necessary to oversee recipients' performance in administering historic levels of LIHEAP funding and reaching the most vulnerable households this winter. The report solicits data on total households assisted (and the total households assisted during the same quarter of the previous FY for comparison); the number of occurrences that LIHEAP prevented the loss of home energy/the number of occurrences that LIHEAP restored home energy; estimated use of LIHEAP funds by LIHEAP funding source; LIHEAP information ( e.g., training and technical assistance needs, changes to program policies, collaboration with other federal utility assistance programs, etc.); and any explanation needed regarding the reliability and/or validity of the responses in prior sections. The quarterly report is not an abbreviated version of the LIHEAP Annual Report or Performance Data Form, it is a different form that was designed to focus on how states are leveraging LIHEAP to mitigate rising energy costs this winter and to track the spend down of LIHEAP supplemental funding.

Respondents: LIHEAP grant recipients.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,416.

Comments: The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication. Comments will be considered and any necessary updates to materials made prior to, and responses provided in, the submission to OMB that will follow this public comment period.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 8621.

In July 2012, Congress passed the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA I) (Pub. L. 112-144). GDUFA I was designed to enhance public access to safe, high-quality generic drugs and to modernize the generic drug program. To support this goal, FDA agreed in the Generic Drug User Fee Act Program Performance Goals and Procedures (GDUFA I commitment letter) to work with industry and interested stakeholders on identifying science and research initiatives specific to generic drugs for each fiscal year covered by GDUFA I.

In August 2017, GDUFA I was reauthorized until September 2022 through the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 (GDUFA II) (Pub. L. 115-52). In the GDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Program Enhancements Fiscal Years 2018-2022 (GDUFA II commitment letter), 1 FDA agreed to conduct annual public workshops “to solicit input from industry and stakeholders for inclusion in an annual list of GDUFA II [r]egulatory [s]cience initiatives.” The public workshop scheduled for May 9, 2022, and May 10, 2022, seeks to fulfill this agreement.

The Agency is requesting nominations for voting industry representatives on the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee:

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

Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES ). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching a complete list of all such organizations, and a list of all nominees along with their current résumés. The letter will also state that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the voting member to represent industry interests for the committee. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the voting member to represent industry interests.

Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a voting industry representative. Nominations must include a current, complete résumé or curriculum vitae for each nominee including current business address and telephone number, email address if available, and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES ). Nominations must also specify the advisory committee for which the nominee is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who nominate themselves as voting industry representatives will not participate in the selection process.)

FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and therefore encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.

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

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

This information collection helps to implement FDA's Accredited Third-Party Certification Program (also referred to as the third-party food program), established and administered under section 808 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 384d), and codified in 21 CFR part 1, subpart M (21 CFR parts 1.600 through 1.725) of Agency regulations. The regulations communicate eligibility criteria, assessment standards, and establish procedures and requirements for participation. For more information visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/food/importing-food-products-united-states/accredited-third-party-certification-program.

Under the third-party food program, accreditation bodies (ABs) apply to FDA for recognition. Recognized ABs accredit third-party certification bodies (CBs) under the program, except in limited circumstances. The accredited CBs conduct food safety audits and issue food or facility certifications to eligible foreign entities. FDA uses certifications issued by accredited third-party auditors/CBs in deciding whether to admit certain imported food (both food for human and other animals) into the United States. Under the third-party program, FDA may grant recognition of an AB for up to 5 years from the date of recognition. Current third-party program AB participants are recognized for the duration from 2018 to 2023 and will need to submit renewal of recognition applications to continue their participation.

There are approximately 200,000 foreign food (both food for human and other animals) exporters who offer their food products for import into the United States. These foreign food exporters include approximately 130,000 food production facilities and approximately 71,000 farms. A proportion of these foreign food exporters may offer food subject to mandatory certification requirements under section 801(q)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 381(q)(3)). In that case, to continue exporting food products into the United States, eligible entities must either obtain certification from a CB accredited under the third-party program, or obtain certification from a foreign government designated by FDA. We assume in any given year, 75 foreign food exporters will be subject to requirements in section 801(q) of the FD&C Act.

Participating in the third-party accreditation program helps reduce the number of redundant audits necessary to assess compliance with food safety requirements of the FD&C Act and applicable regulations. Required data elements are submitted using FDA's Unified Registration Listing System (FURLS), an electronic portal (Forms FDA 3997 for ABs and 3997a for CBs) that enables respondents to complete data fields and provide information to FDA electronically. The AB and CB portals provide a standardized format for entering information, prompting respondents for input and facilitating FDA's review of the submittal. Instructions may be accessed at https://www.fda.gov/food/importing-food-products-united-states/accredited-third-party-certification-program.

Respondents to the collection of information are eligible entities seeking audits, certification, and/or recertification by accredited CBs participating in the third-party program, and ABs and CBs seeking to comply with the recognition requirements. An eligible entity is a foreign entity in the import supply chain of food for consumption in the United States that chooses to be subject to a food safety audit conducted by an accredited third-party CB.

We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

We include in our estimate reporting burden attributable to required submissions, including notifications, to FDA; and recordkeeping burden attributable to the time we assume necessary for searching data sources, and preparing and maintaining records described in the applicable regulations. We estimate that 25 ABs will accredit CBs who conduct food safety audits of foreign eligible entities that offer food for import to the United States. We also estimate the 208 accredited CBs will participate in the third-party program. In addition, we expect that one CB will apply and participate in the third-party program via direct accreditation by FDA. Finally, we attribute nominal burden to recordkeeping attendant to contractual modifications that may be part of accreditation.

Based on a review of the information collection since last OMB approval, we have made only nominal adjustments to our burden estimate.