On September 6, 2022, Commerce published the preliminary affirmative determinations of circumvention of the AD and CVD orders  1 on certain amorphous silica fabric by imports of 70-90 percent ASF from China. 2 In the Preliminary Determinations, Commerce extended the deadline for the final determinations of these circumvention inquiries to December 2, 2022. 3 On November 22, 2022, Commerce further extended the deadline for the final determinations of these circumvention inquiries to January 31, 2022. 4 On September 8, 2022, Auburn Manufacturing, Inc. (AMI), the petitioner in the AD and CVD investigations (the petitioner), submitted comments on the Preliminary Determinations, 5 and on September 27, 2022, submitted a case brief. 6 No other party commented on the Preliminary Determinations. We conducted these circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.225(i). 7

The product subject to the Orders is ASF with a minimum silica content of 90 percent by weight, from China. A full description of the scope of the Orders is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 8

These circumvention inquires cover 70-90 percent ASF produced in China and exported to the United States. 9

Commerce is conducting these circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i). For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's final determinations, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and 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 directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as an appendix. We have not made any changes to the Preliminary Determinations based on our analysis of the comments received.

As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we determine that 70-90 percent ASF produced in China and exported to the United States is circumventing the Orders on certain amorphous silica fabric from China. Therefore, we determine that it is appropriate to include this merchandise within the scope of the Orders on certain amorphous silica fabric from China and to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend entries of 70-90 percent ASF produced in China and exported to the United States.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(3), based on the final determinations in these circumvention inquiries, Commerce will direct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of 70-90 percent ASF produced in China and exported to the United States, and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 24, 2021, the date of publication of the Initiation Notice. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. As we explained in the Preliminary Determinations, 10 Commerce intends to instruct CBP to require AD and CVD cash deposits at the applicable rate for each unliquidated entry of the subject 70-90 percent ASF.

ASF with 70 percent or less silica content is not subject to these circumvention inquiries. 11 Commerce required cash deposits on all entries of 70-90 percent ASF but did not implement a certification process at the preliminary stage. 12 We received comments from the petitioner on the issue of establishing a certification process. For the final determinations, we will not implement a certification process, 13 and we will require cash deposits on 70-90 Percent ASF produced in China and exported to the United States. 14

This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

These final affirmative determinations of circumvention are being issued and published in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i).

Background

Commerce regulations provide that it will publish in the Federal Register a list of scope rulings on a quarterly basis. 1 Our most recent notification of scope rulings was published on November 21, 2022. 2 This current notice covers all scope rulings and scope ruling/circumvention determination combinations made by Enforcement and Compliance between October 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022.

Requestor: Central Purchasing, LLC dba Harbor Freight Tools. Three models of aluminum pair ramps are not covered by the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from China because they satisfy the requirements for the finished merchandise exclusion; October 31, 2022.

Requestor: RNG International Inc. (RNG) Off-grid 100-watt solar panels with regular monocrystalline solar cells (model numbers RNG-KIT-STCS100D-NC, RNG-KIT-STCS100D[1]VOY20, RNG-100D-SS, and RNG-100DB-H) and off-grid 50-watt solar panels (model numbers RNG-50D-SS and RKIT50DST) imported by RNG from China are not within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China because the orders' scope language is dispositive that the products subject to the request are not within the scope of the orders; November 7, 2022.

Requestor: Carbon, Inc. One cassette cart is not covered by the AD order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof from China because the cart lacks a projecting edge or toeplate capable of sliding under a load for the purposes of lifting and/or moving the load: December 20, 2022.

Requestor: Briggs and Stratton, LLC. Modified vertical shaft engines, such as the modified R210-S engine manufactured by Chongqing Rato Technology Co., Ltd., fall within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on certain vertical shaft engines between 99cc and Up To 225cc, and parts thereof, from China because we find that these engines have a vertical power take off shaft and otherwise meet the description of in-scope merchandise; December 22, 2022.

Requestor: Dorman Products Inc. (Dorman) Preliminary scope ruling that eight models of rear loaded knuckles that Dorman imports from China are not covered by the scope of the AD order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from China based on the criteria set forth under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(3); October 21, 2022.

Requestor: Asia Wheel Co., Ltd. (Asia Wheel) Preliminary scope ruling that the truck wheels manufactured by Asia Wheel in Thailand using Chinese-origin discs and rims manufactured in Thailand from Chinese-origin (or another foreign country) steel sheet plates are subject to the scope of the AD/CVD orders on certain steel wheels from China; December 13, 2022.

Requestor: Briggs & Stratton, LLC. Final circumvention ruling that vertical shaft engines with displacements between 60 cubic centimeters (cc) and up to 99cc produced in China and exported to the United States are circumventing the AD/CVD orders on small vertical engines from China by means of being merchandise “altered in form or appearance in minor respects”; December 16, 2022.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope inquiries and scope/circumvention inquiry combinations made during the period October 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to CommerceCLU@trade.gov.

This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).

On May 2, 2022, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from China for the POR. 2 On May 20, 2022, and in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we received a timely request from US Magnesium LLC (the petitioner) for a review of TMI/TMM. 3 On June 9, 2022, TMI/TMM objected to the request on the basis that it had not sold merchandise in the United States for an extended period of years. 4 On July 14, 2022, in response to the petitioner's request, we initiated an administrative review of the Order with respect to TMI/TMM, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). 5

Merchandise covered by the Order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of the Order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:

(1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium) Magnesium Alloy”  3 and are thus outside the scope of the existing antidumping orders on magnesium from China (generally referred to as “alloy” magnesium).

(2) Products that contain less than 99.95%, but not less than 99.8%, primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and

(3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium).

“Off-specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths.

Excluded from the scope of the Order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension ( i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary magnesium content of less than 50% by weight), and remelted magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50% by weight.

Pure magnesium products covered by the Order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

We received timely submissions from TMI/TMM certifying that they did not have sales, shipments, or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 6 On July 21, 2022, we requested U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data of subject merchandise imported into the United States during the POR, and exported by TMI/TMM. 7 This query returned no entries during the POR. 8 Additionally, on August 9, 2022, Commerce submitted a no-shipments inquiry to CBP with regard to TMI/TMM, to which CBP did not respond with any contrary information by the expiration of the ten-day deadline on August 19, 2022. 9

Accordingly, and consistent with our practice, we preliminarily determine that TMI/TMM had no shipments and, therefore, no reviewable entries during the POR. In addition, we find it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to these companies, but rather to complete the review with respect to TMI/TMM and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review, consistent with our practice in non-market economy (NME) cases. 10

Because Commerce has not calculated weighted-average dumping margins for these preliminary results, there are no calculations to disclose to interested parties.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of the review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the deadline for filing case briefs. 11 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each brief: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 12 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. 13 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 14 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 15

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, by the deadline noted above. If a hearing is requested, Commerce will notify interested parties of the hearing date and time. Requests for a hearing should contain: (1) the requesting party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of individuals from the requesting party's firm that will attend the hearing; and (3) a list of issues the party intends to discuss at the hearing. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.

Unless we extend the deadline for the final results of this review, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised by the parties in their briefs, within 120 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 16

Upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and CBP will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 17 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). Pursuant to Commerce's practice in NME cases, if we continue to determine in the final results that TMI/TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR from these companies will be liquidated at the China-wide rate. 18

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for TMI/TMM, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI/TMM in the most recently completed review of the companies; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the China-wide rate of 111.73 percent; and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 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.

These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On July 14, 2022, Commerce published the notice of initiation of this administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusion from China. 1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by the Order are aluminum extrusions from China. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (the petitioner) timely withdrew its request for review of 81 companies. 4 No other party requested a review of these companies. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is rescinding this administrative review of the Order with respect to these 81 companies. The complete list of the 81 companies for which Commerce is rescinding this administrative review is included in Appendix I of this notice. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 5

In reaching these preliminary results, Commerce relied on facts otherwise available, with the application of adverse inferences, pursuant to section 776 of the Act. For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Application of Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

We preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021:

Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue these 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).

For the companies for which we have rescinded this administrative review, we will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated for the producers/exporters listed above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal Register . 6 Rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline for filing case briefs. 7 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this administrative review are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 8 Case and rebuttal briefs must be filed using ACCESS. 9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Easter Time on the established deadline. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 10

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must do so within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance using ACCESS. Hearing requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues addressed at the hearing will be limited to those raised in briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing. 11

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by interested parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after the issuance of these preliminary results of this administrative review.

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On August 4, 2022, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the 2020-2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and invited interested parties to comment. 1 The administrative review covers eight exporters and/or producers of the subject merchandise, 2 of which we selected Dongkuk and Hyundai as mandatory respondents. 3 For a summary of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results , see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise covered by this Order is CORE from Korea. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised by parties in the case and rebuttal briefs 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 directly at https://access.trade/gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(v), we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of Dongkuk and Hyundai. 6

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain changes to the preliminary weighted-average dumping margin calculations for Dongkuk and Hyundai, 7 as well as the preliminary weighted-average dumping margin assigned to the companies not selected for individual examination.

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which we did not individually examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act establishes a preference to avoid using rates which are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available (FA) in calculating an all-others rate. Accordingly, Commerce's practice in administrative reviews has been to average the weighted-average dumping margins for the companies selected for individual examination in the administrative review, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA. 8 For these final results of review, we calculated a zero weighted-average dumping margin for Hyundai and a weighted-average dumping margin for Dongkuk that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA. Therefore, consistent with our practice, we have assigned the companies not selected for individual examination the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Dongkuk.

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022:

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

Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Dongkuk reported the entered value of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. 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. Because the final weighted-average dumping margin for Hyundai Steel Company is zero percent, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 11

Consistent with Commerce's clarification of its assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the above-referenced respondents for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (as amended)  12 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 13

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

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 14

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of CORE from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be equal to the 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 established in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation, but the producer is, 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 8.31 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation (as amended) in this proceeding. 15 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 and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction 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 return or destruction 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 violation subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On August 5, 2022, Commerce published the Preliminary Results for this administrative review. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. This review covers two mandatory respondents: Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Prosperity) and Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui). We received a case brief from Prosperity. 2 A complete summary of the events that occurred since publication of the Preliminary Results is found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The product covered by the Order is flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. For the full text of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case brief are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached 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 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 directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on a review of the record and analysis of the comments received from Prosperity, we made changes to the preliminary weighted-average dumping margins calculations for Prosperity and Yieh Phui. For detailed information, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce preliminarily determined that Synn made no shipments of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. 6 As we have not received any information to contradict this determination, nor comment in opposition to our preliminary finding, we continue to determine that Synn made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Consistent with our practice, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate any existing entries of subject merchandise produced by Synn, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate. 7

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to individual respondents not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents which we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate shall be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins of those exporters and producers individually examined, excluding any rates which are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available (FA). Accordingly, Commerce's practice in administrative reviews has been to average the weighted-average dumping margins for the companies selected for individual examination in the administrative review, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA. 8 For these final results of review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for both mandatory respondents which are not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of FA. 9 Accordingly, Commerce assigns to the company not examined in this review ( i.e., Sheng Yu Steel Co., Ltd.) a dumping margin of 3.38 percent, which is the weighted average of the dumping margins calculated using the public ranged sales data of Prosperity and Yieh Phui.

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021:

We intend to disclose to interested parties the calculations and analysis performed for these final results within five days of the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 10 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the mandatory respondents for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, or for entries associated with Synn, which had no shipments during the POR, 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.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 11

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 will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative 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 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 complete segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.66 percent, 12 the all-others rate from the Amended Final Determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also 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 review period. 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 an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

FIPS 186 was initially developed by NIST in collaboration with the National Security Agency (NSA), using the NSA-designed Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA). Later versions of the standard approved the use of ECDSA (developed by Certicom) and RSA (developed by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman). American Standards Committee (ASC) X9 developed standards specifying both ECDSA and RSA that were used as the basis for the later revisions of FIPS 186.

Since its original approval on May 10, 1994 (59 FR 26208), revisions of the FIPS were approved on December 15, 1998 as FIPS 186-1 (63 FR 69049) to include RSA, as specified in American National Standard (ANS) X9.31 (Digital Signatures Using Reversible Public Key Cryptography for the Financial Services Industry (rDSA)), and on February 15, 2000 as FIPS 186-2 (65 FR 7507) to include ECDSA and recommended elliptic curves to be used with ECDSA, as specified in ANS X9.62 (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)). On June 9, 2009, a third revision of the FIPS was approved as FIPS 186-3 (74 FR 27287) to (1) increase the key sizes for DSA, (2) provide additional requirements for the use of RSA and ECDSA, (3) allow the use of the RSA algorithm specified in Public Key Cryptography Standard (PKCS) #1 (RSA Cryptography Standard specified in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) P1363, Standard Specifications for Public Key Cryptography), (4) include requirements for obtaining the assurances necessary for valid digital signatures, and (5) replace the random number generators specified in previous versions of the FIPS with a reference to NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-90 (Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators). A fourth revision of the FIPS was approved as FIPS 186-4 (78 FR 43145) on July 19, 2013, which included (1) a reduction of the restrictions on the use of random number generators and the retention and use of prime number generation seeds, and (2) aligning the specification for the use of a random salt value in the RSASSA-PSS digital signature scheme with PKCS #1.

Advances in the understanding of elliptic curves within the cryptographic community have led to the development of new elliptic curves and algorithms whose designers claim to offer better performance and which are easier to implement in a secure manner. In 2014, NIST's Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) conducted a review of NIST's cryptographic standards program. As part of their review, the VCAT recommended that NIST “generate a new set of elliptic curves for use with ECDSA in FIPS 186.” See https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/09/VCAT-Report-on-NIST-Cryptographic-Standards-and-Guidelines-Process.pdf.

In June 2015, NIST hosted a technical workshop on Elliptic Curve Cryptography Standards to discuss possible approaches to promote the adoption of secure, interoperable, and efficient elliptic curve mechanisms. Workshop participants expressed significant interest in the development, standardization, and adoption of new elliptic curves.

In October 2015, NIST solicited comments on the elliptic curves and signature algorithms specified in FIPS 186-4 (80 FR 63539). The responses noted the broad use of the NIST prime curves and ECDSA within industry, but many commenters called for the standardization of new elliptic curves and signature algorithms.

Based on the input received, NIST published a notice in the Federal Register (84 FR 58373) on October 31, 2019, requesting public comments on the proposed revision in draft FIPS 186-5, along with accompanying technical guidelines in draft NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-186, Recommendations for Discrete-Logarithm Based Cryptography: Elliptic Curve Domain Parameters. NIST received 23 sets of comments: 3 from U.S. federal agencies, 1 from a foreign government agency, 16 from private-sector organizations, and 3 from private academics and technologists.

The draft of FIPS 186-5 and the related technical guidelines in draft NIST SP 800-186 proposed adopting two new elliptic curves, Ed25519 and Ed448, for use with EdDSA. EdDSA is a deterministic elliptic curve signature scheme currently specified in the internet Research Task Force (IRTF) RFC 8032. FIPS 186-5 and SP 800-186 also proposed adopting a deterministic variant of ECDSA that is currently specified in RFC 6979. Based on feedback received on the adoption of the current elliptic curve standards, the drafts of FIPS 186-5 and SP 800-186 deprecated curves over binary fields due to their limited use by industry. Furthermore, NIST proposed the removal of DSA from the FIPS as an approved method for generating digital signatures because of limited use by industry and academic analyses finding that implementations of DSA may be vulnerable to attacks.

The following is a summary and analysis of the comments received during the public comment period and NIST's responses to them, including the interests, concerns, recommendations, and issues considered in the development of FIPS 186-5:

1. Comment: One commenter requested that FIPS 186-5 include an additional digital signature scheme using elliptic curve cryptography, Schnorr 384, in order to support signatures with short lengths.

Response: NIST does not see a broad demand or need for the Schnorr 384 signature scheme and declined to include it in FIPS 186-5.

2. Comment: One commenter requested that the standard be simplified and revised to highlight security tradeoffs of design choices.

Response: The FIPS 186-5 revision was intended to adopt existing industry-developed standards for digital signature schemes and elliptic curves. Algorithm and curve specifications were written to accommodate users of the existing standard, while still being readable to those following the industry standards. To further improve readability, organization, and maintainability of the standard, the elliptic curves and supporting mathematical algorithm descriptions were separated into their own Special Publication supporting FIPS 186-5, and editorial changes were incorporated to improve clarity. Both documents include descriptions of the security properties provided by the new signature algorithms and elliptic curves.

3. Comment: One commenter requested that NIST clarify why DSA may be used to verify signatures generated prior to FIPS 186-5 if verifiers do not know when a signature was generated.

Response: Since DSA is no longer included in the FIPS, a discussion of its use is not appropriate in the FIPS. Instead, continued use of DSA for verifying already-generated signatures ( e.g., in existing data records) will be addressed in a revision to NIST SP 800-131A, Transitioning the Use of Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Lengths. Accordingly, the statement in Appendix E of the draft FIPS that mentioned DSA signature verification was removed. In 2009, NIST SP 800-102, Recommendation for Digital Signature Timeliness, was published to provide guidance on providing information on the time when digital signatures are generated. This publication was referenced in FIPS 186-3, FIPS 186-4, and in FIPS 186-5.

4. Comment: One commenter recommended that EdDSA be used in preference to HashEdDSA except in applications that cannot afford EdDSA.

Response: NIST specified both EdDSA and HashEdDSA in FIPS 186-5 to allow implementers to choose an appropriate signature algorithm for their applications and use cases. Section 7.8.3 of FIPS 186-5 provides additional considerations for implementers when selecting a signature algorithm.

5. Comment: One commenter noted that it was difficult to compare Draft FIPS 186-5 against FIPS 186-4 and recommended that NIST adopt editing tools to aid readers in locating and evaluating changes across revisions.

Response: Revisions made during the development of FIPS 186-5 have been documented or summarized using a variety of methods, including the revision list in FIPS 186-5, in Federal Register notices, and in document announcements. The availability of electronic documents on the NIST Computer Security Resource Center website allows individuals to use third-party tools to compare revisions. However, NIST will continue to evaluate new document development and management tools to provide greater transparency to changes in cryptographic standards and guidelines.

6. Comment: A commenter noted that implementations of the RSASSA-PSS algorithm, approved by reference to RFC 8017 in FIPS 186-5, should validate the length of the salt when verifying signatures.

Response: Existing guidance in Section 5.4 of FIPS 186-4 provided criteria for validating the length of the random salt value. FIPS 186-5 strengthened that language by including explicit validation of the length of the salt as part of the digital signature verification process.

7. Comment: A commenter noted that implementations of the RSASSA-PKCS-v1.5 algorithm should validate the encoded hash algorithm identifier extracted from a digital signature.

Response: NIST revised Section 5.4 to include the validation of the hash algorithm identifier as part of the RSASSA-PKCS-v1.5 signature verification process.

8. Comment: Some commenters requested clarifications on the use of Montgomery and Edwards curves with approved signature and key-agreement schemes.

Response: The introductions in FIPS 186-5 and NIST SP 800-186 were revised to clarify acceptable uses of recommended elliptic curves.

9. Comment: One commenter observed that different notation is used in the specifications of the ECDSA and EdDSA.

Response: The notation was selected for consistency with existing standards that specify the algorithms. The notation used for ECDSA is consistent with that used in FIPS 186-4 and the original ANS X9.62 standard used as a basis for the inclusion of ECDSA in FIPS 186. The notation used for EdDSA is consistent with the notation used in the original RFC 8032 specification.

10. Comment: Two commenters requested a transition plan for the removal of DSA and the deprecation of the binary elliptic curves that had been approved in FIPS 186-4. One commenter requested that DSA not be removed.

Response: FIPS 186-5 removes DSA as an approved digital signature algorithm due to a lack of use by industry and based on academic analyses that observed that implementations of DSA may be vulnerable to attacks if domain parameters are not properly generated. To facilitate a transition to the new standard, FIPS 186-4 will remain in effect alongside FIPS 186-5 for a period of one year. In addition, NIST SP 800-131A and the Cryptographic Module Validation Program will provide transition guidance concerning the use of DSA and the binary elliptic curves.

11. Comment: Commenters requested that the secp256k1 curve be included as an approved elliptic curve since it is widely used in blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) applications.

Response: While NIST does not believe that the secp256k1 curve offers compelling advantages over the NIST-recommended curves in SP 800-186, NIST acknowledges the significant use of the secp256k1 curve in these applications. NIST technical guidelines in NIST SP 800-186 will allow the use of the secp256k1 curve for blockchain and DLT-related applications.

12. Comment: One commenter expressed concerns and posed questions about the inclusion of the Brainpool Standard Curves as a set of allowed curves in the NIST SP 800-186 technical guidelines associated with FIPS 186-5.

Response: The Brainpool Standard Curves were originally published in 2005 and specified in RFC 5639 in 2010. The curves have been widely implemented in a variety of commercial products and open-source tools. Existing programmatic guidance from NIST's Cryptographic Module Validation Program has allowed the use of these curves in several FIPS 140-validated modules. While NIST does not see compelling reasons to prefer the use of the Brainpool Standard Curves over the NIST-recommended curves, it is confident in the security supported by these curves and does not see a reason to require these curves to be removed or disabled in existing products. To accommodate those existing modules as well as future products sold on the international market, NIST SP 800-186 will allow the use of the Brainpool Standard Curves.

13. Comment: Some commenters requested the inclusion of cofactorless EdDSA in FIPS 186-5 for signature verification.

Response: NIST did not see sufficient demand or need to facilitate the use of other elliptic curves with EdDSA to warrant inclusion of cofactorless EdDSA in FIPS 186-5. To remain consistent with RFC 8032, NIST is not extending the specification of EdDSA to include these alternative domain parameters.

14. Comment: One commenter recommended adding a small-subgroup check to EdDSA or adding a warning about not providing strong non-repudiation guarantees.

Response: When signing keys are generated according to the requirements in FIPS 186-5, the probability that the signing key would be a member of a small subgroup is negligible. Thus, NIST did not see a need to add a small-subgroup check to EdDSA.

15. Comment: Several commentors requested the inclusion of variants of the deterministic signature scheme that would include randomness in the signature computation.

Response: NIST may consider adopting new standards developed for signature algorithms that include deterministic and random components in future publications.

16. Comment: Comments recommended discussing side-channel attacks for ECDSA.

Response: FIPS 186-5 provides references that describe protections against side-channel attacks for both ECDSA and EdDSA.

17. Comment: A comment requested that more hash functions or extendable output functions (XOFs) be allowed for EdDSA.

Response: To remain consistent with existing standards and specifications, FIPS 186-5 does not specify other hash functions or XOFs for use with EdDSA beyond those specified in RFC 8032.

18. Comment: Several commenters requested that NIST allow more hash functions or XOFs for use with ECDSA, specifically the keccak-256 XOF.

Response: NIST is not allowing other hash functions or XOFs with ECDSA; keccak-256 is not an approved hash function as defined in FIPS 180 or FIPS 202.

19. Comment: One commenter asked why the bounds on the number of iterations to run through before returning a failure indication changed in a few prime number generation routines in FIPS 186-5. Specifically, the bounds were changed in steps 4.7 and 5.8 of Appendix A.1.3, Generation of Random Primes that are Probably Prime, as well as in step 9 of Appendix B.9, Compute a Probably Prime Factor Based on Auxiliary Primes.

Response: NIST had observed that the original bounds led to higher probabilities of failure than desired when attempting to generate primes. The bounds were increased to decrease the probability of failure.

20. Comment: One commenter suggested simplifying the deterministic version of ECDSA.

Response: To remain consistent with RFC 6979, NIST will keep the deterministic version of ECDSA as currently specified.

21. Comment: One commenter recommended removing signature algorithms that are not deterministic.

Response: NIST believes that both deterministic and non-deterministic signature schemes serve important use cases and so will keep the specified algorithms as they are.

22. Comment: The removal of RSASSA-PKCS-v1.5 as an approved digital signature algorithm was recommended by one commenter.

Response: Due to its broad use in security protocols and products, FIPS 186-5 continues to approve the use of RSASSA-PKCS-v1.5, subject to the additional constraints specified in FIPS 186-5 to mitigate known security vulnerabilities.

23. Comment: Corrections were recommended for defining encodings for EdDSA.

Response: NIST accepted the corrections.

24. Comment: A correction in A.3.3 was recommended so that FIPS 186-5 matches RFC 6979 for the per-message secret number generation for deterministic ECDSA.

Response: NIST accepted the correction.

25. Comment: A few commenters suggested alternate algorithms in FIPS 186-5 to replace the reference algorithms provided by NIST for various computations. For example, commenters suggested alternatives to the square root algorithm for EdDSA in Section 7.3, the square checking algorithm in Appendix B.4, and the algorithm for inverting a finite field element in Appendix B.1.

Response: FIPS 186-5 includes language to clarify that alternate algorithms (including constant-time algorithms) that produce equivalent results may be used in place of the reference algorithms provided in the FIPS.

26. Comment: A comment was submitted on a difference between EdDSA and the other signature schemes in FIPS 186-5. Namely, that revealing the hash of a private key for EdDSA is a security concern, while it is not for RSA or ECDSA.

Response: NIST does not believe the concern merits changing EdDSA, and will maintain consistency with RFC 6979. Furthermore, FIPS 186-5 forbids revealing the hash of the private key of any of the signature algorithms.

The WPSAR meeting will be held on February 17 to 23, 2023, and run each day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Samoa Standard Time (SST) unless otherwise indicated on the agenda. Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The closed session is for the panel reviewers to conduct their deliberations and to consolidate their recommendations. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The primary purpose of the GMT webinar is to prepare for the Pacific Council's March 2023 agenda items. The GMT will discuss items related to groundfish management, administrative, and potentially ecosystem matters on the Pacific Council agenda. A detailed agenda for the webinar will be available on the Pacific Council's website prior to the meeting. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT.

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

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

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

On 6/17/2022 and 9/30/2022, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Committee's Procurement List is effectuated because of the expiration of the U.S. Air Force, Software Engineering Group Custodial Service at Warner Robins, GA contract. The Federal customer contacted and has worked diligently with the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid performance disruption, and the possibility that the Federal Aviation Administration will refer its business elsewhere, this addition must be effective on February 13, 2023, ensuring timely execution for a February 15, 2023, start date while still allowing 10 days for comment. The Committee also published a notice of proposed Procurement List addition in the Federal Register on September 30, 2022 and did not receive any comments from any interested persons. This addition will not create a public hardship and has limited effect on the public at large, but, rather, will create new jobs for other affected parties—people with significant disabilities in the AbilityOne program who otherwise face challenges locating employment. Moreover, this addition will enable Federal customer operations to continue without interruption.

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

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product(s) and service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following product(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

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

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing TA, supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research.

Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2023 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Center on Dispute Resolution.

Background:

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes procedural safeguards that are designed to protect the rights of children with disabilities and their parents and to provide parents with mechanisms for resolving, at the earliest point in time, disputes with those who provide services to children with disabilities through IDEA—State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), schools, Part C State lead agencies (LAs), and early intervention service (EIS) providers. The procedural safeguards include the opportunity to seek a timely resolution of disputes about establishing a child's eligibility under IDEA and providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to an eligible child or the appropriate early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. Thus, IDEA encourages constructive relationships between parents of children with disabilities and those who provide services to children with disabilities by facilitating open communication between the parents and these entities and encouraging early resolution of disputes so that disagreements do not escalate, become adversarial, or result in a delay in identifying and providing needed services to eligible children. IDEA's dispute resolution procedures  1 include provisions for State complaints, mediation, due process complaints, and resolution sessions, as described below. These procedures provide an important means of ensuring that the educational or early intervention needs of children with disabilities are met.

State Complaints. IDEA's State complaint procedures permit parents and other interested individuals or organizations to file a complaint with the SEA or LA to seek resolution of any alleged violations of IDEA.

Mediation. In mediation, a neutral third party facilitates the resolution of disputes without the need for an adversarial hearing. Thus, mediation is more likely to foster positive relationships between families, educators, and EIS providers than due process hearings (Government Accountability Office, 2003).

Due Process Hearings. In due process hearings, an impartial, knowledgeable decision-maker resolves disputes. Due process hearings can be costly, time consuming, and contentious, and may damage relationships between the parties.

Resolution Session. The resolution session requirement applies to all IDEA Part B due process complaints and to those IDEA Part C due process complaints filed in a State that has elected to adopt the Part B due process hearing procedures. The LEA or the LA convenes a meeting with the parents and relevant members of the child's individualized education program (IEP) or individualized family service plan (IFSP) Team to provide the parents and the agency responsible for providing service to a child with an opportunity to resolve the complaint and avoid a due process hearing.

Early Resolution Practices. In addition to these methods of dispute resolution specifically required under IDEA, there are a variety of informal or “early resolution” practices that can be used to resolve disputes.

Each SEA and LA is responsible for annually reporting data on dispute resolution activity to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to help determine the extent to which States effectively implement dispute resolution practices. An analysis of national data trends in dispute resolution conducted by the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) shows over the past 11 years increases in the formal dispute mechanisms of due process complaints and resolution sessions, with the highest increases during the past two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Written State complaints have remained relatively steady over the same period, while there has been a significant decline in mediation requests during the pandemic after years of growth. The rise of virtual dispute resolution options, particularly for less adversarial options such as facilitated IEP Team meetings and mediation, is a promising by-product of the circumstances posed by the pandemic (CADRE, 2022). However, OSEP's most recent analysis of State annual performance reports (APRs) shows that the average agreement rates for resolution meetings and mediations have trended downward in the last three years (OSEP, 2022).

In addition, a Government Accountability Office (2019) study of five SEAs showed dispute resolution options differed across districts with varying demographics, with a greater portion of high-income districts having more dispute resolution activity than low-income districts, as well as fewer predominantly Black or Hispanic districts having dispute resolution activity. However, predominantly Black or Hispanic districts with dispute resolution activity had higher rates than predominantly White districts in their States (Government Accountability Office, 2019). OSEP-funded Parent Training and Information Centers and Community Parent Resource Centers (collectively “parent centers”) have noted that lack of awareness of dispute resolution options is prevalent among underserved populations due to language, access, or economic barriers. Additionally, the field has raised concerns about confusion among parents and professionals regarding how IDEA's dispute resolution options interact with dispute resolution procedures under other Federal laws protecting children with disabilities, such as those prescribed in 34 CFR 104.7 and 104.36 to implement section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

SEAs, LAs, and parent centers continue to require TA on effective dispute resolution strategies, particularly as the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath affect dispute resolution options and change dispute resolution systems. In addition, there is a greater awareness of the need for equitable and culturally and linguistically competent dispute resolution systems that are responsive to the needs of all families, and an increased understanding of other federally required dispute resolution systems that protect the rights of all children with disabilities. The Center will build on existing knowledge to increase the capacity of SEAs and LAs to respond effectively to the dispute resolution challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic; develop equitable and culturally and linguistically competent dispute resolution systems; and promote local implementation of equitable early resolution practices.

This absolute priority will advance the Secretary's priorities related to promoting equity in student access to educational resources and opportunities, and meeting students' social, emotional, and academic needs.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a Center on Dispute Resolution (Center). This Center will provide TA to SEAs, LAs, and OSEP-funded parent centers to support them in working with LEAs and EIS service providers to improve the implementation of the range of dispute resolution options, including methods of dispute resolution required under the IDEA, and early resolution practices.

The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased body of knowledge and dissemination of knowledge on exemplary dispute prevention and dispute resolution practices to meet the needs of parents in resolving disputes, including culturally and linguistically responsive practices, and the interaction of IDEA dispute resolution systems with dispute resolution systems required by other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities;

(b) Increased capacity of SEAs and LAs to support local implementation of effective and equitable early resolution practices to resolve disputes and thereby decrease requests for State complaints and due process hearings;

(c) Increased capacity of SEAs and LAs to collect, report, and use high-quality dispute resolution data;

(d) Improved capacity of LEAs and EIS providers, through their work with SEAs and LAs, to equitably implement a range of dispute resolution options, including methods of dispute resolution required under IDEA and early resolution practices; and

(e) Improved capacity of OSEP-funded parent centers to provide culturally and linguistically competent TA to parents on the range of effective dispute resolution options.

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

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

(1) Address gaps or weaknesses in State or local performance under and compliance with dispute resolution requirements to meet the dispute resolution needs of SEA and LA personnel, and LEA and EIS providers (through the SEA and LA), as well as the needs of parents, including those from underserved  2 populations who may be less likely to utilize dispute resolution due to language, access, or economic barriers. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of exemplary and equitable dispute resolution practices that will assist SEAs and LAs in working with LEA and EIS providers to improve dispute resolution, especially practices that will assist agencies, SEAs, and LAs in meeting performance targets specified in their State Performance Plan, implementing effective and culturally and linguistically competent dispute resolution systems and practices in accordance with IDEA dispute resolution requirements;

(ii) Present information about the current level of implementation of exemplary and equitable dispute resolution practices by SEAs and LAs, especially practices that will assist agencies in meeting performance targets and implementing effective and culturally and linguistically competent dispute resolution systems and practices in accordance with IDEA dispute resolution requirements; and

(iii) Present national, State, or local data on the financial and administrative burden of involvement in dispute resolution and discuss strategies for minimizing these burdens for all parties involved;

(2) Improve outcomes in dispute resolution system performance for SEAs and LAs, and increase the implementation of early resolution practices by LEAs and EIS providers;

(3) Increase the understanding by SEAs, LAs, LEAs and EIS providers (through the SEAs and LAs), as well as parents, of the interaction of IDEA dispute resolution systems with dispute resolution systems required by other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities; and

(4) Improve communication between parents and education professionals to minimize conflict and increase the use of collaborative problem-solving and dispute resolution practices that are culturally and linguistically competent.

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

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

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

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

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

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

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

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

Note: The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

(4) Be based on IDEA requirements for dispute resolution systems, including the interaction of IDEA dispute resolution systems with dispute resolution systems required by other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, and current research, and make use of evidence-based  3 practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current research on effective and culturally and linguistically competent dispute resolution practices;

(ii) The current research on early resolution EBPs;

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

(iv) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on—

(A) Special education and early intervention dispute resolution and culturally and linguistically competent dispute resolution;

(B) Annual State and national dispute resolution trends; and

(C) The interaction of IDEA dispute resolution systems with dispute resolution systems required by other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, 4 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, 5 which must identify—

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

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

(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

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

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

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

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

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party evaluator. 6 The evaluation plan must—

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this notice;

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

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

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

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation with a “third-party” evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.

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

(1) The proposed project will encourage 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, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes, to include those with legal expertise in special education dispute resolution;

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

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

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website; and

(6) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to intended TA recipients during the transition to a new award at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

References:

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.

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

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

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

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: $750,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2024 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $750,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

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

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State LAs under Part C of the IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

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 Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application, and other public agencies. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantee, consistent with 34 CFR 75.708(b)(2).

4. Other General Requirements:

(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

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 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede the version published on December 27, 2021.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition 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.

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

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

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

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

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

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

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

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

(a) Significance (10 points).

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

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

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

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

(b) Quality of project services (35 points).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15 points).

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

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

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

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

(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program. These measures are:

• Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review the substantive content of the products and services.

• Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of all Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program includes the percentage of milestones achieved in the current annual performance report period and the percentage of funds spent during the current fiscal year.

• Long-term Program Performance Measure: The percentage of States receiving Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based practices for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities that successfully promote the implementation of those practices in school districts and service agencies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Department, 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. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department 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: Student Assistance General Provisions—Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0108.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 31,575,067.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,383,595.

Abstract: The Department of Education (the Department) is requesting an extension of the current approval of the policies and procedures for determining satisfactory academic progress (SAP) as required in Section 484 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). A link to the Satisfactory Academic Progress regulations is provided at 34 CFR 668.34 and 34 CFR 600.55.

These regulations identify the policies and procedures to ensure that students are making satisfactory academic progress in their program at a pace and a level to receive or continue to receive Title IV, HEA program funds. If there is lapse in progress, the policy must identify how the student will be notified and what steps are available to a student not making satisfactory academic progress toward the completion of their program, and under what conditions a student who is not making satisfactory academic progress may continue to receive Title IV, HEA program funds. There have been minor changes to the regulatory language since the last information collection update. The changes do not represent changes to the estimated burden established below.

The FCA Guidance updates the Agency's approaches for assessing the financial capability of communities to fund CWA control measures. Section 402(q) of the CWA requires each permit, order, or decree issued pursuant to CWA Section 402 after December 21, 2000, for a discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary sewer, to conform to EPA's April 11, 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (CSO Policy). The CSO Policy states that “[s]chedules for implementation of the CSO controls may be phased based on the relative importance of adverse impacts upon WQS and designated uses, priority projects identified in the long-term control plan, and on a permittee's financial capability.” 59 FR 18694 (emphasis added). EPA considers each community's financial capability on a holistic case-by-case basis to ensure CWA requirements are met while also taking the financial capability of the community into consideration.

The FCA Guidance builds on EPA's past practice for assessing a community's financial capability as a part of determining the appropriate schedule to implement CWA control measures, 1 and provides additional metrics and templates that communities can use to more thoroughly demonstrate potential financial impacts. The guidance provides a planning tool for evaluating the financial resources a community has available to implement CWA controls. It also increases the transparency of EPA's considerations in applying FCA methodologies across the country in permitting and enforcement cases. EPA intends to also apply the Final FCA Guidance to the consideration of economic impacts to public entities when making WQS decisions on revisions to designated uses, WQS variances, and antidegradation reviews for high-quality waters. Prior to this Guidance, EPA recommended the public sector sections of the 1995 Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards (1995 WQS Guidance) for evaluating WQS decisions, including revisions to designated uses, WQS variances, and antidegradation reviews for high-quality waters. Those sections of the 1995 WQS Guidance were substantively identical to the 1997 FCA Guidance that is being replaced with the updated FCA Guidance. Rather than create duplicative documents, EPA has determined that the FCA Guidance can support both schedule negotiations and certain water quality decisions. The FCA Guidance supplements the calculations and analyses in the public sector portion of the 1995 WQS Guidance with additional analyses, an expanded economic impact matrix, and recommendations to consider when making WQS decisions. EPA intends the FCA Guidance, together with the text in the public sector sections of the 1995 WQS Guidance, to guide states and authorized tribes in evaluating the economic impact of potential WQS decisions related to financial capability. The FCA Guidance does not revise the recommended methodology for the private sector found in the 1995 WQS Guidance.

The FCA Guidance metrics for financial capability assessments meet the following criteria recommended by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA):  2

• Readily available from publicly available data sources;

• Clearly defined and understood;

• Simple, direct, and consistent;

• Valid and reliable measures, according to conventional research standards; and

• Applicable for comparative analyses among permittees.

The FCA Guidance recommends two alternative approaches for assessing a community's financial capability to implement CWA control measures. Alternative 1 retains the Residential Indicator ( i.e., 2% of MHI) and the Financial Capability Indicators from the 1997 FCA Guidance because they measure factors required under the Clean Water Act by the CSO Policy. 3 In addition to these two metrics, the FCA Guidance provides a new metric called the Lowest Quintile Poverty Indicator that provides a methodology for consideration of the lowest quintile income and poverty in the community's service area. In addition to their use to assist in negotiating CWA compliance schedules, EPA recommends the application of the methodologies from Alternative 1 of the FCA Guidance for the consideration of economic impacts to public entities when making decisions on WQS variances and antidegradation reviews. In appropriate cases, these methodologies could also inform decisions about revisions to designated uses, subject to additional analyses.

The FCA Guidance also provides a discussion of and a template for a Financial Alternatives Analysis that expands on the Secondary Financial Considerations in EPA's 1997 FCA Guidance and the CSO Control Policy. 4 The Financial Alternatives Analysis guides a community through consideration of programs that may help reduce financial impacts by lowering costs or assisting low-income residents. The Financial Alternatives Analysis is also consistent with EPA's Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Approach Framework (2012), which provides that integrated plans should include a financial strategy and capability assessment that ensures investments are sufficiently funded, operated, maintained and replaced over time and include consideration of current and planned rates and fees. 5 The expanded Financial Alternatives Analysis is designed to help strengthen both CWA protections and water service affordability protections. It allows municipalities negotiating compliance schedules and certain WQS revisions to demonstrate actions to reduce or mitigate the financial impact of water service costs, particularly on the community's low-income households, and to achieve compliance as expeditiously as possible.

For schedule development, the FCA Guidance provides a second option for assessing financial capability. Alternative 2 allows communities to develop a dynamic financial and rate model that looks at the impacts of rate increases over time on utility customers. EPA would review the financial and rate model along with the community's Lowest Quintile Poverty Indicator and Financial Alternatives Analysis in developing a compliance schedule. 6

The FCA Guidance can help to ensure that local challenges related to low-income households are better reflected in CWA implementation schedules and certain water quality decisions. When additional relevant financial or demographic information is presented that illustrates the unique or atypical circumstances faced by a community, EPA plans to consider this information. The FCA Guidance continues to encourage communities to submit supplemental financial information. Templates and calculations are provided to submit drinking water costs and other relevant information. These templates and calculations include references to publicly available data sources that can be used for compiling this information. The FCA Guidance is available at: https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/clean-water-act-financial-capability-assessment-guidance.

On September 18, 2020, EPA published a Proposed 2020 Financial Capability Assessment for Clean Water Act Obligations Guidance in the Federal Register for public comment. 7 On January 12, 2021, EPA posted a pre-publication version of the FCA Guidance on the Agency's website. The pre-publication FCA was never published in the Federal Register and was withdrawn for review in accordance with the January 20, 2021 White House Memorandum, Regulatory Freeze Pending Review. 8 On February 23, 2022, EPA published a Proposed 2022 Clean Water Act Financial Capability Assessment Guidance (Proposed 2022 FCA Guidance) in the Federal Register for public comment. 9 The Proposed 2022 FCA Guidance reflected EPA's consideration of public comments received in response to its September 2020 Federal Register publication, as well as feedback received through various stakeholder outreach sessions. EPA received 2,976 comments on the Proposed 2022 FCA Guidance during the 60-day comment period. The main areas of comments and EPA's responses are described below.

In the Proposed 2022 FCA Guidance, EPA offered two options for calculating a new metric intended to help assess the severity and prevalence of poverty in a community's service area. The Proposed Option 1 was to add a single new metric to the FCA, called the Lowest Quintile Poverty Indicator (LQPI), to be considered with the Residential Indicator and Financial Capability Indicator. The Proposed Option 2 was to add two new metrics, the Lowest Quintile Income Indicator (LQII) and the Poverty Indicator (PI). Based on public comments received, EPA has chosen Option 1. While both options effectively characterize the severity and prevalence of poverty in a community, comments received from several state co-regulators indicated that the formula in Option 1 was easier to implement.

Several commentors also suggested incorporating more local data points into the LQPI, such as cost of living, to supplement the comparison of a community's lowest quintile income and other poverty factors against national benchmarks. EPA found that some of the recommended additional factors involved datasets that are not easily publicly accessible or not available at the service area level. The FCA Guidance retains the proposal's Lowest Quintile Poverty Indicator factors, which are readily available from publicly available data sources and provide a simple and consistent method to assess the severity and prevalence of poverty in a community. These factors are:

• Upper limit of lowest quintile income;

• Percentage of population with income below 200% of the Federal poverty level;

• Percentage of households receiving food stamps/SNAP benefits;

• Percentage of vacant housing units;

• Trend in household growth; and

• Percentage of unemployed population 16 and over in the civilian labor force.

These factors identify community characteristics that provide a general understanding of the service area status. To supplement the Lowest Quintile Poverty Indicator, communities may provide information about local considerations that may not be fully captured by the approach detailed in the guidance.

EPA received both supportive and negative comments related to the Financial Alternatives Analysis. Supportive comments identified the Financial Alternatives Analysis as a tool to assist in achieving water quality benefits sooner while seeking to minimize financial burdens on ratepayers, especially those from low-income households. The negative comments asserted that the Financial Alternatives Analysis was too resource-intensive and that it involved EPA in matters under local government purview such as utility management and rate setting. Many commentors asked EPA to clarify how a Financial Alternatives Analysis should be completed and how it will likely be reviewed.

EPA plans to retain incentives for municipalities seeking extended compliance schedules or certain WQS revisions to describe their strategies for lowering costs and reducing impacts on low-income households through a Financial Alternatives Analysis. These strategies may include use of variable rate structures, consumer assistance programs, and applications for grants or subsidies from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Significant new sources of funding available from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law create new opportunities for communities to secure funding to support CWA compliance. In response to comments, the guidance simplifies how the Financial Alternatives Analysis could be considered as part of schedule extension requests or certain WQS decisions and provides additional resources and templates for its completion. The Financial Alternatives Analysis walks communities through various financial alternatives and describes how these programs may, in some instances, mitigate financial impacts. The information gleaned from this step is intended to inform EPA's consideration of an extended CWA schedule or WQS decision related to economic impacts, particularly when the economic impacts affect low-income households. In evaluating the Financial Alternatives Analysis, EPA expects to look comprehensively at the community's financial strategy, including, but not limited to, an analysis of the community's approach to covering costs through rate structure and design as well as its other initiatives to assist low-income customers while assuring necessary and timely compliance with environmental requirements.

The FCA Guidance revises the Financial Alternatives Analysis based on input from commenters. Some commenters requested greater clarity on the steps to complete the Financial Alternatives Analysis. Other commenters asked that interpretation of the Financial Alternatives Analysis results be clearly explained and reproducible. In response, EPA is providing more explanation of how a Financial Alternatives Analysis may be completed and also is simplifying the method the agency intends to use to include the results of a Financial Alternatives Analysis in a financial capability assessment.

In the FCA Guidance, EPA clarifies methods for completing a Financial Alternatives Analysis. The discussion of the Financial Alternatives Analysis has been expanded and an example financial alternatives worksheet is provided. Appendix C contains a more detailed discussion of financial alternatives, with explanations of how various alternatives may help to minimize the financial impacts of CWA controls, links to resources for implementing financial alternatives, and case studies. In addition, the FCA now provides a template to assist in documenting consideration of financial alternatives. It also makes clear that other documentation may be submitted instead if it provides a descriptive and thorough discussion of financial alternatives that have been implemented, are being planned or considered, or are not being pursued.

Further, the FCA Guidance simplifies consideration of the Financial Alternatives Analysis by interpreting its result at the end of the analytical process rather than as an intermediary step. The Proposed 2022 FCA Guidance recommended calculation of an Initial Lowest Quintile Poverty Indicator score and then adjustment of that score according to the outcome of the Financial Alternatives Analysis. Because adjustment of the Initial Lowest Quintile Poverty Indicator score involved evaluation of the adequacy of the Financial Alternatives Analysis, this analytical step increased uncertainty for stakeholders and regulators tasked with developing or evaluating the analysis. To address that issue, the FCA Guidance considers the results of the Financial Alternative Analysis at the end of the analytical process, as part of Exhibit 9. General Implementation Schedule Benchmarks, for schedule negotiations, and in Exhibit 13. Recommendations for Making WQS Decisions, for variances, use changes, and anti-degradation reviews. Because the Financial Alternatives Analysis provides key information about the extent of possible financial impacts and whether those impacts might outweigh the environmental impacts of extended noncompliance or water quality standards decisions, general benchmarks for compliance schedules tend to be shorter and recommendations for WQS decisions more conservative for communities without a comprehensive Financial Alternatives Analysis. This modification simplifies the FCA analysis while providing for consideration of the Financial Alternatives Analysis as part of a holistic financial strategy for balancing the financial and environmental impacts of extended CWA compliance schedules or potential changes to water quality standards.

Some commenters suggested that the Financial Alternatives Analysis would require entities seeking schedule extensions or certain WQS decisions to ignore local legal restrictions. EPA has clarified the language in the FCA Guidance to address this perception. The FCA Guidance provides ideas for thinking creatively and broadly about how to help with rate impacts to residents, within legal boundaries. The information and resources contained in the FCA Guidance is intended to help communities understand and consider all their financial options related to the costs and timeframes of constructing and implementing CWA controls. From EPA's experience, some communities may not be aware of available resources and potential options for implementing certain financial alternatives. The combination of the information available in the expanded Appendix C, along with the availability of EPA technical assistance ( WaterTA@epa.gov ), may help some communities consider and pursue available alternatives.

In most cases, communities will have considered or implemented at least some of the financial alternatives as general good practices of utility management. Performing the Financial Alternatives Analysis at the beginning of an FCA may help a community evaluate all costs associated with the implementation of CWA controls, such as reduced costs associated with low-interest loans, increased revenue from utility fees, or the costs associated with programs that assist low-income households. Performing this analysis early will allow these costs to be accounted for in the Residential Indicator and Financial Capability Indicator. The FCA Guidance also recognizes that not all financial alternatives may be legally or practically feasible for all communities and that the ability to implement some financial alternatives may depend on state and local laws or other practical considerations related to the structure or organization of the permittee. Although certain financial or funding considerations listed in Appendix C may be prohibited by state law, there still may be alternative mechanisms to achieve the same goals. Appendix C provides examples of communities that have encountered legal barriers yet were able to implement similar or analogous mechanisms to reduce financial impacts. When a community does not include available tools in its plan, a written explanation of the reasons for omitting them should be provided.

While the Financial Alternatives Analysis is a valuable tool to balance the key goals of minimizing financial impacts and ensuring that residents benefit from CWA protections, EPA understands that the cost of completing the analysis may be a barrier for some communities. Some commenters raised concerns about limited resources available to some communities. To ensure that all communities, including underserved and low-income communities, have access to this tool, the FCA Guidance describes the support EPA is making available to assist with completing a Financial Alternatives Analysis, through EPA's Water Finance Center. If resource constraints remain, a community could provide information on current and planned efforts to reduce costs and relieve impacts on low-income residential households in a format that represents a good-faith effort relative to the size of the community's service area. In addition, for small communities, particularly those serving less than 3,000 persons, for which it may not be feasible to make a good faith effort to document the financial alternatives in Appendix C, EPA plans to be mindful of those resource constraints when developing compliance schedules and evaluating WQS decisions based on economic impacts.

The Proposed 2022 FCA Guidance provided a general compliance schedule benchmark of up to 15 years for communities that demonstrate “medium” FCA impacts. For communities demonstrating “high” FCA impacts, the proposal provided a general compliance schedule benchmark of generally up to 20 years, or as long as 25 years for unusually high impacts. Multiple commentors indicated that these timeframes were too short and are inconsistent with CWA consent decrees that include schedules longer than 25 years. On the other hand, several states commented that the compliance schedule benchmarks were reasonable guidelines.

EPA recognizes that there are existing CWA compliance schedules (or modified compliance schedules) that go beyond the guidance's Exhibit 9 General Implementation Schedule Benchmarks. Exhibit 9 provides guidelines for developing consistent and reasonably uniform implementation schedules across the nation in situations where permittee's CWA controls impose similar financial burdens. The general benchmarks are not intended to replace or prejudge the negotiations and deliberations involved to balance all environmental and financial considerations that influence the site-specific nature of the controls and implementation schedules. As was done under EPA's prior FCA guidance, the agency plans to consider implementation schedules that are different than the schedules suggested by the FCA Guidance's baseline analysis when circumstances justify departing from the general benchmarks.

It is also important to consider human health and environmental impacts in addition to cost when considering extended schedules. EPA received comments that EPA should ensure that compliance schedules are no longer than necessary. The majority of comments from over 2,900 individual commentors urged EPA not to delay compliance with the Clean Water Act. EPA is mindful that prolonging water quality impairments could exacerbate environmental justice concerns. The CWA requires that compliance schedules included in NPDES permits must “require compliance as soon as possible.” 40 CFR 122.47(a)(1). The CSO Policy, and CWA section 402(q) adopting the policy as law, also states that NPDES authorities should ensure that “CWA requirements are complied with as soon as practicable.” 59 FR 18688, April 19, 1994. As described in Section III.2 of this document, the Exhibit 9 General Implementation Schedule Benchmarks have been updated to consider whether a comprehensive Financial Alternatives Analysis was submitted as part of the financial capability assessment. The consideration of a financial strategy to reduce costs and relieve impacts on low-income households provides information about possible remaining financial impacts on a community. Without a Financial Alternatives Analysis, it will likely be harder for EPA to assess whether those impacts might outweigh the environmental impacts of extended noncompliance. While the overall ranges for “medium” and “high” FCA impact communities are the same as the Proposed 2022 FCA Guidance, the general compliance schedule benchmarks for compliance schedules without a comprehensive Financial Alternatives Analysis for each category are shorter than for communities within that category with a comprehensive Financial Alternatives Analysis. Overall, EPA believes that, for unusually high impacts and after consideration of available financial alternatives, 25 years is a reasonable general scheduling benchmark that is consistent with the CWA and CSO Policy. In addition, several states co-regulators with experience using FCAs to aid in developing CWA compliance schedules commented that the general compliance schedule benchmarks were reasonable.

EPA received some comments that the application of the FCA Guidance to WQS decisions based on economic impacts was inconsistent with the applicable WQS regulations because the proposed methodologies were either too stringent or not stringent enough. The WQS regulations specify that economic factors may be considered for revisions to designated uses and WQS variances (40 CFR 131.10(g)(6)) and during antidegradation reviews (40 CFR 131.12(a)(2)). EPA's FCA Guidance does not and cannot change the WQS regulations that allow for consideration of economic factors in WQS decisions. However, it is EPA's intention for the FCA Guidance to serve as an update to EPA's 1995 WQS Guidance for public entities. The FCA Guidance recommends additional safeguards to ensure that WQS decisions that may potentially lower water quality are justified and that low-income households do not disproportionately bear the burden of such decisions.

EPA received comments that the 2022 Proposed FCA Guidance was over-prescriptive as applied to use attainability analyses/designated use revisions. Some commenters stated that the guidance was not clear enough on the distinction between WQS variances, use attainability analyses, and antidegradation reviews. Based on these comments, EPA revised the FCA Guidance to more thoroughly consider the legal, technical, and practical considerations unique to water quality standards. The FCA Guidance discusses the differences among WQS variances, revisions to designated uses, and antidegradation reviews, and provides step-by-step recommendations on how to perform the analysis and interpret the results in the context of these different WQS decisions.

The metrics and thresholds in the 1995 WQS Guidance and Alternative 1 of the FCA Guidance are based on an analysis of financial and economic data that reflect conditions during a particular period of time, i.e., a “snapshot” of financial and socio-economic data. As such, these metrics and analyses are well-suited and most appropriate for evaluating requests for WQS variances under 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6). The time-limited nature of a WQS variance ensures that changes in financial conditions would be considered if and when there is a request for a subsequent variance or at the time of reevaluation for a WQS variance with a duration longer than five years. Because the revision of a designated use (including a revision to a less stringent use subcategory) or allowing degradation of high-quality waters could have an environmental impact with a much longer timeframe, EPA recommends caution when making such WQS decisions using “snapshot” economic and financial information. EPA recommends states and authorized tribes first explore whether there are other factors under 40 CFR 131.10(g) that preclude attainment of the designated use when considering a revision to a designated use. Where states and authorized tribes choose to pursue a use change or degradation of high-quality water, EPA recommends an expanded multi-step approach to evaluate economic impacts. EPA has revised the FCA Guidance to better explain the distinction between a WQS variance and a revision to a designated use or antidegradation review. EPA also outlines how these recommendations relate to the objective of the CWA to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.”

Several commentors questioned why Alternative 2 was not recommended as a sole basis for supporting WQS decisions. Although financial and rate models may provide information on the impact of different rate scenarios over time, such information is insufficient to determine if required wastewater treatment projects necessary to meet water quality standards would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts. Financial and rate models also do not provide information about whether lowering of water quality would be necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. Furthermore, EPA is not aware of any specific thresholds or benchmarks that could be uniformly applicable across all communities to make WQS decisions. However, EPA agrees that financial and rate models can be helpful as supporting information for WQS decisions. The agency provided additional language in the FCA Guidance to better explain its views on financial and rate models in WQS decisions.

The FCA Guidance does not alter EPA's review of changes to water quality standards. The CWA specifies that any state or tribal water quality standard must be submitted to EPA for review and approval or disapproval. 33 U.S.C. 1313(c). Adoption of a WQS variance or revision of a designated use is a change to water quality standards. In addition, EPA can object to an NPDES permit issued by an authorized state or tribe if the permit does not conform to the statute or regulations, including the lowering of water quality in high-quality waters without an adequate demonstration that such lowering of water quality is necessary for important economic or social development in the area in which the high-quality waters are located. See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C) and 1342. EPA will continue to evaluate WQS and NPDES permits as it has for decades in a transparent manner consistent with applicable statutes, regulations, guidance, and long-established policies.

The FCA Guidance outlines strategies for communities to support affordable utility rates while making water quality decisions and planning investments in water infrastructure that are essential to protecting clean water. EPA is committed to ensuring that all Americans have access to essential water services and clean water. This guidance provides a needed framework that can help achieve that goal for rural, suburban, and urban communities across the country. The more detailed financial analysis in the FCA Guidance will provide communities and EPA a clearer picture of a community's financial capability and strategies to protect low-income residents while achieving timely and equitable clean water protections. Federal funding initiatives and programs such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), State Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs), Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) and others provide billions of dollars for state, local, territorial, and tribal governments. These resources create a historic opportunity for municipalities to address long-standing challenges with shorter compliance schedules, providing water quality and public health improvements that deliver important social, environmental, and economic benefits to communities. EPA will continue to consider each community's financial capability on a holistic case-by-case basis. Where appropriate, EPA has and will continue to consider supplemental information submitted by the community to negotiate reasonable and effective schedules for implementation of the CWA controls.

The EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. The CWA, the objective of which is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,” 33 U.S.C 1251(a), is essential to EPA's mission and establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. To advance this overall objective, Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of any pollutant by any person into waters of the United States except as authorized by specific provisions of the Act, including a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 or 404, 33 U.S.C. 1342; 33 U.S.C. 1344. Section 404(a) of the CWA authorizes the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States at specified disposal sites. 33 U.S.C. 1344(a). Section 404(b) provides, subject to Section 404(c) of the CWA, each such disposal site shall be specified for each such permit by USACE. 33 U.S.C. 1344(a). 33 U.S.C. 1344(b). Section 404(c) of the CWA authorizes the EPA to prohibit the specification (including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a disposal site, and to deny or restrict the use of any defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of specification) as a disposal site, whenever it determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. 33 U.S.C. 1344(c). The EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 231 govern the Agency's exercise of its CWA Section 404(c) authority.

The Pebble deposit in Southwest Alaska is a large, low-grade copper-, gold-, and molybdenum-bearing ore body deposit located at the headwaters of the largely undeveloped Bristol Bay watershed that underlies portions of the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds, which drain to two of the largest rivers in the Bristol Bay watershed, the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers.

In December 2017, Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) submitted a CWA Section 404 permit application to USACE to develop a mine at the Pebble deposit that triggered the development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In response to the CWA Section 404 permit review and NEPA processes, PLP submitted a revised permit application to USACE in June 2020 ( i.e., the 2020 Mine Plan). On July 24, 2020, 85 FR 44890, USACE published a Notice of Availability for the Final EIS (FEIS) in the Federal Register and on November 20, 2020, USACE issued its Record of Decision (ROD) denying PLP's CWA Section 404 permit application on the basis that the 2020 Mine Plan would not comply with the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and would be contrary to the public interest. By letter dated November 25, 2020, USACE notified PLP that the proposed project failed to comply with the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines because “the proposed project would cause unavoidable adverse impacts to aquatic resources which would result in Significant Degradation to aquatic resources.”

In January 2022, consistent with its regulatory procedures for proposed determinations at 40 CFR 231.3(a), EPA Region 10 notified USACE, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), PLP, Pebble East Claims Corporation, Pebble West Claims Corporation, and Chuchuna Minerals (the Parties) of EPA Region 10's intention to issue a revised proposed determination because, based on a review of information available to that date, it continued to believe that the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit could result in unacceptable adverse effects on important fishery areas. EPA Region 10 provided the Parties with an opportunity to consult with the Region and to submit information for the record to demonstrate that no unacceptable adverse effects would result from discharges associated with mining the Pebble deposit or that actions could be taken to prevent unacceptable adverse effects on important fishery areas.

ADNR, PLP, and Chuchuna Minerals submitted response letters, and the EPA met individually with PLP and Chuchuna Minerals. None of the Parties demonstrated to the satisfaction of EPA Region 10 that no unacceptable adverse effects would occur as a result of the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit. Thus, EPA Region 10 decided that the appropriate next step in this CWA Section 404(c) process was the publication of a revised proposed determination (the 2022 Proposed Determination).

Accordingly, on May 26, 2022, EPA Region 10 published in the Federal Register a notice of availability and notice of public hearings for the 2022 Proposed Determination for the Pebble Deposit Area, Southwest Alaska issued pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (87 FR 32021). On June 16 and 17, 2022, the EPA Region 10 held three public hearings. On June 30, 2022, the EPA published in the Federal Register a Notice of extension of public comment period and public hearing comment period through September 6, 2022 (87 FR 39091).

On September 6, 2022, EPA Region 10 published in the Federal Register a notice to extend the time period provided in 40 CFR 231.5(a) to either withdraw the proposed determination or to prepare a recommended determination through no later than December 2, 2022, to help ensure full consideration of the extensive administrative record, including all public comments (87 FR 54498, September 6, 2022). In addition to the testimony taken at the hearings, EPA Region 10 received more than 582,000 written comments during the public comment period.

EPA Region 10 completed its review of the extensive administrative record, including all public comments, and the Regional Administrator determined that the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with developing the Pebble deposit would be likely to result in unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas. Accordingly, EPA Region 10 prepared, and on December 1, 2022, transmitted to the EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water a Recommended Determination, along with the administrative record, for review and final action.

On December 2, 2022, the Assistant Administrator for Water notified the Parties that she had received EPA Region 10's Recommended Determination and, consistent with the EPA's CWA Section 404(c) regulations at 40 CFR 231.6, provided them the opportunity to notify the EPA of their intent to take corrective action to prevent unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas from certain discharges of dredged or fill material associated with developing the Pebble deposit.

ADNR, PLP, USACE, and Chuchuna Minerals submitted written responses to the EPA's notification letters. ADNR also requested a meeting with the EPA. The EPA met with ADNR and other representatives from the State of Alaska. None of the Parties identified corrective action to prevent unacceptable adverse effects satisfactory to the Assistant Administrator for Water.

After reviewing EPA Region 10's Recommended Determination; the extensive administrative record supporting the Regional Administrator's decision, including all public comments; letters from ADNR, PLP, Chuchuna Minerals, and USACE; and considering the information provided during the Agency's meeting with the State of Alaska, the Assistant Administrator for Water has determined that certain discharges of dredged or fill material associated with developing the Pebble deposit into certain waters of the United States will have unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas and affirms the Recommended Determination.

Based on information in PLP's CWA Section 404 permit application, the FEIS, and the ROD, discharges of dredged or fill material to construct and operate the 2020 Mine Plan's proposed mine site would result in the permanent loss of approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 km) of anadromous fish streams, 91 miles (147 km) of additional streams that support anadromous fish streams, and approximately 2,108 acres (8.5 km2) of wetlands and other waters in the SFK and NFK watersheds that support anadromous fish streams. These discharges would also result in streamflow alterations that would adversely affect approximately 29 miles (46.7 km) of additional anadromous fish streams downstream of the mine site due to greater than 20 percent changes in average monthly streamflow.

The EPA has determined that the large-scale loss of and damage to headwater streams, wetlands, and other aquatic resources that support salmon populations in the SFK and NFK watersheds from the discharge of dredged or fill material for the construction and routine operation of the 2020 Mine Plan will have unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas in the SFK and NFK watersheds. The EPA has also determined that discharges of dredged or fill material for the construction and routine operation of a mine to develop the Pebble deposit anywhere in the mine site area that would result in the same or greater levels of loss or streamflow changes as the 2020 Mine Plan also will have unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas in the SFK and NFK watersheds, because such discharges would involve the same aquatic resources characterized as part of the evaluation of the 2020 Mine Plan.

To prevent these unacceptable adverse effects, the Final Determination prohibits the specification of certain waters of the United States in the SFK and NFK watersheds as disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill material for the construction and routine operation of the 2020 Mine Plan, including future proposals to construct and operate a mine to develop the Pebble deposit with discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States that would result in the same or greater levels of aquatic resource loss or streamflow changes as the 2020 Mine Plan. The Defined Area for Prohibition encompasses certain headwaters of the SFK and NFK watersheds and is delineated by the entirety of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) quarter sections where mine site discharges were proposed in PLP's 2020 Mine Plan.

Separately, the EPA has also determined that discharges of dredged or fill material associated with future proposals to construct and operate a mine to develop the Pebble deposit will have unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas) anywhere in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds if the adverse effects of such discharges are similar or greater in nature and magnitude to the adverse effects of the 2020 Mine Plan.

To prevent these unacceptable adverse effects, the Final Determination restricts the use for specification of certain waters of the United States in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds as disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with future proposals to construct and operate a mine to develop the Pebble deposit with discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States that would result in adverse effects similar or greater in nature and magnitude to the adverse effects of the 2020 Mine Plan. The Defined Area for Restriction encompasses certain headwaters of the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds where discharges associated with developing the Pebble deposit are likely. To the extent that future discharges are subject to the prohibition, the restriction will not apply.

The aquatic resources that would be lost or damaged by the discharges evaluated by the EPA play an important role in supporting salmon populations in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds. Such resources are also integral components of a larger ecosystem, which helps support the health of the Bristol Bay watershed, an area of unparalleled ecological value, boasting salmon diversity and productivity unrivaled anywhere in North America. The watershed is made up of intact, connected habitats—from headwaters to ocean—that support abundant, genetically diverse wild Pacific salmon populations. The Bristol Bay watershed's Sockeye Salmon run is the world's largest, producing approximately half of the world's Sockeye Salmon. The watershed's Chinook, Coho, Chum, and Pink salmon populations are also significant. Bristol Bay's salmon populations support world-class, economically important commercial and sport fisheries, as well as a more than 4,000-year-old subsistence-based way of life for Alaska Natives.

Proposals to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States associated with developing the Pebble deposit that are not subject to this final determination remain subject to all statutory and regulatory authorities and requirements under CWA Section 404.

Considering the immense and unique economic, social, cultural, and ecological value of the aquatic resources in the region, including the fishery areas in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds and their susceptibility to damage, the EPA will carefully evaluate all future proposals to discharge dredged or fill material in the region.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0055) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

The electronic version of the public docket for this action contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

On August 25, 2022, a coalition of environmental organizations (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that EPA had failed to perform its non-discretionary duty under RCRA section 2002(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. to review and, if necessary, revise a regulation that exempts inactive CCR landfills from the CCR disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 257. 40 CFR 257.50(d). “Inactive” CCR landfills are those that stopped receiving waste before October 17, 2016.

RCRA provides that “Each regulation promulgated under this chapter shall be reviewed and, where necessary, revised not less frequently than every three years.” 42 U.S.C. 6912(b). Citizens may file a claim against EPA for failure to comply with a mandatory duty. Any person may commence a civil action against the Administrator “where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Administrator.” 42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(2).

The proposed consent decree, if finalized, would establish deadlines for EPA to take certain actions under RCRA. Specifically, the proposed consent decree would require that EPA: (1) on or before May 5, 2023, either complete a review of 40 CFR 257.50(d), and determine that no revision is necessary or sign a proposed rule to revise 40 CFR 257.50(d); and (2) if a proposal has been issued, take final action regarding EPA's proposed revision of 40 CFR 257.50(d), no later than May 6, 2024.

In accordance with the EPA Administrator's March 18, 2022, Memorandum entitled Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements to Resolve Environmental Claims Against the Agency, for a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0055, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0056.

Title: Part 68, Connection of Terminal Equipment to the Telephone Network.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 41,354 respondents; 44,423 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours-40 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement, and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-205 and 303(r).

Total Annual Burden: 12,869 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $508,250.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Part 68 rules do not require respondents to provide proprietary, trade secret or other confidential information to the Commission. If the FCC requests that respondents submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to section 0.459 of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

Needs and Uses: The purpose of 47 CFR part 68 is to protect the telephone network from certain types of harm and prevent interference to subscribers. To (1) demonstrate that terminal equipment complies with criteria for protecting the network and (2) ensure that consumers, providers of telecommunications, the Commission and others are able to trace products to the party responsible for ensuring compliance with these criteria; it is essential to require manufacturers or other responsible parties to provide the information required by Part 68. In addition, incumbent local exchange carriers must provide the information in Part 68 to warn their subscribers of impending disconnection of service when subscriber terminal equipment is causing telephone network harm, and to inform subscribers of a change in network facilities that requires modification or alteration of subscribers' terminal equipment.

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: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Manufacturer Submission of Average Sales Price (ASP) Data for Medicare Part B Drugs and Biologicals; Use: Section 401 of Division CC of Title IV of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), 2021 amended section 1847A of the Social Security Act (the Act) to add new section 1847A(f)(2) of the Act, which requires manufacturers without a Medicaid drug rebate agreement to report average sales price (ASP) information to CMS for calendar quarters beginning on January 1, 2022, for drugs or biologicals payable under Medicare Part B and described in sections 1842(o)(1)(C), (E), or (G) or 1881(b)(14)(B) of the Act, including items, services, supplies, and products that are payable under Part B as a drug or biological. The reported ASP data are used to establish the Medicare payment amounts. Form Number: CMS-10110 (OMB control number: 0938-0921); Frequency: Quarterly; Affected Public: Private sector, Business or other for-profit; Number of Respondents: 500; Total Annual Responses: 2,000; Total Annual Hours: 26,000. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Felicia Brown at 410-786-9287)

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: CAHPS Hospice Survey; Use: CMS is required to collect and publicly report information on the quality of services provided by hospices under provisions in the Social Security Act. Specifically, sections 1814(i)(5)(A) through (C) of the Act, as added by section 3132(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Pub. L. 111-148), required hospices to begin submitting quality data, based on measures specified by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) for FY 2014 and subsequent FYs.

The goal of the survey is to measure the experiences of patients and their caregivers with hospice care. The survey was developed to:

• Provide a source of information from which selected measures could be publicly reported to beneficiaries and their family members as a decision aid for selection of a hospice program;

• Aid hospices with their internal quality improvement efforts and external benchmarking with other facilities;

• Provide CMS with information for monitoring the care provided.

Form Number: CMS-10537 (OMB control number: 0938-1257); Frequency: Once; Affected Public: Individuals and Households; Number of Respondents: 1,140,695; Total Annual Responses: 1,140,695; Total Annual Hours: 198,481. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Lauren Fuentes at 410-786 2290 or 443-618-2123.)

In FR document, 2023-01822, published on January 30, 2023 (87 FR 5886), we are withdrawing item 1 “Manufacturer Submission of Average Sales Price (ASP) Data for Medicare Part B Drugs and Biologicals” which begins on page 5886. We are also withdrawing item 2 “CAHPS Hospice Survey” which begin on page 5887. Both notices will be republished at a later date, thereby allowing the public to have a full 60-day comment period.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-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 that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a previously approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Annual Notice of Chance and Evidence of Coverage for Applicable Integrated Plans in States that Require Integrated Materials; Use: CMS requires AIPs to use the approved standardized documents to ensure that correct information is disclosed to current and potential enrollees. Additionally, CMS requires AIPs to submit the completed ANOC and EOC documents to CMS. CMS stores the completed templates. New and current enrollees can review the ANOC and EOC upon receipt to find plan benefits, premiums and cost sharing for the coming year to be in a better position to make informed and educated plan selections. CMS does not require new and current enrollees to review the documents or use them in any way.

MA organizations with AIPs in States that require these integrated documents upload ANOC and EOC documents into the Health Plan Management System (HPMS) to ensure accuracy and regulatory compliance. Section 422.111(h)(2)(ii) requires that, the ANOC/EOC be available on the website and 422.111(d)(2) requires that the plan send the ANOC to the enrollee in hard copy format, upon request. Section 423.128(d)(2) requires that Part D sponsors post the ANOC and EOC documents on their website and send the ANOC only to enrollees electronically or in hard copy. Form Number: CMS-10824 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector; Businesses or other for-profits; Number of Respondents: 47; Total Annual Responses: 47; Total Annual Hours: 564. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Julie Jones at 630-337-5863.)

Pursuant to section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1307), “[a]ll goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labor or/and forced labor or/and indentured labor under penal sanctions shall not be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States, and the importation thereof is hereby prohibited.” Under this section, “forced labor” includes “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily” and includes forced or/and indentured labor or forced or indentured child labor.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations promulgated under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1307 are found at sections 12.42 through 12.45 of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (19 CFR 12.42-12.45). Among other things, these regulations allow any person outside of CBP to communicate his or her belief that a certain “class of merchandise . . . is being, or is likely to be, imported into the United States [in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1307].” 19 CFR 12.42(a), (b). Upon receiving such information, the Commissioner of CBP (Commissioner) “will cause such investigation to be made as appears to be warranted by the circumstances . . . .” 19 CFR 12.42(d). CBP also has the authority to self-initiate an investigation. 19 CFR 12.42(a). If the Commissioner finds that the information available “reasonably but not conclusively indicates that merchandise within the purview of section 307 is being, or is likely to be, imported,” the Commissioner will order port directors to “withhold release of any such merchandise pending [further] instructions.” 19 CFR 12.42(e). After issuance of such a withhold release order, the covered merchandise will be detained by CBP for an admissibility determination and will be excluded unless the importer demonstrates that the merchandise was not made using labor in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1307. 19 CFR 12.43-12.44. The importer may also export the merchandise. 19 CFR 12.44(a).

These regulations also set forth the procedure for the Commissioner to issue a Finding when it is determined that the merchandise is subject to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1307. Pursuant to 19 CFR 12.42(f), if the Commissioner determines that merchandise within the purview of 19 U.S.C. 1307 is being, or is likely to be, imported into the United States, the Commissioner will, with the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), publish a Finding to that effect in the Customs Bulletin and in the Federal Register . 1 Under the authority of 19 CFR 12.44(b), CBP may seize and forfeit imported merchandise covered by a Finding.

On December 16, 2020, CBP issued a withhold release order (made effective on December 30, 2020) on “palm oil,” including all crude palm oil and palm kernel oil and derivative products, made wholly or in part with palm oil traceable to Sime Darby Plantation Berhad (Sime Darby Plantation), with reasonable evidence demonstrating that the Sime Darby Plantation, including its subsidiaries and joint ventures, primarily located in Malaysia, harvested the fruit and produced the palm oil using forced labor. Through its investigation, CBP determined that there was sufficient information to support a

Finding that the Sime Darby Plantation, its joint ventures, and subsidiaries were using forced labor on Sime Darby's plantations in Malaysia to harvest fresh fruit bunches, which are used to extract palm oil and produce derivative products, and also produce such palm oil and derivatives, and that such palm oil and derivative products produced by the company were likely being imported into the United States. Pursuant to 19 CFR 12.42(f), CBP issued a Finding (CBP Dec. 22-02) to that effect in the Federal Register on January 28, 2022 (87 FR 4635). 2

Since that time, the Sime Darby Plantation has provided additional information to CBP, which CBP believes establishes by satisfactory evidence that the subject palm oil and derivative products are no longer mined, produced, or manufactured in any part with forced labor. 19 CFR 12.42(g).

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1307 and 19 CFR 12.42(g), it is hereby determined that the articles described below are no longer being mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with the use of convict, forced, or indentured labor by the Sime Darby Plantation, its subsidiaries, and joint ventures.

The subject articles are palm oil and derivative products classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 1207.10.0000, 1511.10.0000, 1511.90.0000, 1513.21.0000, 1513.29.0000, 1517, 3401.11, 3401.20.0000, 3401.19.0000, 3823.12.0000, 3823.19.2000, 3823.70.6000, 3823.70.4000, 3824.99.41 and any other relevant subheadings under Chapters 12, 15, 23, 29 and 38, which are produced or manufactured wholly or in part by the Sime Darby Plantation, its subsidiaries, and joint ventures.

The SMAC was established August 14, 2001, pursuant to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-399). The SMAC provides recommendations to the BLM regarding new and unique approaches to management of the public lands within the bounds of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, recommends cooperative programs and incentives for landscape management that meet human needs, and advises the BLM on potential maintenance and improvement of the ecological and economic integrity of the area.

Agenda items for the February 23, 2023, meeting include: recreation and wildland fire 2022 program reviews, information sharing from the Designated Federal Official and Andrews/Steens Field Manager, an update and discussion on the Bridge Creek Area Allotment Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement, and an opportunity for SMAC members to share information from their constituents or present research. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the SMAC may also be included.

A public comment period will be available at 3 p.m. Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and the time available, the amount of time for oral comments may be limited. Written public comments may be sent to the BLM Burns District Office listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. All comments received at least 1 week prior to the meeting will be provided to the SMAC prior to the meeting. The meeting may end early if all business items are accomplished ahead of schedule or may be extended if discussions warrant more time. All meetings, including virtual sessions, are open to the public in their entirety.

Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodations. We ask that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice at least 7 business days prior to the meeting to give the Department of the Interior sufficient time to process your request. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

Public Disclosure of Comments: Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWM. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by UWM.

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by unknown individuals near Bingham's Point, by Lake Koshkonong, in Jefferson County, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects, which had been removed from the surface of the ground, date to the nineteenth century. This collection was given to David Overstreet in the 1970s, who, in January of 2006, donated it collection to the UWM. The two associated funerary objects are one metal brooch and one lot of faunal bones.

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by amateur archeologist Paul Turney from the Milford/Koester site (47-JE-44) in Jefferson County, WI. Turney removed soil from the site containing fragmentary human remains. This collection was transferred to the UWM in 1990, after Turney's death. The one associated funerary object is the soil removed together with the human remains.

On an unknown date human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed by collector Phil Sander from a house construction site near Barnes Creek (47-KN-41) in Kenosha County, WI. The Barnes Creek site dates to the Archaic (8000 to 500 BC), Early Woodland Red Ocher culture (500 BC to A.D. 0), Middle Woodland (A.D. 0 to 400), Late Woodland (A.D. 900 to 1300), and Historic periods. Archeologically, the burials are associated with the Red Ocher component. On an unknown date, Sander gave the human remains to David Overstreet, and in 2006, Overstreet donated them to the UWM. The two associated funerary objects are one porcelain (or ceramic) figurine and one piece of metal.

In 1848, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Kenosha County, WI, when the Hasselman family were excavating a gravel pit on their farm approximately 0.5 mile south of Wilmot, near the Fox River. According to records from the Kenosha Historic Society (KCHS), the family stated that a projectile point was piercing one of the vertebrae and that pottery sherds were also found in the pit. The human remains and associated funerary objects date from the Archaic (8000 to 500 BC) and Middle Woodland (A.D. 0 to 400) periods. In 1936, this collection was donated to the KCHS Museum by Dr. B.A. Becker, and in 1988, it was transferred to the UWM. The two associated funerary objects are one projectile point and one lot of pottery sherds.

In June of 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by two boys at an Elm Grove construction site near the Convent Knoll site (47-WK-0327), in Waukesha County, WI. The site dates to the Early Woodland period (500 BC to A.D. 0). The boys brought the human remains to Elm Grove Village Hall, and they were eventually given to David Overstreet. In 2006, Overstreet donated the human remains to the UWM. No associated funerary objects are present.

On July 29, 1988, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed during the UWM Department of Anthropology's archeological field school excavations at the Klug Island site (47-OZ-67) in Ozaukee County, WI. This site dates to the Late Woodland (A.D. 900 to 1300), Mississippian (A.D. 1100 to 1300), and possibly Oneota (A.D. 1100 to 1600) periods. These human remains belong to the Late Woodland or Mississippian components. Sometime during 1988, the human remains and associated funerary objects were transported to the UWM. The two associated funerary objects are one trumpeter swan tibiotarsus and one projectile point.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Winnebago County, WI. In 1964, G. Richard Peske (Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh) completed excavations at the Lasley's Point site (47-WN-0096/47-WN-0008), and it is believed these human remains were removed during those excavations. This site dates to the Oneota Lake Winnebago Phase (A.D. 1300 to 1600). At an unknown date, these human remains were transferred to the UWM. No associated funerary objects are present.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by an unknown individual from the Kregel Site (47-WN-211) in Winnebago County, WI. The site dates to the Oneota Lake Winnebago Phase (A.D. 1300 to 1600). In the early 2000s, a private cultural resources management firm transferred this collection to the UWM as part of a larger donation. The one associated funerary object is a lot comprised of lithics and ceramics.

The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical, archeological, and expert opinion.

Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, UWM has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 12 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 10 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 6, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. UWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9, 10.10, and 10.14.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWM. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by UWM.

In August of 1880, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by Captain W. P. Hall from a mound in the Millville Village site (47-GT-0053) in Grant County, WI. This site dates to the Middle Woodland period (A.D. 0 to 400). On an unknown date, the collection was transferred to the Putnam Museum in Davenport, IA, and in 1986, it was transferred from the Putnam Museum to the UWM. No associated funerary objects are present.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by Captain W. P. Hall from a location in what is now Wyalusing State Park in Grant County, WI. Archeological sites and effigy mounds within Wyalusing State Park date to the Late Woodland period (A.D. 900 to 1200). On an unknown date, the collection was transferred to the Putnam Museum in Davenport, IA, and subsequently, it was transferred from the Putnam Museum to the UWM. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by collector R.T. Lawton and his daughter from an unknown location in the Lake Koshkonong region, in Jefferson County, WI. Lawton later sold these human remains to the Hoard Historical Museum, along with a Late Woodland (A.D. 900 to 1300) projectile point that had been glued to one of the vertebrae. In 2003, the collection was transferred to the UWM. The one associated funerary object is a Madison-style projectile point.

In 1929, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by T.M.N. Lewis from an unknown location in Jefferson County, WI. On an unknown date, these human remains were transferred to the McClung Museum at the University of Tennessee, and in July of 2009, they were transferred to the UWM. No associated funerary objects are present.

The human remains and associated funerary object in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following type of information was used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical.

Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, UWM has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The one object described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary object described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; The Osage Nation; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 6, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object are considered a single request and not competing requests. UWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9, 10.10, and 10.14.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWM. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by UWM.

In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Gibson site on Washington Island, in Door County, WI, during a UWM field school under the direction of G. Richard Peske. The site dates to the Middle Woodland North Bay Tradition (A.D. 0 to 600) and Mero Oneota (A.D. 1100 to 1600) periods. Upon completion of the field school, the collection was transferred to UWM. No associated funerary objects are present.

The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical, archeological, and expert opinion.

Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, UWM has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 6, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. UWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9, 10.10, and 10.14.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWM. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the UWM.

In 1968 and 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed during UWM field school excavations at the Richter site (47-DR-80) in Door County, WI. The site dates to the Middle Woodland, North Bay Tradition (A.D. 0 to 600). After each field season, the collection was transferred to the UWM. The six associated funerary objects are one copper awl, one bear tarsal bone, one bear phalanx bone, one lot of cultural items including minimal amounts of shell fragments, small pottery sherds, and lithic debitage, one beaver incisor, and one copper fragment.

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed by unknown individual(s) from a mound at the Maine site (47-MR-22) in Marathon County, WI. The site and the human remains date to the Late Woodland period (A.D. 900 to 1300). These human remains were transferred to collector Steve Rosenbalm, a student at the University of Wisconsin Center-Marathon County—today the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point at Wausau—who transferred them to his professor, John Forde. In 1990, Forde gave the human remains to the UWM. The two associated funerary objects are one white-tail deer antler fragment and one white-tail deer bone fragment.

In the mid-1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed during UWM field school excavations at the Diamond Bluff site (47-PI-0002) in Pierce County, WI. The site dates to the Late Woodland (A.D. 900 to 1300)/Mississippian (A.D. 1100 to 1300) periods. On an unknown date, this collection was transferred to the UWM. The one associated funerary object is a lot of faunal remains.

The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following type of information was used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical, archaeological, and expert opinion.

Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, UWM has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 20 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The nine objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 6, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. UWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9, 10.10, and 10.14.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWM. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by UWM.

Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Brown County, WI, during the 1978 and 1979 investigations at the McGuire/Beaumier Farm site (47-BR-60) by a private cultural resource management firm as part of a survey project of the Green Bay coastal corridor. The site dates to the Late Woodland (A.D. 900 to 1300), Oneota (A.D. 1100 to 1600), and/or Historic Native American periods. This collection was transferred to UWM sometime between 2000 and 2010. No associated funerary objects are present.

Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Brown County, WI, during the 1978 and 1979 investigations at the Bordeleau site (47-BR-222) by a cultural resource management firm as part of a survey project of the Green Bay coastal corridor. The site dates to the Woodland (500 BC to A.D. 1300), Oneota (A.D. 1100 to 1600), and/or Historic Native American periods. This collection was transferred to UWM sometime between 2000 and 2010. The one associated funerary object is one rolled copper bead.

In October of 1988, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from the Astor site (47-BR-0243) in Brown County, WI, during Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center excavations for the South Adams Street Development Project. The site dates to the Middle to Late Archaic (4500 to 500 BC) and/or Oneota (A.D. 1100 to 1600) periods. (The site also has Middle Woodland (A.D. 0 to 400) and Late Woodland (A.D. 900 to 1300) components, but the burials are believed to be associated with the site's Oneota and/or Middle to Late Archaic occupation.) This collection was transferred to UWM in the early 2000s. The two associated funerary objects are two lots containing shell-tempered pottery sherds, lithic debitage, fire-cracked rock, faunal material, and historic items.

The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical, archeological, and expert opinion.

Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, UWM has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of eight individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The three objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 6, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. UWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9, 10.10, and 10.14.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWM. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the UWM.

Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in WI, by Paul Turney, and donated to UWM in 1990 after his death. No associated funerary objects are present.

Human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from an unknown location in WI, by unknown individual(s). At an unknown date, these human remains were transferred to the UWM, where they became part of the Neal Tappen teaching collection. No associated funerary objects are present.

The human remains in this notice were removed from unknown geographic locations in Wisconsin, all of which is the aboriginal land of one or more Indian Tribes. The following information was used to identify the aboriginal land: a final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or the United States Court of Claims, a treaty, an Act of Congress, and an Executive Order.

Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes, the UWM has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• No relationship of shared group identity can be reasonably traced between the human remains and any Indian Tribe.

• The human remains described in this notice were removed from the aboriginal land of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cayuga Nation; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; Onondaga Nation; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; The Osage Nation; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Tuscarora Nation; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

Written requests for disposition of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in ADDRESSES . Requests for disposition may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or who shows that the requestor is an aboriginal land Indian Tribe.

Disposition of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 6, 2023. If competing requests for disposition are received, UWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to disposition. Requests for joint disposition of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. UWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9 and 10.11.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWM. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by UWM.

In 1990, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Crawford County, WI, during archeological excavations at the DEET Thinker site (47-CR-467), a site that dates to the Middle Woodland (A.D. 0 to 400) period. The fragmentary human remains of this individual were found disarticulated at the bottom of a pit feature. On an unknown date, the collection was later transferred to UWM. The one associated funerary object is a lot of cultural items comprised of pottery, lithic flakes, burned and unburned animal bone, lithic tools (core, scraper, biface fragment), and wood charcoal.

The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following type of information was used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical.

Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, UWM has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• The one object described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; The Osage Nation; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 6, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object are considered a single request and not competing requests. UWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9, 10.10, and 10.14.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Emory. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records held by Emory.

Between 1925 and 1928, seven cultural items were removed from the Etowah site (Mound C or nearby), in Bartow County, GA, under the direction of Warren K. Moorehead of Phillips Academy, Andover, MA. Sometime prior to 1931, Phillips Academy donated the objects to the Michael C. Carlos Museum. The seven unassociated funerary objects are two shell gorgets (X.0232.007, X.0232.008); two sets of beads (X.0233.003, X.0233.004); and three bowls (X.0232.005, X.0232.006, X.0232.029).

The cultural items in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological, historical, oral traditional, and expert opinion.

Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, Emory University, Michael C. Carlos Museum has determined that:

• The seven cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 6, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Emory must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. Emory is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.8, 10.10, and 10.14.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWM. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the UWM.

In the 1920s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by Frank Lyman from a sand dune south of Kenosha in Kenosha County, WI. In 1936, Dr. B.A. Becker donated these human remains to the Kenosha Historical Society Museum, and in 1988, the collection was transferred to the UWM. No associated funerary objects are present.

In the 1920s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by Frank Lyman from an unknown location in Kenosha County, WI. A projectile point had been glued into the frontal bone. (This projectile point has since been removed from the frontal bone but has been kept with the human remains.) In 1936, Dr. B.A. Becker donated the human remains and projectile point to the Kenosha Historical Society Museum, and in 1988, the collection was transferred to the UWM. The human remains date to the Middle Woodland (A.D. 0 to 400)/Late Woodland (A.D. 900 to 1300) periods. The one associated funerary object is a projectile point.

In 1897, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by an unknown individual from the Julius Peter Farm in West Allis, Milwaukee County, WI, which is today the site of Nathan Hale High School. In 1967, Emil Peter donated these human remains to the West Allis Historic Society, and in 1991, the human remains to the UWM. The one associated funerary object is a lot of faunal bone.

In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from one of the mounds at the Barforth-Blood Mound Group (47-WK-0063) in Waukesha County, WI, as part of an archeological survey and limited test excavations. This site dates to the Middle Woodland period (A.D. 0 to 400). In 2006, these human remains and an associated funerary object were donated to the UWM. The one associated funerary object is a lot of lithics comprised of a biface fragment and debitage.

The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following type of information was used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical.

Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the UWM has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The three objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 6, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The UWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9, 10.10, and 10.14.

Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2022).

Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on January 27, 2023, ordered that —

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-5 and 19-21 of the '803 patent; claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13 of the '683 patent; claims 1-18 of the '599 patent; and claims 1-3, 6-8, and 14-22 of the '593 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “active matrix organic light-emitting diode (`AMOLED') display panels and modules used as replacement displays for mobile devices comprising organic pixel elements for presenting information to a viewer which infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents, and components thereof, where AMOLED display module refers to the assembly of an AMOLED display panel (containing light-emitting materials, pixel circuitry, and encapsulation layers on a substrate) with additional components such as a connector cable, one or more polarizing layers, window glass, and/or housing materials around the AMOLED display panel”;

(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. l337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1);

(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a) The complainant is:

(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2022-038-C.

Petitioner: Greenbrier Minerals LLC, 119 Rich Creek Rd., Lyburn, West Virginia 25632.

Mines: Eagle No. 1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09563, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Lower War Eagle, MSHA ID No. 46-09319, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Muddy Bridge, MSHA ID No. 46-09514, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

North Fork Winifrede Deep, MSHA ID No. 46-09583, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Powellton #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09217, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Toney Fork Surface Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09101, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Elklick Surface, MSHA ID No. 46-09564, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Saunders Preparation Plant, MSHA ID No. 46-02140, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Elk Lick Tipple, MSHA ID No. 46-04315, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d), Permissible electric equipment.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d) to permit the use of the CleanSpace EX Powered Respirator, a nonpermissible battery powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), taken into or inby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(a) Currently, there are no PAPRs that are approved by MSHA as permissible. PAPRs provide a constant flow of filtered air and offer respiratory protection and comfort in hot working environments.

(b) The CleanSpace EX Powered Respirator (CleanSpace EX) is UL certified to the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard and can be used in hazardous locations because it meets the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard's intrinsic safety protection level. It is accepted in other jurisdictions for use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation. The product is not MSHA approved, and the manufacturer is not pursuing approval. The ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard for the certification of these respirators is an accepted alternative to MSHA's standards and provides the same level of protection to miners as such standards.

(c) The CleanSpace EX uses lithium-ion polymer battery that is neither accessible nor removable. The lithium-ion polymer battery and motor/blower assembly are both contained within the sealed power pack assembly. It charges as a complete unit.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) Affected mine employees shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the CleanSpace EX in accordance with the established manufacturer guidelines. Mine employees shall also be trained to inspect the unit before each use to determine if there is any damage or defect to the unit that would negatively impact intrinsic safety. This inspection shall include all associated wiring and connections and shall take place prior to the equipment being taken underground.

(b) If it is determined that there is damage that may negatively impact intrinsic safety, the PAPR shall be immediately removed from service.

(c) CleanSpace EX units shall be charged outby the last open crosscut and shall utilize the manufacturer-approved battery charger. CleanSpace EX charging stations located underground shall be enclosed in a properly constructed steel box designed for such purpose.

(d) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected areas of the mine.

(e) The operator shall comply with all requirements of 30 CFR 75.323. The CleanSpace EX shall not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while the CleanSpace EX is being used, the equipment shall be deenergized immediately. When 1.5 percent or more methane is detected, the CleanSpace EX shall be withdrawn from the affected area outby the last open crosscut.

(f) Employees shall be trained all stipulations of the Decision and Order. Qualified miners shall receive training regarding the information in the Decision and Order before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of training shall be kept and made available upon request.

(g) Within 60 days of the Decision and Order becoming finalized, the petitioner shall submit proposed revisions to the mine ventilation plan per 30 CFR 75.370, to be approved under the 30 CFR part 48 training plan by the District Manager. The revisions shall specify initial and refresher training. When the training is conducted, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) shall be completed, with comments on the certificate noting non-permissible testing equipment training.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method proposed will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.