Title of Information Collection: USAID Bureau for Democracy, Development and Innovation Relationship Management Survey

Type of Request: Notice for public comment; generic clearance.

Originating Office: USAID Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation (DDI).

Respondents: Key points of contact from thirty private sector organizations that have an assigned USAID Global Relationship Manager.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

Estimated number of respondents: 30 (one from each company).

Average Time per Response: 15 minutes for survey respondents

Frequency of response: Approximately once per year.

Total estimated burden: 7.5 hours.

Total estimated cost: $750.

We are soliciting public comments to permit USAID to:

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record.

Title: Scrapie in Sheep and Goats; Interstate Movement Restrictions and Indemnity Program.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0101.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the dissemination within the United States of animal diseases and pests of livestock and to conduct programs to detect, control, and eradicate pests and diseases of livestock.

Scrapie is a progressive, degenerative, and eventually fatal disease affecting the nervous system of sheep and goats. Its control is complicated because the disease has an extremely long incubation period without clinical signs of disease and no known treatment. The regulations in 9 CFR part 54 describe requirements related to the indemnity program, flock cleanup, testing, and a Scrapie Free Flock Certification Program (SFCP). Associated information collection activities include SFCP flock inspection reports; cooperative agreement and grant workplans, financial plans, and reports; memoranda of understanding; requests for information and reports on animals moved; records of animals acquired; scrapie epidemiology reports; appraisal and indemnity claims; written agreements and certifications; inventories and claims of animal value; receipts of disposal expenses (payment of indemnity); reports for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency exempted disinfectants used; flock plans; post exposure management and monitoring plans; reports of suspect or dead animals; scrapie Post Exposure Monitoring and Management Plan inspection reports; program approvals of tests for scrapie; cooperative State-Federal scrapie control program scrapie test records; specimen submissions; requests for laboratory approval; and applications for the scrapie flock certification program.

Regulations in 9 CFR part 79 describe requirements related to restrictions on the interstate movement of certain sheep and goats to control the spread of scrapie. Associated information collection activities include interstate certificates of veterinary inspection; requests by a breed registry to have its tattoos approved as official identification; requests for approval of sheep or goat identification device types or methods not currently approved; applications for and assignment of identification numbers or official tags including blue tags; an optional application for and assignment of identification numbers; reports when identification is applied; requests to move animals in interstate commerce; requests to replace official identification for lost or damaged official identification devices; requests for approval to produce or renew approval to produce official identification devices; agreements to send official ear tags to specified individuals; monthly reports of official identification produced; data entry of official identification devices produced and assigned; compliance agreements and reports for consignments when identification is applied; declinations to participate or provide information; herd owner notification of designation of flocks or animals; permits for movement of restricted animals; State application for scrapie classification, classification renewal, or reclassification of a State; epidemiology and identification compliance reports; and concurrence with APHIS/State animal designation.

Information collection activities associated with both parts 54 and 79 include training and approval of designated scrapie epidemiologists, waivers of requirements for scrapie control pilot projects, appeals of APHIS decisions, approval of terminal feedlots, and owner/hauler statements.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection echnologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.77 hours per response.

Respondents: Flock owners; market owners, operators, or managers; dealers; slaughter plant owners, operators, or managers; feedlot owners, operators, or managers; tag manufacturers; managers of producer organizations; accredited veterinarians; and State animal health authorities.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 174,851.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 6.

Estimated annual number of responses: 1,082,777.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 828,878 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

Background

Over the past several years, organic dairy farms have faced—and continue to face—a variety of challenges, and many are struggling to remain in business. Notably, organic dairy operations have limited ability to pass along cost increases to retailers or consumers without a decrease in domestic consumption of organic dairy and the cost increases have, in many cases, eliminated profit margins, especially among smaller operations that do not have the ability to take advantage of economies of scale. Marketing and operational challenges may result in decisions to cease operations entirely without intervention, which will reduce the organic dairy market. Organic grain and forage commodities have traditionally been relatively small markets where the domestic U.S. demand for organic feed has outstripped supply, resulting in the need for imports. Input costs and availability, especially feed, have seen several years of sustained increases and volatility due to a variety of factors including drought in major forage production regions in the United States, and transportation and trade challenges both in general post-pandemic and specific to the disruptions caused by the invasion of Ukraine, which has traditionally been one of the major organic global feed suppliers.

In addition to these input costs and challenges, organic dairy farmers also have seen higher delivery and marketing costs, especially those related to transportation and hauling. As part of the system through which all dairy farmers provide milk and dairy products to consumers, dairies bear the costs of milk hauling and other marketing costs. These marketing costs for organic dairies, however, can be significantly greater than the conventional market. In addition, participants in the organic dairy sector must take additional steps to keep the organic milk separated and its status as organic clearly preserved. In some cases, these requirements necessitate longer and more costly hauling routes, including the costs of finding truck drivers willing to cover longer routes with multiple stops. The recent shortage of truck drivers in general and specifically those with the experience and training to operate tanker trucks exacerbates these challenges further.

Organic dairy operations also tend to be smaller farms than conventional dairy operations, which means they often have less production to spread the various fixed costs over or have higher per unit costs. Therefore, they may not benefit from the same economies of scale as conventional dairies. In particular, milk pick-up and hauling costs may be a challenge due to the need to have dedicated organic pick-up routes that need to stop at multiple farms or use smaller tankers.

ODMAP will provide assistance to organic dairy operations that produce milk from cows as well as organic dairy operations that produce milk from goat and sheep. All three types of organic dairy operations are eligible, since all three types of operations face the same challenges related to organic marketing and generally follow similar business and marketing models such as pooling milk through cooperatives or selling directly to milk processors that make dairy products such as cheese. While there are fewer, and therefore less data available on, organic dairy operations that produce milk from goats and sheep compared to cows, the impact of increased marketing costs to the consumption of organic dairy remains constant across all three.

Data to estimate the marketing costs for all species relies on conventional cow milk estimates, since more specific national organic cow, sheep, or goat estimates are not available. Given the unique marketing challenges and strategies for organic dairy operations discussed above, these conventional estimates are likely to be conservative and do not reflect the full marketing costs for organic production.

Through ODMAP, USDA is assisting organic dairy operations by providing payments to assist with their projected marketing costs in 2023. The CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(e)) includes authority for CCC to use its general powers and funding to increase the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities (other than tobacco) by expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the development of new and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for such commodities. USDA is providing this marketing assistance to organic dairy producers to help keep these small organic dairies in operation by aiding in the expansion of the domestic market for organic dairy, which will increase domestic consumption of organic dairy, in order to counteract the currently projected reduction in this market. Without the assistance, it is projected that organic dairies, and particularly small organic dairies, may cease or decrease organic dairy production and reduce the domestic supply and consumption of organic milk.

FSA designed ODMAP to leverage a simplified, streamlined application process to expedite assistance to certified organic dairy operations that produce organic milk from dairy cows, dairy goats, or dairy sheep. ODMAP provides one-time assistance for a cost share of projected marketing costs for eligible organic dairies for 2023, not to exceed 5 million pounds per operation to target smaller organic dairy operations, in order to provide support to aid or expand the market for organic dairy operations during 2023. All organic dairy operations that apply for ODMAP will be required to provide their USDA certification of organic status, confirming their operation as an organic dairy operation at the time of application. In order to calculate projected marketing costs for 2023, the streamlined process will have operations certify to their organic milk production for the 2022 calendar year, that was marketed directly as organic milk or indirectly through organic dairy products or a projection of pounds of organic milk marketed in 2023 if warranted due to changes in circumstances between 2022 and 2023 supported by documentation as discussed further below. While production documentation for 2022 production is not required at the time of application, operations should retain supporting documentation and calculations for 3 years should they be selected for a spot check.

FSA will administer ODMAP on behalf of CCC, using CCC funds. The payment may be issued in 2 parts.

There is $104 million from CCC funds available for ODMAP assistance. ODMAP payments will be subject to availability of funding. FSA will make an initial payment to eligible applicants factored by 75 percent. If sufficient available funding remains at the conclusion of the application period, an additional payment of up to the remaining 25 percent may be made to each eligible applicant if USDA determines that additional assistance is still needed.

The funds announced in this NOFA are not subject to sequestration.

The only available estimates to calculate an average milk marketing cost are from milk marketed through the Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO), which is primarily conventional cow milk. There are no national-level data sets on milk marketing and hauling costs specific to organic sheep or goat operations. While an estimated average milk marketing cost from FMMO is likely conservative given the likely higher per unit costs for smaller operations that are more common for organic production, and the unique marketing challenges facing organic dairy operations, the similarities in marketing options and costs between conventional and organic make it the best proxy available.

To develop the ODMAP payment rate, FSA worked with the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to determine an average marketing cost per hundredweight, using the AMS data from the FMMO regional model documentation ( https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FinalDecisionEconometricModelDocumentation.pdf ), which estimates the relationship between each FMMO uniform milk price and the National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) all-milk price.

Through this comparison of the milk prices, the model estimates the milk marketing and hauling fees that are deducted in the net producer milk marketing statements (producer paychecks).

Averaging these estimates of milk marketing costs among orders results in an average of $1.10 per hundredweight for 2022, which will be used as the ODMAP average milk marketing cost to calculate assistance.

To be an eligible ODMAP applicant, the organic dairy operation must produce and market organic milk from cows, goats, or sheep at the time of application, provide their USDA Certification of organic status for 2023, and have documentation to support any certified projection of 2023 pounds of organic milk marketed.

To be eligible for ODMAP assistance each applicant must:

(1) Submit a FSA-630 application and any additional required documentation as specified in the Application Process section below; and

(2) Comply with all provisions of this NOFA and comply with the following regulations:

• 7 CFR part 12—Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation;

• 7 CFR 718.6, Controlled Substance; and

• 7 CFR part 707—Payments Due Persons Who Have Died, Disappeared, or Have Been declared Incompetent, if applicable.

In addition, consistent with other FSA assistance programs, a producer must be a:

• Citizen of the United States;

• Resident alien, which for purposes of ODMAP means “lawful alien” as defined in 7 CFR 1400.3;

• Partnership consisting solely of citizens of the United States or resident aliens; or

• Corporation, limited liability company, or other organizational structure organized under State law consisting solely of citizens of the United States or resident aliens.

Federal, State, and local governments are not eligible for ODMAP payments.

The ODMAP initial payment will be calculated by using the producer-certified pounds of organic milk projected to be marketed in 2023, multiplied by the $1.10 per cwt ODMAP payment rate, multiplied by a factor of 75 percent. The pounds of organic milk projected to be marketed in 2023 will be (i) the self-certified organic milk production marketed directly by the operation in 2022 or used as inputs in related-organic dairy products marketed in 2022, that can be supported by documentation maintained in the ordinary course of business, or (ii) if approved by the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs (Deputy Administrator), an operation-specific certified estimate of organic milk projected to be marketed in 2023 that is supported by documentation maintained in the ordinary course of business from the applicant.

Operations that (a) transitioned to organic in 2022 or 2023, (b) are new organic operations in 2022 or 2023, or (c) have increased organic milk production capacity by 15 percent or greater in 2023 as compared to 2022, may request to use a certified estimate of their operation's reasonably projected organic milk to be marketed in 2023 based on average daily organic production of current herd that can be supported by documentation maintained in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, milk marketing statements, milk production records, contemporaneous records, or similar supporting documentation, as may be requested by the Deputy Administrator. These operations must provide an explanation of the basis for their 2023 projection on the FSA-630 and how those projections are supported by the supporting documentation they submit with the application. All organic dairy operations making such a request must submit with their application all available 2023 milk marketing statements, in addition to all other documentation necessary to support their certification. Organic dairy operations should contact their local FSA Service Center if they have questions regarding their particular circumstances and the documentation necessary to support such a request. The request will be evaluated by the Deputy Administrator at the Deputy Administrator's discretion to assess whether the estimate is adequately supported by documentation and reasonable based on the documented average daily production of the current organic herd.

The initial payments will be made to eligible applicants on a rolling basis as applications are submitted and approved. If funds remain at the conclusion of the application period, a second payment to eligible applicants of up to the remaining 25 percent may be issued subject to available funding and a determination by FSA of the need for additional marketing assistance based on discussions with USDA experts and economists, industry, and stakeholders regarding impact of initial marketing assistance on domestic consumption of organic dairy.

Organic dairy operations are only eligible for payment on up to 5 million pounds of organic milk.

FSA will make available to organic dairy operations form FSA-630 to apply for assistance for pounds of organic milk projected to be marketed in 2023. FSA will accept applications from May 24, 2023, through July 26, 2023. To apply for ODMAP assistance, all applicants must submit a completed form FSA-630 and all other required documentation to their administrative FSA county office by July 26, 2023.

Applicants must submit the following forms, if not already on file, in person or by mail, email, facsimile:

• Form FSA-630, ODMAP Application;

• Manual Form CCC-902-I, Farm Operating Plan for an Individual, as applicable;

• Manual Form CCC-902E, Farm Operating Plan for an Entity, as applicable;

• CCC-901, Member Information for Legal Entities (if applicable);

• AD-1026, Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) Certification; and

• AD-2047, Customer Data Worksheet.

The Deputy Administrator has the discretion and authority to waive or modify filing deadlines and other requirements or program provisions not specified in law, in cases where the Deputy Administrator determines it is equitable to do so and where the Deputy Administrator finds that the lateness or failure to meet such other requirements or program provisions do not adversely affect the operation of ODMAP. Although producers have a right to a decision on whether they filed applications by the deadline or not, producers have no right to a decision in response to a request to waive or modify deadlines or program provisions. The Deputy Administrator's refusal to exercise discretion on requests to waive or modify ODMAP provisions will not be considered an adverse decision and is, by itself, not appealable.

FSA will review each ODMAP application and supporting documentation to determine eligibility. FSA, on behalf of CCC, will approve applications for an ODMAP payment for eligible applicants consistent with the terms specified in this document.

If requested by FSA, the applicant must provide additional supporting documentation to verify the accuracy of information provided on the application. If any supporting documentation is requested, the documentation must be submitted to FSA within 30 calendar days from the request or the application will be disapproved by FSA, and, if payment has been made, full ODMAP payment will be required to be refunded to FSA with interest from the date of disbursement. ODMAP is subject to the availability of funding and will be funded in the order in which applications are approved. If additional funding is allocated to ODMAP after initial funding is depleted, additional applications will be reviewed, approved and funded, if the eligibility criteria is met, in the order received during the application period, subject to the availability of those additional funds.

An initial ODMAP payment will be issued after an application is approved. At the conclusion of signup, a second payment may be issued to eligible applicants.

In the event any ODMAP payment resulted from erroneous information or a miscalculation, the payment will be recalculated, and the participant must refund any excess payment to FSA with interest to be calculated from the date of the disbursement to the participant. If, for whatever reason, FSA determines that the applicant misrepresented either the reported organic milk production or organic certification or is otherwise ineligible for payment, the application will be disapproved and the full ODMAP payment will be required to be refunded to FSA with interest from the date of disbursement. ODMAP applications, FSA-630, will be reviewed and spot-checked by FSA for program eligibility and payment calculation purposes through milk marketing statements or similar supporting documentation. ODMAP participants must retain all ODMAP supporting documentation for 3 years.

The liability of anyone for any penalty or sanction resulting from a ODMAP application, or for any refund to FSA, is in addition to any other liability of such person under any civil or criminal fraud statute or any other provision of law including, but not limited to: 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 371, 641, 651, 1001, and 1014; 15 U.S.C. 714; and 31 U.S.C. 3729.

Appeal regulations specified in 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 apply. FSA program requirements and determinations that are not in response to, or result from, an individual disputable set of facts in an individual participant's application for assistance are not matters that can be appealed.

In compliance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the information collection request has been approved by OMB under the control number of 0503-0028. FSA will collect the information from the organic dairy operations to qualify for the ODMAP payment. ODMAP provides one-time funding as described in this NOFA.

The environmental impacts have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799).

The purpose of ODMAP is to provide marketing assistance funding to organic dairy operations in the United States to increase the domestic consumption of organic milk and organic milk products by aiding in the expansion of the organic milk market. The limited discretionary aspects of ODMAP do not have the potential to impact the human environment as they are administrative. Accordingly, these discretionary aspects are covered by the categorical exclusions in 7 CFR 799.31(b)(6)(iii) that applies to price support programs, provided no extraordinary circumstances are found to exist. As such, the implementation of ODMAP and the participation in ODMAP do not constitute major Federal actions that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and this document serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision for this federal action.

The title and number of the Federal assistance programs, as found in the Assistance Listing, to which this document applies is 10.977, Organic Dairy Marketing Assistance Program (ODMAP).

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

Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and text telephone (TTY)) or dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay Service (both voice and text telephone users can initiate this call from any telephone). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

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

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

On April 27, 2023, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of brass rod from India, Israel, and Korea filed in proper form on behalf of the American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition and its constituent members, Mueller Brass Co. and Wieland Chase LLC, U.S., producers of brass rod (collectively, the petitioners). 1 The CVD petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and Korea. 2

On May 2 and 10, 2023, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. 3 On May 8 and 11, 2023, the petitioners filed timely responses to these requests for additional information. 4

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of India (GOI), the Government of Israel (GISR), and the Government of Korea (GOK) (collectively, Governments) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of brass rod in India, Israel, and Korea, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing brass rod in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations. 5

Because the Petitions were filed on April 27, 2023, the periods of investigation (POI) for India, Israel, and Korea are January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. 6

The merchandise covered by these investigations is brass rod from India, Israel, and Korea. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

On May 2 and 10, 2023, Commerce requested information from the petitioners regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 7 On May 8 and 11, 2023, the petitioners revised the scope language. 8 The description of merchandise covered by these investigations, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 9 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information, all such factual information should be limited to public information. 10 To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on June 6, 2023, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 16, 2023, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must also be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 11 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the Governments of the receipt of the Petitions and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions. 12 Commerce held consultations with the GOI on May 11, 2023, the GISR on May 8, 2023, and the GOK on May 10, 2023. 13

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 14 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 15

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 16 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that brass rod, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 17

In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of brass rod in 2022 and compared this to the total 2022 production of brass rod by the U.S. industry. 18 We relied on data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support. 19

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions. 20 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 21 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 22 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. 23 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 24

Because India, Israel, and Korea are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India, Israel, and/or Korea materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 25

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic industry's operations, production, commercial shipments, capacity utilization, and employment variables; and adverse impact on the domestic industry's financial performance. 26 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 27 In accordance with section 771(7)(G)(ii)(IV) of the Act, which states that the ITC cannot cumulate imports “from any country that is party to an agreement with the United States establishing a free trade area, which entered into force and effect before January 1, 1987, unless the {ITC} determines that a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from that country,” we considered the petitioners' allegation of injury with respect to Israel, a party to an agreement with the United States establishing a free trade area in place and effect before January 1, 1987, independently of the allegations for Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and South Africa and found that the information provided satisfies the requirements for initiation. 28

Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of brass rod from India, Israel, and Korea benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOI, GISR, and GOK, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of these initiations.

Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 13 of the 14 programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate an investigation of each program, see the India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for these investigations is available on ACCESS.

Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on seven of the eight programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate an investigation of each program, see the Israel CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for these investigations is available on ACCESS.

Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 36 of the 37 programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate an investigation an investigation of each program, see the Korea Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for these investigations is available on ACCESS.

The petitioners named one company in India, one company in Israel, and two companies in Korea as producers and/or exporters of brass rod. 29 Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in these investigations. In the event that Commerce determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of brass rod from India and Korea during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings listed in the “Scope of the Investigation” in the appendix.

Between May 15 and 16, 2023, Commerce released CBP data on U.S. imports of brass rod from India, Israel, and Korea under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days after the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations. 30 Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the GOI, GISR, and GOK via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the CVD Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of brass rod from India, Israel, and/or Korea are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 31 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in an investigation being terminated with respect to that country. 32 Otherwise, these CVD investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  33 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 34 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances, Commerce will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. 35

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 36 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 37 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letters of appearance).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On November 16, 1994, Commerce published the AD order on imports of fresh garlic from China. 1 On October 3, 2022, the ITC instituted, 2 and Commerce initiated  3 the fifth five-year (sunset) review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of its review, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, Commerce notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the Order to be revoked. 4

On May 17, 2023, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 5

The products covered by the Order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this Order does not include the following: (a) garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings: 0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.97500, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, and 2005.99.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the Order is dispositive. To be excluded from the Order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is: (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to that effect.

As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Order. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the Order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year review of this Order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which may be subject to sanctions.

This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and (d)(2) and 777(i)(1) the Act, and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

The Petition

On April 27, 2023, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of certain non-refillable steel cylinders (cylinders) from India filed in proper form on behalf of Worthington Industries (the petitioner), a U.S. producer of cylinders. 1 The Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of cylinders from India. 2

On May 1 and 9, 2023, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition. 3 On May 5 and 10, 2023, the petitioner filed timely responses to these requests for additional information. 4

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of cylinders from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such cylinders are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the cylinder industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested AD investigation. 5

Because the Petition was filed on April 27, 2023, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the AD investigation is April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023.

The products covered by the investigation are cylinders from India. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see the appendix to this notice.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period of time for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 6 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information, all such factual information should be limited to public information. 7 To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on June 6, 2023, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 16, 2023, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 8 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. 9

Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of cylinders to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant cost of production (COP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria where appropriate.

Subsequent to the publication of this notice, Commerce intends to release a proposed list of physical characteristics and product-comparison criteria, and interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe cylinders, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, Commerce intends to establish a deadline for relevant comments and submissions at the time it releases the proposed list of physical characteristics and product-comparison criteria. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the investigation.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 10 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 11

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. 12 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that cylinders, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 13

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2022. 14 The petitioner stated that there are no other known producers of cylinders in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry. 15 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 16

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition. First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 17 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 18 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 19 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 20

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 21

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant and increasing volume of subject imports; declining market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and adverse impact on the domestic industry's capacity utilization, commercial shipments, employment variables, and financial performance. 22 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 23

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate an AD investigation of imports of cylinders from India. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.

The petitioner based export price (EP) on pricing information for sales of, or sales offers for, cylinders produced in and exported from India. The petitioner made certain adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price, where appropriate. 24

The petitioner based NV on home market pricing information obtained through market research for cylinders produced in and sold, or offered for sale, in India during the period of investigation. 26 The petitioner provided information indicating that the prices for cylinders sold or offered for sale in India were below the COP; therefore, the petitioner also calculated NV based on CV. 27 For further discussion of CV, see the section “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value,” below.

As noted above, the petitioner provided information indicating that the prices for cylinders sold or offered for sale in India were below COP. Therefore, the petitioner also based NV on CV. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and profit. 28

In calculating the cost of manufacturing, the petitioner relied on the production experience and input consumption rates of a U.S. producer of cylinders, valued using publicly available information applicable to India. 29 In calculating SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios, the petitioner relied on the financial statements of producers of identical merchandise in India. 30

Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of cylinders from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV and CV, in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for cylinders from India are 6.24 percent and 61.00 percent ad valorem. 31

Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of cylinders from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

In the Petition, the petitioner identified five companies in India as producers/exporters of cylinders. 32 In the event Commerce determines that the number of companies in India is large, and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires issued to potential respondents. Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, Commerce would normally select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data for imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings listed in the scope of the investigation. However, for this investigation, the main HTSUS subheadings under which the subject merchandise would enter (7311.00.0060 and 7311.00.0090) are basket categories under which non-subject merchandise may enter. Therefore, we cannot rely on CBP entry data in selecting respondents. We, instead, intend to issue Q&V questionnaires to each potential respondent for which the petitioner has provided a complete address.

Exporters/producers of cylinders from India that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement and Compliance's website, at https://enforcement.trade.gov/questionnaires/questionnaires-ad.html. Responses to the Q&V questionnaire must be submitted by the relevant exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on May 31, 2023, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the deadline noted above.

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government of India via ACCESS. Furthermore, to the extent practicable, Commerce will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition is filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of cylinders from India are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 33 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated. 34 Otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  35 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 36 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the COP in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial response to section D of the AD questionnaire.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances, Commerce will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to submitting factual information in this investigation. 37

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 38 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 39 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letter of appearance). 40 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 41

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On April 27, 2023, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa, filed in proper form on behalf of the American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition and its constituent members, Mueller Brass Co. and Wieland Chase LLC, U.S., producers of brass rod (collectively, the petitioners). 1 These AD petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of brass rod from India, Israel, and Korea. 2

In May 2023, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. 3 Additionally, in May 2023, the petitioners filed timely responses to these requests for additional information. 4

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the brass rod industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. 5 Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested AD investigations. 6

Because the Petitions were filed on April 27, 2023, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the periods of investigation (POI) for the Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa AD investigations are April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023.

The products covered by these investigations are brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

On May 2 and 10, 2023, Commerce requested further information and clarification from the petitioners regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 7 On May 8 and 11, 2023, the petitioners revised the scope. 8 The description of the merchandise covered by these investigations, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period of time for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 9 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, 10 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on June 6, 2023, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 16, 2023, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 11 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. 12

Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of brass rod to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant costs of production (COP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria where appropriate.

Subsequent to the publication of this notice, Commerce intends to release a proposed list of physical characteristics and product-comparison criteria, and interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe brass rod, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 6, 2023, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 16, 2023, which is ten calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of each of the AD investigations.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 14

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 15 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that brass rod, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 16

In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of brass rod in 2022 and compared this to the total 2022 production of brass rod by the U.S. industry. 17 We relied on data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support. 18

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions. 19 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 20 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 21 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. 22 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 23

The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 24

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic industry's operations, financial performance, production, commercial shipments, capacity utilization, and employment variables; and adverse impact on the domestic industry's financial performance. 25 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 26 In accordance with section 771(7)(G)(ii)(IV) of the Act, which states that the ITC cannot cumulate imports “from any country that is party to an agreement with the United States establishing a free trade area, which entered into force and effect before January 1, 1987, unless the {ITC} determines that a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from that country,” we considered the petitioners' allegation of injury with respect to Israel, a party to an agreement with the United States establishing a free trade area in place and effect before January 1, 1987, independently of the allegations for Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and South Africa and found that the information provided satisfies the requirements for initiation. 27

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.

For Israel, the petitioners based export price (EP) on pricing information obtained through market research for brass rod sold in Israel and offered for sale in the United States. The petitioners made certain adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price, where appropriate. 28

For Brazil, India, and Korea, the petitioners based EP on transaction-specific average unit values (AUV) ( i.e., month- and port-specific AUVs) derived from official import data and tied to ship manifest data. For these countries, the petitioners did not make any adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price. 29

For Mexico and South Africa, the petitioners based EP on the AUVs derived from official import data for imports of brass rod from Mexico/South Africa into the United States during the POI. The petitioners did not make any adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price. 30

For Brazil, Israel, and Mexico, the petitioners based NV on home market prices obtained through market research for brass rod produced in and sold, or offered for sale, in each country during the applicable time period. 32 Further, for Mexico, the petitioners made certain adjustments to home market price to calculate a net ex-factory home market price, where appropriate. 33

For India, Korea, and South Africa, the petitioners stated they were unable to obtain home market or third country pricing information for brass rod to use as a basis for NV. 34 Therefore, for India, Korea, and South Africa, the petitioners calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). 35 For further discussion of CV, see the section “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value,” below.

As noted above, for India, Korea, and South Africa, the petitioners were unable to obtain home market or third country pricing information for brass rod to use as the basis for NV. Accordingly, the petitioners based NV on CV. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and profit. 36

In calculating the cost of manufacturing, the petitioners relied on the production experience and input consumption rates of a U.S. producer of brass rod, valued using publicly-available information applicable to each respective country. 37 In calculating SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios (where applicable), the petitioners relied on the calendar year 2022 financial statements of a producer of identical merchandise domiciled in each respective subject country or a third country, where appropriate. 38

Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for brass rod for each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) Brazil—77.14 percent; (2) India—16.52 percent; (3) Israel—40.12 percent; (4) Mexico—29.43 percent; (5) Korea—20.82; and (6) South Africa—20.99 percent. 39

Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of these initiations.

In the Petitions, the petitioners identified one company each in Brazil, India, Israel, and South Africa as producers/exporters of brass rod, and two companies each in Mexico and Korea, as producers/exporters of brass rod. 40 Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event Commerce determines that the number of exporters or producers is large such that Commerce cannot individually examine each company based on its resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents in these cases based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix.

On May 16, 2023, Commerce released CBP data on imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations. 41 Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/Administrative_Protective_Order.aspx.

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the AD Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, Korea, and/or South Africa, are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 42 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. 43 Otherwise, these AD investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  44 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 45 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), sets a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial response to section D of Commerce's AD questionnaire.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances, Commerce will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. 46

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 47 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 48 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letter of appearance). Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 49

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

The Petition

On April 27, 2023, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of certain non-refillable steel cylinders (cylinders) from India filed in proper form on behalf of Worthington Industries (the petitioner), a U.S. producer of cylinders. 1 The CVD petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of cylinders from India. 2

On May 1 and 2, 2023, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition. 3 On May 5 and 8, 2023, the petitioner filed timely responses to these requests for additional information. 4

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of India (GOI) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of cylinders in India, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing cylinders in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is supported by information reasonably available to the petitioner.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigation. 5

Because the Petition was filed on April 27, 2023, the period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. 6

The products covered by the investigation are cylinders from India. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the appendix to this notice.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 7 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information, all such factual information should be limited to public information. 8 To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on June 6, 2023, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 16, 2023, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must also be filed simultaneously on the record of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. 10

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOI of the receipt of the Petition and provided it an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition. 11 Commerce held consultations with the GOI on May 10, 2023. 12

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 14

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. 15 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that cylinders, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 16

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2022. 17 The petitioner stated that there are no other known producers of cylinders in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry. 18 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 19

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition. First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 20 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 21 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 22 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 23

Because India is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 24

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant and increasing volume of subject imports; declining market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and adverse impact on the domestic industry's capacity utilization, commercial shipments, employment variables, and financial performance. 25 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 26

Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of cylinders from India benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOI. Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 51 of 52 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

In the Petition, the petitioner identified five companies in India as producers and/or exporters of cylinders. 27 Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in this investigation. In the event that Commerce determines that the number of companies is large, and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires issued to the potential respondents. Commerce normally selects mandatory respondents in CVD investigations using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings listed in the scope of the investigation. However, for this investigation, the main HTSUS subheadings under which the subject merchandise would enter (7311.00.0060 and 7311.00.0090,) are basket categories under which non-subject merchandise may enter. Therefore, we cannot rely on CBP entry data in selecting respondents. We, instead, intend to issue Q&V questionnaires to each potential respondent for which the petitioner has provided a complete address.

Exporters/producers of cylinders from India that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement and Compliance's website at https://access.trade.gov/resources/questionnaires/questionnaires-ad.html. Responses to the Q&V questionnaire must be submitted by the relevant Indian producers/exporters no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on May 31, 2023, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the deadline noted above. Commerce intends to finalize its decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOI via ACCESS. Furthermore, to the extent practicable, Commerce will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of cylinders from India are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 28 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated. 29 Otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  30 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 31 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to submitting factual information in this investigation. 32

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 33 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 34 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letters of appearance). Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 35

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

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

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.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss recent performance of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass commercial and recreational fisheries and develop Fishery Performance Reports. These reports will be considered by the Scientific and Statistical Committee, the Monitoring Committee, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission when setting 2024-2025 catch and landings limits for summer flounder and scup, setting 2024 catch and landings limits for black sea bass, and reviewing other management measures for all three species.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shelley Spedden at the Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Department of the Army plans to grant an exclusive license to Hydronergy, Inc. in the following fields of use related to:

• Heat generation whether it be from diverting the unavoidable energy (heat) induced by the chemical reaction of nanogalvanized powder mixed with water, or burning hydrogen produced by mixing nanogalvanized powder with water. The generated heat will be used in buildings, homes, warehouses, swimming pools and industry needs such as heating, washing, cooking, sterilizing, drying, preheating of boiler feed water.

pertaining to the following;

The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). Competing applications completed and received by the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.

Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

OAC has received written requests for disinterment from the closest living descendent of each of the five individuals. OAC will disinter and facilitate the transport and reinterment of the remains to private cemeteries chosen by the families at government expense. This disinterment will be conducted under the authority of Army Regulation 290-5, in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation (NAGPRA) savings clauses at 25 U.S. Code 3009. Individually marked graves located within the Carlisle Barracks Post Cemetery do not constitute “holdings or collections” of the Army (§ 3003(a)) nor does NAGPRA (§ 3002) require the Army to engage in the intentional excavation or exhumation of a grave.

Additional information related to Native Americans buried at the Carlisle Barracks Post Cemetery can be found at https://armycemeteries.army.mil/Cemeteries/Carlisle-Barracks-Main-Post-Cemetery .

This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, U.S.C. (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), section 552b of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act”), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Availability of Materials for the Meeting: Additional information, including the agenda or any updates to the agenda, is available at the DACOWITS website, https://dacowits.defense.gov/. Materials presented in the meeting may also be obtained on the DACOWITS website.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for the DACOWITS to receive briefings and have discussions on topics related to the recruitment, retention, employment, integration, well-being, and treatment of women in the Armed Forces of the United States.

Agenda: Tuesday, June 27, 2023, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.—Welcome, Introductions, Announcements, Request for Information Status Update, Briefings, Public Comment Period, and DACOWITS discussion.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public, subject to availability of space, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on June 27, 2023. The meeting will also be streamed by videoconference. The number of participants is limited and is on a first-come basis. Any member of the public who wishes to participate via videoconference must register by contacting DACOWITS at osd.pentagon.ousd-p-r.mbx.dacowits@mail.mil or by contacting Mr. Robert Bowling at (703) 380-0116 no later than Monday, June 19, 2023. Once registered, the videoconference information will be provided.

Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Mr. Robert Bowling no later than Monday, June 19, 2023, so appropriate arrangements can be made.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the FACA, interested persons may submit a written statement to the DACOWITS. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday, June 19, 2023, to Mr. Robert Bowling (703) 380-0116 (voice) or to robert.d.bowling1.mil@mail.mil (email). Mailing address is 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, VA 22350. Members of the public interested in making an oral statement, must submit a written statement. If a statement is not received by Monday, June 19, 2023, it may not be provided to or considered by the Committee during this quarterly business meeting. After reviewing the written statements, the Chair and the DFO will determine if the requesting persons are permitted to make an oral presentation. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DACOWITS Chair and ensure they are provided to the members of the Committee.

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its May 30, 2023 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement. This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), 5 U.S.C. 552b (commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act”), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: In section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291), as modified by section 537 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), Congress tasked the DAC-IPAD to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces. This will be the twenty-ninth public meeting held by the DAC-IPAD. At this meeting the Committee will discuss, deliberate, and vote on a stand-alone report: Reforming Pretrial Procedures and Establishing Uniform Prosecution Standards: Recommendations for Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the Secretary of Defense's Disposition Guidance in Appendix 2.1, Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM).

Agenda: 12:00 p.m.-12:05 p.m.—Opening Remarks. 12:05 p.m.-1:30 p.m.—Discussion, Deliberations, and Voting on Stand-Alone Report: Reforming Pretrial Procedures and Establishing Uniform Prosecution Standards: Recommendations for Article 32, UCMJ, and the Secretary of Defense's Disposition Guidance in Appendix 2.1, MCM. 1:30 p.m. Public Meeting Adjourns.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1), the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the DAC-IPAD about its mission and topics pertaining to this public meeting. Written comments must be received by the DAC-IPAD at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the DAC-IPAD members for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the DAC-IPAD at whs.pentagon.em.mbx.dacipad@mail.mil in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the DAC-IPAD operates under the provisions of the FACA, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(3), interested persons may submit a written statement to the DAC-IPAD. Individuals submitting a statement must submit their statement no later than 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday, May 29, 2023 to Dwight Sullivan, 703-695-1055 (Voice), 703-693-3903 (Facsimile), dwight.h.sullivan.civ@mail.mil (Email). If a statement pertaining to a specific topic being discussed at the planned meeting is not received by Monday, May 29, 2023, then it may not be provided to, or considered by, the Committee during the May 30, 2023 meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DAC-IPAD Chair and ensure such submissions are provided to the members of the DAC-IPAD before the meeting. Any comments received by the DAC-IPAD prior to the stated deadline will be posted on the DAC-IPAD website ( http://dacipad.whs.mil/ ).

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Request for Reference; DD Form 370; OMB Control Number 0704-0167.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain personal reference data to request a waiver on a military applicant who has committed a civil or criminal offense and would otherwise be disqualified for entry into the Armed Forces of the United States. The DD Form 370 is used to obtain references information evaluating the character, work habits, and attitudes of an applicant from a person of authority or standing within the community.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,083.

Number of Respondents: 6,500.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 6,500.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the DoD and the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the DoDWC, the DoDWC was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.450(a) concerning its May 30, 2023 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the DoD, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

These meetings are being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), 5 U.S.C. 552b (commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act”), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of these meetings is to provide independent advice and recommendations on matters relating to the conduct of wage surveys and the establishment of wage schedules for all appropriated fund and non-appropriated fund areas of blue-collar employees within the DoD.

Opening Remarks by Chair and DFO.

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Appropriated Fund areas:

1. Any items needing further clarification or action from the previous agenda.

2. Survey Specifications for the Albany, Georgia wage area (AC-036).

3. Survey Specifications for Northwestern Michigan wage area (AC-071).

4. Survey Specifications for the Tulsa, Oklahoma wage area (AC-111).

5. Survey Specifications for the Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania wage area (AC-117).

6. Any items needing further clarification from this agenda may be discussed during future scheduled meetings.

Closing Remarks by Chair.

Opening Remarks by Chair and DFO.

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Nonappropriated Fund areas:

1. Any items needing further clarification or action from the previous agenda.

2. Survey Specifications for the Hampden, Massachusetts wage area (AC-039).

3. Survey Specifications for the Middlesex, Massachusetts wage area (AC-138).

4. Survey Specifications for the York, Maine wage area (AC-139).

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Appropriated Fund areas:

5. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the New Haven-Hartford, Connecticut wage area (AC-024).

6. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Albuquerque, New Mexico wage area (AC-089).

7. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Cleveland, Ohio wage area (AC-105).

8. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Texarkana, Texas wage area (AC-136).

9. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Anniston-Gadsden, Alabama wage area (AC-001).

10. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Huntsville, Alabama wage area (AC-004).

11. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida wage area (AC-035).

12. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Lake Charles-Alexandria, Louisiana wage area (AC-060).

13. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the El Paso, Texas wage area (AC-132).

14. Survey Specifications for the San Diego, California wage area (AC-017).

15. Survey Specifications for the San Francisco, California wage area (AC-018).

16. Survey Specifications for the Pensacola, Florida wage area (AC-034).

17. Survey Specifications for the Central Illinois wage area (AC-046).

18. Survey Specifications for the Des Moines, Iowa wage area (AC-054).

19. Survey Specifications for the Baltimore, Maryland wage area (AC-066).

20. Survey Specifications for the Buffalo, New York wage area (AC-092).

21. Any items needing further clarification from this agenda may be discussed during future scheduled meetings.

Closing Remarks by Chair.

Opening Remarks by Chair and DFO.

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Nonappropriated Fund areas:

1. Any items needing further clarification or action from the previous agenda.

2. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the McLennan, Texas wage area (AC-022).

3. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Allegheny, Pennsylvania wage area (AC-066).

4. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Jefferson, New York wage area (AC-101).

5. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Orange, New York wage area (AC-103).

6. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Macomb, Michigan wage area (AC-162).

7. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Niagara, New York wage area (AC-163).

8. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Cumberland, Pennsylvania wage area (AC-092).

9. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the York, Pennsylvania wage area (AC-093).

10. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Honolulu, Hawaii wage area (AC-106).

11. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Norfolk-Portsmouth-Virginia Beach, Virginia wage area (AC-111).

12. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Hampton-Newport News, Virginia wage area (AC-112).

13. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Harford, Maryland wage area (AC-148).

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Appropriated Fund areas:

14. Special Pay—Washington, District of Columbia TV Systems (AC-B027).

15. Special Pay—Washington, District of Columbia Electronic Equipment Maker (AC-A027).

16. Any items needing further clarification from this agenda may be discussed during future scheduled meetings.

Closing Remarks by Chair.

Opening Remarks by Chair and DFO.

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Appropriated Fund areas:

1. Any items needing further clarification or action from the previous agenda.

2. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Atlanta, Georgia wage area (AC-037).

3. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Waco, Texas wage area (AC-137).

4. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Shreveport, Louisiana wage area (AC-062).

5. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Augusta, Maine wage area (AC-063).

6. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Central North Carolina wage area (AC-099).

7. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News-Hampton, Virginia wage area (AC-140).

8. Survey Specifications for the Cocoa Beach-Melbourne, Florida wage area (AC-028).

9. Survey Specifications for the Eastern South Dakota wage area (AC-121).

10. Any items needing further clarification from this agenda may be discussed during future scheduled meetings.

Closing Remarks by Chair.

Opening Remarks by Chair and DFO.

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Nonappropriated Fund areas:

1. Any items needing further clarification or action from the previous agenda.

2. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Tom Green, Texas wage area (AC-032).

3. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Cobb, Georgia wage area (AC-034).

4. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Columbus, Georgia wage area (AC-067).

5. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Pennington, South Dakota wage area (AC-086).

6. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Nueces, Texas wage area (AC-115).

7. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Bexar, Texas wage area (AC-117).

8. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Anchorage, Alaska wage area (AC-118).

9. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Kitsap, Washington wage area (AC-142).

10. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Dallas, Texas wage area (AC-152).

11. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Tarrant, Texas wage area (AC-156).

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Appropriated Fund areas:

12. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Savannah, Georgia wage area (AC-042).

13. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Western Texas wage area (AC-127).

14. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Columbia, South Carolina wage area (AC-120).

15. Survey Specifications for the Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, Iowa wage area (AC-053).

16. Survey Specifications for the Southwestern Michigan wage area (AC-073).

17. Survey Specifications for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania wage area (AC-115).

18. Special Pay—Western Texas Special Rate.

19. Any items needing further clarification from this agenda may be discussed during future scheduled meetings.

Closing Remarks by Chair.

Opening Remarks by Chair and DFO.

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Appropriated Fund areas:

1. Any items needing further clarification or action from the previous agenda.

2. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Augusta, Georgia wage area (AC-038).

3. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Macon, Georgia wage area (AC-041).

4. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon wage area (AC-144).

5. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Hawaii wage area (AC-044).

6. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Central & Western Massachusetts wage area (AC-069).

7. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Southwestern Wisconsin wage area (AC-149).

8. Special Pay—Macon, Georgia Special Rates.

9. Special Pay—Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon Special Rates.

10. Any items needing further clarification from this agenda may be discussed during future scheduled meetings.

Closing Remarks by Chair.

Opening Remarks by Chair and DFO.

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Nonappropriated Fund areas:

1. Any items needing further clarification or action from the previous agenda.

2. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Hennepin, Minnesota wage area (AC-015).

3. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Grand Forks, North Dakota wage area (AC-017).

4. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Davis-Weber-Salt Lake, Utah wage area (AC-018).

5. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Ada-Elmore, Idaho wage area (AC-038).

6. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Cascade, Montana wage area (AC-040).

7. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Spokane, Washington wage area (AC-043).

8. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Arapahoe-Denver, Colorado wage area (AC-084).

9. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the El Paso, Colorado wage area (AC-085).

10. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Laramie, Wyoming wage area (AC-087).

11. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the New London, Connecticut wage area (AC-136).

12. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Snohomish, Washington wage area (AC-141).

13. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Pierce, Washington wage area (AC-143).

14. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Newport, Rhode Island wage area (AC-167).

15. Survey Specifications for the Washoe-Churchill, Nevada wage area (AC-011).

16. Survey Specifications for the Orange, Florida wage area (AC-062).

17. Survey Specifications for the Bay, Florida wage area (AC-063).

18. Survey Specifications for the Escambia, Florida wage area (AC-064).

19. Survey Specifications for the Okaloosa, Florida wage area (AC-065).

20. Survey Specifications for the Clark, Nevada wage area (AC-140).

Reviewing survey results and/or survey specifications for the following Appropriated Fund areas:

21. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Duluth, Minnesota wage area (AC-074).

22. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the San Antonio, Texas wage area (AC-135).

23. Wage Schedule (Full Scale) for the Milwaukee, Wisconsin wage area (AC-148).

24. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Central & Northern Maine wage area (AC-064).

25. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Asheville, North Carolina wage area (AC-098).

26. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Southwestern Oregon wage area (AC-113).

27. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Austin, Texas wage area (AC-129).

28. Wage Schedule (Wage Change) for the Corpus Christi, Texas wage area (AC-130).

29. Survey Specifications for the Wilmington, Delaware wage area (AC-026).

30. Survey Specifications for the Topeka, Kansas wage area (AC-056).

31. Survey Specifications for the Wichita, Kansas wage area (AC-057).

32. Survey Specifications for the Biloxi, Michigan wage area (AC-076).

33. Survey Specifications for the Roanoke, Virginia wage area (AC-142).

34. Any items needing further clarification from this agenda may be discussed during future scheduled meetings.

Closing Remarks by Chair.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), the DoD has determined that the meetings shall be closed to the public. The USD(P&R), in consultation with the DoD Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that each of these meetings is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.

Written Statements: Pursuant to section 1009(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140, interested persons may submit written statements to the DFO for the DoDWC at any time. Written statements should be submitted to the DFO at the email or mailing address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If statements pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five (5) business days prior to the meeting in question. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the DoDWC until its next meeting. The DFO will review all timely submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Scooter Registration Form; SD Form 0836; OMB Control Number 0704-0592.

Needs and Uses: Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) needs to collect this information to be able to manage personal mobility devices (PMDs) issued to individuals that have received approval from their employer to use such equipment.

Affected Public: Individuals and households.

Annual Burden Hours: 66.

Number of Respondents: 33.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 33.

Average Burden per Response: 2 hours.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Child Annuitant's School Certification; DD Form 2788; OMB Control Number 0730-0001.

Type of Request: Extension without change.

Number of Respondents: 7,200.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 7,200.

Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 3,600.

Needs and Uses: Child annuitants, between the ages of 18 and 22 years of age, must provide evidence of intent to continue study or training at a recognized educational institution. The certificate is required for the school semester or other period in which the school year is divided. Without this certification, funds cannot be released to annuitant/payee.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title ; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Custodianship Certification to Support Claims on Behalf of Minor Children of Deceased Members of the Armed Forces; DD Form 2790; OMB Control Number 0730-0010.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 300.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 300.

Average Burden per Response: 24 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 120.

Needs and Uses: Per DoD Financial Management Regulation, 7000.14-R, Volume 7B, Chapter 46, paragraph 460103A(1), an annuity for a minor child is paid to the legal guardian, or, if there is no legal guardian, to the natural parent who has care, custody, and control of the child as the custodian, or to a representative payee of the child. An annuity may be paid directly to the child when the child is considered to be of majority age under the law in the state of residence. The child then is considered an adult for annuity purposes and a custodian or legal fiduciary is not required.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for Former Spouse Payments from Retired Pay, DD Form 2293; OMB Number 0730-0008.

Type of Request: Extension without change.

Number of Respondents: 25,000.

Responses for Respondents: 1.

Annual Responses: 25,000.

Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 12,500.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide DFAS with the basic data needed to process court orders for division of military retired pay as property or order alimony and child support payment from that retired pay per title 10 U.S.C. 1408.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

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: Evaluation of Strategies to Address Unfinished Learning in Math (ReSolve Math Study).

OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

Type of Review: New ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 12,640.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,559.

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic led to substantial unfinished learning in math and an important debate about how best to address it. Traditionally, policymakers and educators have advocated a “broad foundation skill building” approach, but an alternative “just-in-time skill building” approached has received more attention recently, including in the U.S. Department of Education's COVID-19 Handbook. But there is limited evidence comparing these approaches. This evaluation will examine the effectiveness of adaptive technology products that deliver these two catch-up strategies in elementary schools, where teachers often struggle with how to teach math well and the benefits of using technology supports are understudied. The findings will provide valuable evidence, especially for low-performing schools identified under the Every Student Succeeds Act and their most underserved students. This package requests approval for data collection activities to conduct the evaluation.

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: Loan Discharge Application: Forgery.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0148.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,786.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,786.

Abstract: This is a request for an extension of the information collection for the form used to obtain information from federal student loan borrowers who allege that the loans in their name were the result of a forgery. This information is used by the Secretary to make a determination of forgery for the Direct Loans, FFEL Program Loans, and Federal Perkins Loans held by the Department. This information collection stems from the common law legal principal of forgery, which is not reflected in the Department's statute or regulations, but with which the Department must comply.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of TSL is to assist States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and nonprofit organizations to develop, implement, improve, or expand comprehensive performance-based compensation systems (PBCS) or human capital management systems (HCMS) for teachers, principals, or other school leaders (as defined in this notice) (especially for teachers, principals, or other school leaders in high-need schools who raise student growth and academic achievement and close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students. In addition, a portion of TSL funds may be used to study the effectiveness, fairness, quality, consistency, and reliability of PBCS or HCMS for educators. Many of the terms used here are defined terms and can be found in the “Definitions” section of this notice.

Background: TSL is authorized under section 2212 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).

The Department is committed to strengthening the education workforce through its Raise the Bar: Lead the World  1 initiative. The Department's call to action seeks to transform P-12 education by promoting academic excellence, boldly improving learning conditions, and preparing our Nation's students for global competitiveness. Consistent with that call to action, the priorities used in this competition advance Raise the Bar's goals to boldly improve learning conditions by eliminating educator shortages, including through effective teacher retention efforts such as career advancement opportunities for teachers.

The FY 2023 TSL competition is designed to support entities in implementing, improving, or expanding their HCMS, which by definition must include a PBCS; or in implementing, improving, or expanding their PBCS. TSL is also intended to primarily serve educators in high-need schools who raise student growth and academic achievement and close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students, although the program may also fund services for educators serving in high-need subject areas (though not necessarily in high-need schools), as determined by the LEA or by the State.

Many States and LEAs have worked to create and improve their comprehensive HCMS, and LEAs have invested in high-quality educator evaluation and support systems to improve recruitment and retention efforts, provide educators with meaningful feedback and targeted professional development, and use educator performance data to inform key school- and district-level decisions. While an increasing number of LEAs are well-equipped to make human capital decisions that both support educators and improve student outcomes, additional work is needed to ensure that these educator evaluation and support systems are fair, reliable, and credible; conducive to enhancing educator growth and advancement; likely to support improved student outcomes; and seamlessly integrated into school- and district-level human capital processes. Absolute Priority 1, which focuses on human capital management systems (HCMS) or performance-based compensation systems (PBCS) and career advancement opportunities, will support LEAs in this work.

In addition, Absolute Priority 1 requires applicants to address how they will support career advancement opportunities for educators. Teacher leadership models and activities provide experienced and effective teachers leadership opportunities that allow them to have a greater impact on their school community while remaining in the classroom and being compensated for additional responsibilities. This could include, for example, distributive leadership models which allow teachers to lead alongside their principal to facilitate positive schoolwide change; teacher-led instructional improvement efforts focused on specific areas of academic content; opportunities to shape schoolwide policies and climate, and lead professional learning communities; participation in master teacher programs, teacher mentorship programs, and job-embedded content coaching; and the implementation of advisory systems. These leadership opportunities support academic success for students while creating career ladders that support teacher retention.

Absolute Priority 2 requires applicants to concentrate TSL-funded grant project activities to support teachers, principals, or other school leaders in high-need schools. In 2021, the Department clarified and simplified the expectation that TSL-funded grant activities primarily serve high-need schools by establishing a new definition of high-need schools that modified how applicants identify high-need schools for the purposes of the TSL Program.

Through the two absolute priorities listed in this notice, the Department seeks to promote and support States and LEAs in their efforts to implement goals and objectives as well as lessons learned from close to two decades of investment and research in HCMS and PBCS. In addition to two absolute priorities, this notice includes two competitive preference priorities focused on diversifying and strengthening the educator workforce and promoting equitable access to high quality educators.

Competitive Preference Priority 1 emphasizes the importance of promoting equitable student access to educational resources and opportunities through continued professional development and enrichment opportunities that grow and retain our Nation's best educators.

It is well established that teacher effectiveness contributes greatly to student academic outcomes, and with the learning setbacks students have experienced nationwide due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is even more urgency to ensure that students have equitable access to effective teachers, particularly for students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, English learners, and students with disabilities, who experienced more substantial learning loss. 2 In 2022, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) studied the National Assessment of Educational Progress's long-term trend data, which revealed that the average scores for 9-year-old students declined 5 points in reading and 7 points in mathematics between 2020 and 2022. While these scores represent the largest average score decline in reading since 1990, and the first ever score decline in mathematics, the downward trajectory in scores was even more dramatic for already lower-performing students. 3 Since educators represent the most significant in-school factor for student outcomes, it is essential to attract, develop, and retain a well-qualified, experienced, effective, and diverse pool of highly skilled and effective teachers who are prepared to teach diverse groups of learners ( e.g., through co-teaching models, dual certifications, universal design for learning), particularly in high-need schools.

Research funded by the Department's Institute of Education Sciences concluded that student achievement can improve by as much as 21 percentile points when teachers participate in well-designed professional development programs. 4 Because widespread teacher shortages have worsened in recent years as a result of the pandemic, schools must focus on reducing educator attrition rates by recruiting and retaining a high-quality, skilled workforce. This is especially true for high-need schools where, according to education scholars, 5 teacher shortages historically have been more severe.

Competitive Preference Priority 2 supports the critical need to increase the diversity of the educator workforce. This competitive preference priority focuses on the essential role a diverse educator workforce plays in ensuring equity in our education system and the urgency in addressing the needs of diversifying the educator pipeline, consistent with the Department's Raise the Bar: Lead the World call to action. 6 Studies suggest that all students benefit from having teachers of color. For students of color, exposure to teachers of their race or ethnicity has a positive effect on the students' academic and social achievement, and increases attendance, the likelihood of high school graduation, and college attendance. White students also benefit academically and socially from having teachers from diverse backgrounds, who support students in gaining accurate perceptions of our society. 7 8

However, despite evidence that points to the importance of a diverse educator workforce, educator representation disparities persist. NCES data indicates that more than 50 percent of public school students are students of color, yet in 2017-18, the most recent year of available data, roughly 25 percent of teachers were teachers of color. 9 And despite English learners representing the fastest growing public school student demographic, most States face a shortage of bilingual and multilingual teachers prepared and certified to adequately educate English learner students. 10

Teacher workforce data from the last 30 years shows that the number of teachers of color hired by the country's schools has increased at a faster rate than the number of white teachers; however, teachers of color leave at a much higher rate than their white counterparts. 11 In its 2021 State of the U.S. Teacher Survey, 12 RAND Corporation researchers found that nearly 50 percent of Black teachers reported in the winter of 2021 that they would likely vacate their positions at the conclusion of the school year, compared to 23 percent of teachers overall, citing a variety of reasons such as lack of respect, workplace discrimination, lower wages, lack of adequate resources, disenfranchisement, and unrealistic job expectations. 13 The Department is interested in strategies that support a diverse workforce through recruitment, development, and retention. As such, this competitive preference priority focuses on activities designed to strengthen educator diversity through a broader lens of equity, with an emphasis on recruitment, support, and retention. We note that, although Competitive Preference Priority 2 refers to such activities in “high-poverty” school districts, consistent with Absolute Priority 2, all projects must be focused on “high-need schools”.

In addition to implementing strong induction and mentoring programs, improving workplace culture by creating inclusive environments, and reducing job related stress, studies show that creating and maintaining strong relationships with organizations that prepare teachers of color is another high-yield strategy in recruiting and retaining minority educators. 14 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), for example, have prepared African American educators and leaders and provide a strong pipeline for educators of color. Although they make up only 3 percent of the Nation's colleges and universities, for example, HBCUs prepare nearly 50 percent of the Nation's African American teachers. 15 HBCUs are indispensable to producing and advancing educational opportunities for students of color, first-generation, and underrepresented students who are interested in the teaching profession. 16 In many urban and rural communities, HBCUs produce high numbers of teachers who work in the local school divisions. 17 Leveraging the HBCU network to recruit teachers of color is a high impact way to diversify the educator pipeline and, in turn, advance student growth and achievement.

Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities and two competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), Absolute Priority 1 is from ESEA section 2212(e)(1) and (2)(F); and Absolute Priority 2 is from the TSL Notice of Final Priority and Definition, published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2021 (86 FR 36220) (TSL NFP). In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2 are from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities).

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

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1—Human Capital Management Systems (HCMS) or Performance Based Compensation Systems (PBCS) and Career Advancement Opportunities.

Under this priority, eligible applicants must propose a project to (1) develop, implement, improve, or expand, in collaboration with teachers, principals, other school leaders, and members of the public, a PBCS or HCMS; and (2) institute career advancement opportunities characterized by increased responsibility and pay that reward and recognize effective teachers, principals, or other school leaders in high-need schools and enable them to expand their leadership and results, such as through teacher-led professional development, mentoring, coaching, hybrid roles, administrative duties, and career ladders.

Applicants that propose to use grant funds, under ESEA section 2212(e)(2)(A), to develop or improve an evaluation and support system as part of an HCMS, in responding to this priority, must describe how such system—

(a) Reflects clear and fair measures of educator performance, based in part on demonstrated improvement in student academic achievement; and

(b) Provides educators with ongoing, differentiated, targeted, and personalized support and feedback for improvement, including professional development opportunities designed to increase effectiveness.

Absolute Priority 2—High-Need Schools.

Under this priority, eligible applicants must concentrate proposed activities on teachers, principals, or other school leaders serving in high-need schools.

In order to demonstrate that the TSL project is concentrated in high-need schools, the applicant must—

(a) Provide the requested data in paragraph (c) of this priority to demonstrate that at least the majority of the schools participating in the proposed project are high-need schools and describe how the TSL-assisted grant activities are focused on those schools;

(b) Include a list of all schools in which the proposed TSL-funded project would be implemented and indicate which schools are high-need schools; and

(c) Provide the most recently available school-level data supporting each school's designation as a high-need school.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2023 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to 5 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 1. We award up to an additional 5 points to an application depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 2. An application may be awarded a maximum of 10 additional points under the competitive preference priorities.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational Resources and Opportunities. (up to 5 points)

Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the applicant proposes a project designed to promote educational equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity for underserved students—

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

(1) Elementary school.

(2) Middle school.

(3) High school.

(4) Career and technical education programs.

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

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

(2) Improving the retention of fully certified, experienced, and effective educators in high-need schools or shortage areas.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional Growth to Strengthen Student Learning. (up to 5 points)

Projects that are designed to increase the proportion of well-prepared, diverse, and effective educators serving students, with a focus on underserved students, through building or expanding high-poverty school districts' capacity to hire, support, and retain an effective and diverse educator workforce, by developing data systems, timelines, and action plans for promoting inclusive and bias-free human resources practices that promote and support development of educator diversity.

Application Requirements: For FY 2023 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following application requirements from ESEA section 2212(c) apply.

Each eligible applicant desiring a grant under this program must submit an application that contains—

(i) A description of the PBCS or HCMS that the eligible entity proposes to develop, implement, improve, or expand through the grant;

(ii) A description of the most significant gaps or insufficiencies in student access to effective educators in high-need schools, including gaps or inequities in how effective educators are distributed across the LEA, as identified using factors such as data on school resources, staffing patterns, school environment, educator support systems, and other school-level factors;

(iii) A description and evidence of the support and commitment from educators, which may include charter school leaders, in the school (including organizations representing educators), the community, and the LEA to the activities proposed under the grant;

(iv) A description of how the eligible entity will develop and implement a fair, rigorous, valid, reliable, and objective process to evaluate educator performance under the system that is based in part on measures of student academic achievement, including the baseline performance against which evaluations of improved performance will be made;

(v) A description of the LEAs or schools to be served under the grant, including student academic achievement, demographic, and socioeconomic information;

(vi) A description of the effectiveness of educators in the LEA and the schools to be served under the grant and the extent to which the system will increase the effectiveness of educators in such schools;

(vii) A description of how the eligible entity will use grant funds under section 2212 of the ESEA in each year of the grant, including a timeline for implementation of such activities;

(viii) A description of how the eligible entity will continue the activities assisted under the grant after the grant period ends;

(ix) A description of the State, local, or other public or private funds that will be used to supplement the grant, including funds under Title II, part A of the ESEA, and sustain the activities assisted under the grant after the end of the grant period;

(x) A description of—

(A) The rationale for the project;

(B) How the proposed activities are evidence-based (as defined in this notice); and

(C) If applicable, the prior experience of the eligible entity in developing and implementing such activities.

Definitions: The definitions of “human capital management system” and “performance-based compensation system” are from section 2211 of the ESEA. The definitions of “evidence-based” and “school leader” are from section 8101 of the ESEA. The definitions of “demonstrates a rationale,” “experimental study,” “logic model,” “moderate evidence,” “project component,” “promising evidence,” “quasi-experimental design study,” “relevant outcome,” “strong evidence,” and “What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks)” are from 34 CFR 77.1. The definition of “high-need school” is from the TSL NFP. The definitions of “children or students with disabilities,” “disconnected youth,” “educator,” “English learner,” and “underserved student” are from the Supplemental Priorities. These definitions apply to the FY 2023 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence-based, when used with respect to a State, LEA, or school activity, means an activity, strategy, or intervention that—

(i) Demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on—

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

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

(C) Promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or

(ii)(A) Demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and

(B) Includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.

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

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

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

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

High-need school means a school with 50 percent or more of its enrollment from low-income families as calculated using—

(a) The number of children eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (or, if an LEA does not participate in the NSLP, comparable data from another source such as a survey);

(b) If an LEA has one or more schools that participate in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) of the NSLP, for any of its schools ( i.e., CEP and non- CEP schools), the method in paragraph (a) of this definition or an alternative method approved by the Department; and

(c) For middle and high schools, data from feeder schools that can establish that the middle or high school is a high-need school under paragraph (a) or (b) of this definition.

Human Capital Management System (HCMS) means a system—

(i) By which an LEA makes and implements human capital decisions, such as decisions on preparation, recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, compensation, professional development, tenure, and promotion; and

(ii) That includes a performance-based compensation system.

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

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

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

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

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

(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

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

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

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

Performance-Based Compensation System (PBCS) means a system of compensation for teachers, principals, or other school leaders—

(i) That differentiates levels of compensation based in part on measurable increases in student academic achievement; and

(ii) Which may include—

(A) Differentiated levels of compensation, which may include bonus pay, on the basis of the employment responsibilities and success of effective teachers, principals, or other school leaders in hard-to-staff schools or high-need subject areas; and

(B) Recognition of the skills and knowledge of teachers, principals, or other school leaders as demonstrated through—

(I) Successful fulfillment of additional responsibilities or job functions, such as teacher leadership roles; and

(II) Evidence of professional achievement and mastery of content knowledge and superior teaching and leadership skills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School leader means a principal, assistant principal, or other individual who is—

(i) An employee or officer of an elementary school or secondary school, LEA, or other entity operating an elementary school or secondary school; and

(ii) Responsible for the daily instructional leadership and managerial operations in the elementary school or secondary school building.

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

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

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

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

(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

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

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

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

Underserved student means a student (which may include children in early learning environments, students in K-12 programs, students in career and technical education, as appropriate) in one or more of the following subgroups:

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

(b) A student of color.

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

(d) An English learner.

(e) A child or student with a disability.

(f) A disconnected youth.

(g) A technologically unconnected youth.

(h) A migrant student.

(i) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

(j) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+) student.

(k) A student who is in foster care.

(l) A student without documentation of immigration status.

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

(n) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly incarcerated student.

(o) A student who is the first in their family to attend postsecondary education.

(p) A student performing significantly below grade level.

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

Note: The What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 4.1), as well as the more recent What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks released in August 2022 (Version 5.0), are available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.

Program Authority: Sections 2211-2213 of the ESEA.

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 (Non-procurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The TSL NFP. (e) The Supplemental Priorities.

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

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $95,452,236.

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

Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000 to $8.5 million.

Note: The Department estimates a wide range of awards, given the potentially large differences in the scope of funded projects, including the size and number of participating LEAs.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $4,300,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 20-25.

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

Project Period: Up to 36 months.

1. Eligible Applicants:

(a) An LEA, including a charter school that is an LEA, or a consortium of LEAs;

(b) A State educational agency (SEA) or other State agency designated by the Chief Executive of a State to participate;

(c) The Bureau of Indian Education; or

(d) A partnership consisting of—

(i) One or more agencies described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c); and

(ii) At least one nonprofit or for-profit entity.

Note: For the purpose of this program, the Secretary considers all schools funded by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Education to be LEAs under section 8101(30)(C) of the ESEA.

Note: Under section 2212(b)(3) of the ESEA, an LEA may receive (whether individually or as part of a consortium or partnership) a grant under the TSL program only twice.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: Under section 2212(f) of the ESEA, each grant recipient must provide from non-Federal sources an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount of the grant (which may be provided in cash or in kind), to carry out the activities supported by the grant. Applicants and grantees should budget relative to each annual award of TSL grant funds. Applicants are strongly encouraged to take this requirement into account when requesting Federal funds and limit their requests appropriately. Applicants should verify that their budgets reflect both the requested Federal award amount and the matching contribution with appropriate cost allocations. TSL: (Cost Share or Matching Formula: Total Project Cost multiplied by .67 equals Federal Award Amount).

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. In accordance with section 2212(g) of the ESEA, funds made available under this program must be used to supplement, and not supplant, other Federal or State funds that would otherwise be expended to carry out activities under this program. The Secretary considers all schools funded by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Education to be LEAs, and the funds that these schools receive from the Department of Interior's annual appropriation to be neither Federal nor State funds. Further, the prohibition against supplanting also means that grantees seeking to charge indirect costs to TSL funds will need to use their negotiated restricted indirect cost rates. See 34 CFR 75.563 for more information.

c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses a restricted 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.

d. 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: LEAs, SEAs, nonprofit organizations or for-profit organizations. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

4. Renewal: Under section 2212(b)(2) of the ESEA, the Secretary may renew a grant awarded under this section for up to 2 additional years if the grantee demonstrates to the Secretary that the grantee is effectively using funds. Such renewal may include allowing the grantee to scale up or replicate the successful program.

Note: During the third year of the project period for grants awarded under this competition, if the Department exercises the option to offer an opportunity for renewals, the Department will provide grantees with information on the renewal process. This additional funding is intended not only to support continuation of approved project activities, but also to encourage scaling, replication, and sustainability efforts and strategies. In making decisions on whether to award a 2-year renewal award, we intend to review performance data submitted in regularly required reporting, as well as potentially request narrative information to be assessed using selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210.

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. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for TSL, an application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11, we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended). Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

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

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

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 40 pages and (2) use the following standards:

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

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

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

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

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

6. Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to review grant applications more efficiently if we know the approximate number of applicants who intend to apply. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application. To do so, please email TSL@ed.gov with the subject line “Intent to Apply,” and include the applicant's name and contact person's name and email address by July 10, 2023. Applicants that do not submit a notice of intent to apply may still apply for funding; applicants that do submit a notice of intent to apply are not bound to apply or bound by the information provided.

1. Selection Criteria: The following selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for the following selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is included in parentheses following its title.

(a) Need for project (20 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.

(2) In determining evidence of the need for 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 extent to which the proposed project will integrate with or build on similar or related efforts to improve relevant outcomes (as defined in this notice) using existing funding streams from other programs or policies supported by community, State, and Federal resources.

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

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

(b) Quality of the project design (25 points)

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Quality of the management plan (25 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 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.

(d) Adequacy of resources (30 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement.

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

(iii) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the length of the grant, including a multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; evidence of broad support from stakeholders ( e.g., SEAs, teachers' unions) critical to the project's long-term success; or more than one of these types of evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Reporting:

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

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

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

Note: In addition, under 34 CFR 75.591, all TSL grantees must cooperate in any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department.

5. Performance Measures: The goal of TSL is to support educators, particularly those in high-need schools, to raise student academic achievement and close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students. For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established a set of performance measures: (a) the percentage of teachers and school leaders within the TSL-assisted schools rated effective or higher by their districts' evaluation and support systems; (b) the percentage of teachers and school leaders across the participating district(s) that show improvements, over the previous year, on the student growth component of their evaluation rating; (c) the percentage of teachers and school leaders within the TSL-assisted schools that show improvements, over the previous year, on the student growth component of their evaluation rating; (d) the percentage of teachers and school leaders in TSL-assisted schools for whom evaluation ratings were used to inform decisions regarding recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, professional development, tenure, promotion, or all of the above; (e) the percentage of teachers and school leaders within the participating district(s) who earned performance-based compensation based on their individual evaluation ratings; (f) the percentage of teachers and school leaders in TSL-funded schools who earned performance-based compensation based on their individual evaluation ratings; (g) the number of teachers receiving performance compensation disaggregated by race, gender, and where available, disability status; (h) the number of school leaders receiving performance compensation disaggregated by race, gender, and where available, disability status; and (i) the number of teachers receiving performance compensation for leadership responsibilities disaggregated by race, gender, and where available, disability status.

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

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

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

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

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

The Department of Energy (DOE), successor agency to the Atomic Energy Commission, is authorized pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 as implemented by the Department of Energy Organization Act, to prohibit unauthorized entry and the unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials into and upon its nuclear sites. By Notice dated October 12, 1965, appearing in the Federal Register of October 19, 1965, the Atomic Energy Commission prohibited unauthorized entry into and upon certain portions of the Savannah River Site (SRS) located in the State of South Carolina. This Notice was amended in 1968 (dated January 31, 1968); in 1975 (dated December 4, 1975); in 1982 (dated September 1, 1982); and in 1985 (dated August 5, 1985). This Notice further amends the site description in the previous notices to include the entire Savannah River Site. Notices stating the pertinent prohibition of Title 10, Part 860— Trespassing On Department Of Energy Property, Section 5, Violations and penalties, will be posted at all entrances of said tracts and at intervals along its perimeters as provided in Title 10, Part 860— Trespassing On Department Of Energy Property, Section 5, Posting. It should be noted that information contained in this notice is from the report, Savannah River Site, SC; Trespassing on Department of Energy Property, approved on December 8, 2022, by R. T. Bartholomew, Director, Office of Safeguards, Security and Emergency Services, Savannah River Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy.

The site description of the Savannah River Site is amended to read as follows:

All that tract of parcel of land lying or being situated in Aiken, Allendale and Barnwell Counties, in the State of South Carolina, approximately 14 miles southeast of the city of Augusta, State of Georgia, and 12 miles south of the town of Aiken, State of South Carolina; bounded on the southwest and south by the Savannah River, on the east by lands of Florence L.S. Clark (Creek Plantation), on the north by lands of Catawba Timber Company, on the northwest by Aiken County Road 62, lands now or formerly of W.H. Harper, Fitch Gilbert, J.L. Pew, Mack Foreman, J.L. Steed et al. and being more particularly described as follows:

Bearings on the following descriptions are referred to the Savannah River Site (SRS) coordinate system, unless otherwise specifically noted.

Beginning at SRS monument number 1 near the Savannah River; thence N 70-26-17 E 3,224.13 feet to SRS monument number 1A; thence N 70-26-16 E 523.01 feet to SRS monument 1B; thence N 70-26-17 E 1,311.11 feet to SRS monument 2; thence S 23-09-34 E 647.94 feet to SRS monument 3; thence N 71-10-56 E 1,406.53 feet to SRS monument 4; thence S 81-23-22 E 3,449.13 feet to SRS monument 4A; thence N 75-11-56 E 654.15 feet to SRS monument 4B; thence S 85-04-12 E 10,141.28 feet to SRS monument 4D; thence S 84-26-58 E 199.75 feet to SRS monument 5; thence N 00-05-36 W 3,322.84 feet to SRS monument 6; thence N 21-52-47 E 455.4 feet to SRS monument 6A (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 94773.45 and E 25269.90); thence N 75-34-22 E 1,613.12 feet to SRS monument 7; thence N 78-33-33 E 1,854.48 feet to SRS monument 8; thence N 14-06-35 W 2,513.83 feet to SRS monument 9; thence N 73-37-31 E 3,390.15 feet to SRS monument 10; thence N 2-31-25 W 622.97 feet to SRS monument 11; thence S 73-05-51 E 458.29 feet to SRS monument 12; thence N 01-09-44 E 3,670.11 feet to SRS monument 13; thence N 49-31-11 W 370.31 feet to SRS monument 14; thence N 53-11-53 E 1,808.93 feet to SRS monument 15; thence N 38-19-45 W 220.37 feet to SRS monument 16; thence N 66-53-39 E 967.38 feet to SRS monument 17; thence N 56-51-28 E 263.16 feet to monument 18; thence S 62-49-32 E 188.61 feet to SRS monument 19; thence N 55-16-41 E 197.30 feet to SRS monument 20; thence N 61-45-25 W 202.55 feet to SRS monument 21; thence N 56-13-08 E 1,026.18 feet to SRS monument 22; thence N 27-14-26 E 1,129.31 feet to SRS monument 23; thence S 60-12-34 E 281.93 feet to SRS monument 23A; thence S 60-14-48 E 112.84 feet to SRS monument 23B; thence S 60-13-56 E 1,684.91 feet to SRS monument 24A; thence S 60-13-48 E 69.95 feet to SRS monument 24; thence along the meander of the centerline of SC HWY 125, approximately 2,600 feet to SRS monument 25 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 108,319.92 E 37,340.99); thence along the meander of the southeast R/W of S.C. Highway 62 approximately 10,900 feet to monument 26 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 111,445.21 E 47.594.33); thence N 68-22-44 E 286.97 feet to SRS monument 27; thence S 26-42-44 E 2,086.29 feet to SRS monument 28; thence S 88-45-19 E 1,784.15 feet to SRS monument 29; thence N 50-47-33 E 615.22 feet to SRS monument 30; thence S 16-34-58 E 675.58 feet to monument 31; thence S 20-34-23 E 587.56 feet to SRS monument 32; thence N 59-53-06 E 653.65 feet to SRS monument 33; thence N 67-08-57 E 2,733.25 feet to SRS monument 34; thence N65-56-48 E 618.93 feet to SRS monument 35; thence N 62-13-09 E 2,675.95 feet to SRS monument 36; thence S 01-28-07 W 1,284.83 feet to SRS monument 37; thence N 29-10-00 E 1,791.29 feet to SRS monument 38; thence S 58-47-43 E 3,228.36 feet to SRS monument 39; thence N 58-02-11 E 542.97 feet to SRS monument 40; thence N 40-38-25 E 1,281.41 feet to SRS monument 41; thence along the meander of Woods Road approximately 1,500 feet in a southeasterly direction to SRS monument 42 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 110,691.93 E 63,516.56); thence N 89-27-05 E 2,723.36 feet to SRS monument 43; thence N 72-50-13 E 1,346.17 feet to SRS monument 44; thence S 26-04-56 E 886.05 feet to SRS monument 45; thence N 68-56-56 E 1,111.14 feet to SRS monument 46; thence S 45-16-35 E 849.05 feet to SRS monument 47; thence N 51-41-24 E 2,116.00 feet to SRS monument 48; thence S 04-58-33 E 977.92 feet to SRS monument 49; thence S 76-21-44 E 1,925.20 feet to SRS monument 50; thence N 47-36-31 E 890.43 feet to SRS monument 51; thence S 37-02-27 E 716.77 feet to SRS monument 52; thence N 29-55-50 E 226.47 feet to SRS monument 53; thence S 36-22-09 E 683.22 feet to SRS monument 54; thence N 63-52-19 E 325.38 feet to SRS monument 55 (pt. in centerline of unnamed dirt road); thence S 38-07-02 E 3,400.36 feet to SRS monument 56 (pt. in centerline of unnamed dirt road); thence N 65-17-41 E 2,780.78 feet to SRS monument 57; thence N 64-37-23 E 1,066.57 feet to SRS monument 58; thence S 55-33-02 E 2,275.19 feet to SRS monument 59 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 107479.34 and E 82536.62); thence N 88-34-20 E 617.70 feet to SRS monument 60; thence S 10-09-12 E 208.98 feet to SRS monument 61; thence N 86-15-12 E 209.04 feet to SRS monument 62; thence S 07-22-26 E 1,464.98 feet to SRS monument 63; thence N 73-32-25 E 2,282.88 feet to SRS monument 64; thence S 57-40-05 E 12,119.62 feet to SRS monument 64A; thence S 57-39-26 E 533.46 feet to SRS monument 65R; thence along meander of Upper Three Runs Creek to approximately 1,900 feet to SRS monument 66R (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 98466.86 E 95129.86); thence S 56-59-18 E 2,932.51 feet to SRS monument 67; thence S 40-36-11 E 3,491.43 feet to SRS monument 68; thence S 60-56-51 E 3,293.85 feet to SRS monument 69 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 92618.85 and E 102740.62); thence S 84-49-32 E 2,585.35 feet to SRS monument 70; thence S 38-04-09 E 341.98 feet to SRS monument 71; thence N 63-30-22 E 806.05 feet to SRS monument 72; thence S 39-38-55 E 781.61 feet to SRS monument 73; thence S 11-29-50 W 849.68 feet to SRS monument 74; thence S 71-55-15 E 2,931.66 feet to SRS monument 75; thence S 20-58-49 W 2,234.56 feet to SRS monument 76; thence along a meander of unnamed dirt road (Forestry Road 25-20), approximately 2,500 feet to SRS monument 77 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 87,253.73 E 110,850.77); thence S 21-02-45 W 584.61 feet to SRS monument 78; thence S 30-23-20 E 455.48 feet to SRS monument 79; thence S 13-19-50 E 3,229.98 feet to SRS monument 80; thence S 67-13-54 E 2,567.60 feet to SRS monument 81; thence S 54-47-07 W 137.17 feet to SRS monument 82; thence S 08-23-04 W 2,466.24 feet to SRS monument 83; thence S 80-06-27 E 213.21 feet to SRS monument 84; thence S 21-20-49 W 1,136.02 feet to SRS monument 85; thence S 21-12-29 E 5,044.03 feet to SRS monument 86; thence S 50-39-07 E 2,616.41 feet to SRS monument 87; thence S 26-24-40 W 527.89 feet to SRS monument 88; thence S 86-21-48 W 254.45 feet to SRS monument 88A; thence S 51-16-45 W 271.79 feet to SRS monument 88B; thence S 77-14-44 W 320.38 feet to SRS monument 88C; thence 87-21-46 W 99.10 feet to SRS monument 88D; thence N 76-07-48 W 208.95 feet to SRS monument 88E; thence N 85-35-51 W 253.51 feet to SRS monument 89; thence S 08-18-26 E 1,464.01 feet to SRS monument 89A; thence N 86-39-06 E 412.10 feet to SRS monument 90; thence S 42-20-27 W 1,316.23 feet to SRS monument 91; thence S 39-52-06 W 598.85 feet to SRS monument 92; thence S 13-01-46 E 1,416.18 feet to SRS monument 93; thence S 52-57-32 E 679.76 feet to SRS monument 94; thence S 08-56-17 E 1,298.14 feet to SRS monument 95; thence S 31-35-49 W 605.47 feet to SRS monument 96; thence S 11-09-05 E 1,359.04 feet to SRS monument 97; thence S 85-54-30 W 1,378.47 feet to SRS monument 98; thence S 70-00-27 W 221.18 feet to SRS monument 99; thence S 18-50-23 E 422.48 feet to SRS monument 100; thence S 09-30-55 W 974.78 feet to SRS monument 101; thence S 10-14-30 E 2,517.38 feet to SRS monument 102; thence S 63-27-43 W 445.78 feet to SRS monument 103 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 59549.52 and E 114391.37); thence S 21-31-35 E 3,749 feet to SRS monument 104; thence S 41-39-02 W 2,639.80 feet to SRS monument 105; thence S 58-26-38 W 1,514.08 feet to SRS monument to 106; thence S 08-19-11 W 1,621.02 feet to SRS monument 107; thence S 38-25-50 W 1,880.12 feet to SRS monument 108; thence N 52-34-05 W 517.13 feet to SRS monument 109; thence S 39-52-13 W 690.43 feet to SRS monument 110; thence S 28-08-31 W 3,516.05 feet to SRS monument 111; thence S 30-34-26 W 205.98 feet to SRS monument 112; thence N 86-01-10 W 1,203.84 feet to SRS monument 113; thence S 24-21-01 W 657.46 feet to SRS monument 113A; thence S 25-12-17 W 1,858.36 feet to SRS monument 114; thence S 15-27-52 W 3,141.21 feet to SRS monument 115; thence N 60-32-44 W 853.31 feet to SRS monument 116; thence N 55-51-05 W 4,429.13 feet to SRS monument 330; thence S 38-20-42 W 7,043.25 feet to SRS monument 331; thence S 67-36-57 W 1,897.98 feet to SRS monument 332; thence S 66-13-49 W 2,627.19 feet to SRS monument 333; thence S 68-08-43 W 2,342.21 feet to SRS monument 334; thence S 50-51-24 W 2,230.28 feet to SRS monument 335; thence S 37-17-35 W 736.29 feet to SRS monument 336; thence S 21-03-47 W 1,096.98 feet to SRS monument 337; thence S 46-36-58 W 575.70 feet to SRS monument 338; thence S 31-26-41 W 775.94 feet to SRS monument 339 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 32156.31 and E 87097.32); thence S 70-25-20 E 3,501.08 feet to SRS monument 340; thence S 53-33-00 E 3,756.02 feet to SRS monument 341; thence N 53-25-22 E 237.76 feet to SRS monument 342; thence S 20-23-24 E 465.57 feet to SRS monument 343; thence S 37-02-48 E 255.22 feet to SRS monument 344; thence S 53-33-24 E 721.95 feet to SRS monument 345; thence S 58-53-21 W 2,212.02 feet to SRS monument 130; thence S 61-23-47 W 1,032.93 feet to SRS monument 131, thence S 45-14-50 W 1,235.33 feet to SRS monument 132; thence S 44-09-49 W 1,009.13 feet to SRS monument 133; thence S 48-27-54 W 1,965.45 feet to SRS monument 134; thence S 34-43-15 E 1,843.69 feet to SRS monument 135; thence S 57-54-16 W 852.48 feet to SRS monument 136; thence N 71-47-52 W 1,733.99 feet to SRS monument 137; thence S 24-47-28 W 2,997.17 feet to SRS monument 138; thence N 77-38-33 W 532.97 feet to SRS monument 139; thence S 13-55-11 W 2,565.43 feet to SRS monument 140; thence N 78-16-06 W 2,097.45 feet to SRS monument 141; thence S 44-49-35 W 1,442.07 feet to SRS monument 142; thence S 15-50-02 W 1,140.11 feet to SRS monument 143; thence S 32-24-38 W 824.92 feet to SRS monument 144; thence S 50-39-30 W 1,014.57 feet to SRS monument 145; thence S 02-06-16 W 959.34 feet to SRS monument 146; thence S 73-57-04 W 530.42 feet to SRS monument 147; thence S 16-18-49 W 2,819.68 feet to SRS monument 148; thence S 10-59-53 W 741.98 feet to SRS monument 149; thence S 07-12-35 E 956.4 feet to SRS monument 150; thence S 02-50-50 E 436.45 feet to SRS monument 150A; thence S 02-40-26 W 261.95 feet to SRS monument 151; thence S 34-44-29 E 280.83 feet to SRS monument 151A; thence S 24-14-49 E 420.92 feet to SRS monument 151B; thence S 00-25-52 E 228.6 feet to SRS monument 151C; thence S 06-07-01 W 74.51 feet to SRS monument 151D; S 25-30-19 E 166.61 feet to SRS monument 151E; thence S 19-28-12 E 265.94 feet to SRS monument 151F; thence S 84-38-08 E 210.18 feet to SRS monument 151G; thence S 00-23-35 W 365.93 feet to SRS monument 151H; thence S 04-39-24 E 298.83 feet to SRS monument 151I; S 20-26-18 E 232.1 feet to SRS monument 152; thence N 67-23-08 E 24.34 feet to SRS monument 152A; thence N 78-00-45 E 253.11 feet to SRS monument 152B; thence N 80-46-41 E 371.52 feet to SRS monument 153; thence N 07-24-19 E 37.01 feet to SRS monument 153A; thence N 68-10-55 E 230.75 feet to SRS monument 153B; thence N 51-56-49 E 577.61 feet to SRS monument 153C; thence N 52-07-26 E 416.85 feet to SRS monument 153D; thence N 41-29-10 E 213.54 feet to SRS monument 153E; thence N 55- 03-53 E 101.07 feet to SRS monument 153F; thence N 78-41-21 E 235.05 feet to SRS monument 153G; thence N 62-01-13 E 190.77 feet to SRS monument 154; thence N 19-09-10 E 131.24 feet to SRS monument 154A; thence N 30-08-52 W 276.52 feet to SRS monument 154B; thence N 59-30-54 W 100.16 feet to SRS monument 154C; thence N 08-25-07 W 381.34 feet to SRS monument 154D; thence N 27-12-10 E 235.03 feet to SRS monument 154E; S 58-10-54 E 131.88 feet to SRS monument 154F; thence S 11-34-12 E 608.58 feet to SRS monument 154G; thence S 24-45-32 E 398.48 feet to SRS monument 154H; thence N 84-25-48 E 107.51 feet to SRS monument 154I; thence N 03-26-28 E 426.85 feet to SRS monument 154J; thence N 20-23-23 W 455.68 feet to SRS monument 154K; thence N 83-54-07 E 126.8 feet to SRS monument 154L; thence N 49-37-08 E 169.65 feet to SRS monument 154M; thence S 19-14-54 E 297.88 feet to SRS monument 154N; thence N 47-24-51 E 75.04 feet to SRS monument 154O; thence N 11-01-05 W 295.16 feet to SRS monument 154P; thence N 80-55-08 E 268.32 feet to SRS monument 154Q; thence S 26-53-59 E 188.29 feet to SRS monument 154R; thence S 18-09-11 E 375.47 feet to SRS monument 154S; thence S 23-09-41 E 672.27 feet to SRS monument 154T; thence along the meander of Gantts Mill Creek in a westerly direction approximately 1,200 feet to SRS monument 155 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of N 6216.69 E 82230.55); thence S 00-58-57 W 242.02 feet to SRS monument 156; thence S 76-22-06 W 369.83 feet to SRS monument 157; thence S 54-17-13 W 291.25 feet to SRS monument 158; thence S 69-02-15 W 309.57 feet to SRS monument 159; thence S 62-17-42 W 299.90 feet to SRS monument 160; thence S 19-27-54 W 318.04 feet to SRS monument 161; thence S 57-15-28 W 661.37 feet to SRS monument 162; thence S 44-03-57 W 848.9 feet to SRS monument 163; thence S 27-04-03 W 612.01 feet to SRS monument 164; thence S 67-56-29 W 294.55 feet to SRS monument 165; thence S 39-20-20 W 602.77 feet to SRS monument 166; thence S 11-10-05 W 266.35 feet to SRS monument 167; thence S 25-35-41 W 557.96 feet to SRS monument 168; thence S 29-14-37 E 713.68 feet to SRS monument 169; thence S 15-22-20 W 904.49 feet to SRS monument 170; thence S 48-52-24 E 1,139.61 feet to SRS monument 171; thence S 14-53-16 E 1,596.09 feet to SRS monument 172; thence N 61-22-11 W 1,111.81 feet to SRS monument 173; thence S 51-53-18 W 581.74 feet to SRS monument 174; thence S 20-21-37 W 2,971.23 feet to SRS monument 175; thence S 07-57-32 W 2,743.46 feet to SRS monument 176; thence S 56-18-29 E 845.39 feet to SRS monument 177; thence S 84-36-33 W 668.86 feet to SRS monument 178; thence S 27-14-02 W 1,414.26 feet to SRS monument 179; thence S 08-33-54 W 973.47 feet to SRS monument 180; thence S 31-23-48 W 1,032.34 feet to SRS monument 181; thence S 55-19-41 W 1,625.43 feet to SRS monument 182; thence S 17-52-48 W 2,390.67 feet to SRS monument 183; thence S 34-01-52 W 971.34 feet to SRS monument 184; thence S 26-08-46 E 829.87 feet to SRS monument 185; thence S 67-00-22 W 1,151 feet to SRS monument 186; thence S 09-13-11 W 551.61 feet to SRS monument 187; thence S 39-07-20 W 2,023.58 feet to SRS monument 188; thence S 28-06-53 W 2,249.03 feet to SRS monument 189; thence S 63-03-44 W 1,351.22 feet to SRS monument 190; thence S 32-32-13 E 293.02 feet to SRS monument 191; thence S 32-52-13 W 539.67 feet to SRS monument 192; thence S 46-38-37 W 113.64 feet to SRS monument 193; thence S 30-19-03 W 891.36 feet to SRS monument 194; thence S 13-42-43 W 590.79 feet to SRS monument 195; thence S 56-04-53 W 727.73 feet to SRS monument 196; thence N 86-34-46 W 297.99 feet to SRS monument 197; thence S 52-50-07 W 594.88 feet to SRS monument 198; thence S 77-19-06 E 262.42 feet to SRS monument 199; thence S 62-53-35 E 1,023.49 feet to SRS monument 200; thence S 84-18-58 E 528.57 feet to SRS monument 201; thence N 76-01-26 E 528.5 feet to SRS monument 202; thence N 84-50-07 E 363.14 feet to SRS monument 203; thence S 55-49-37 E 534.54 feet to SRS monument 204; thence S 79-41-52 W 461.25 feet to SRS monument 205; thence N 65-47-07 W 271.65 feet to SRS monument 206; thence S 65-28-34 W 346.04 feet to SRS monument 207; thence S 28-55-54 E 954.53 feet to SRS monument 208; thence S 05-55-53 E 197.70 feet to SRS monument 209; thence S 44-03-48 E 324.02 feet to SRS monument 210; thence S 41-55-23 E 1,397.43 feet to SRS monument 210A; thence N 82-34-00 W 1,976.66 feet to SRS monument 210B; thence N 01-07-55 E 485.50 feet to SRS monument 210C; thence N 61-16-58 W 990.83 feet to SRS monument 210D; thence N 27-49-58 W 731.54 feet to SRS monument 211; thence S 81-24-16 E 389.94 feet to SRS monument 211A; thence N 18-00-14 E 50.02 feet to SRS monument 211B; thence N 17-58-36 E 100.05 feet to SRS monument 211C; thence N 17-54-06 E 49.94 feet to SRS monument 211D; thence N 81-12-55 W 437.46 feet to SRS monument 212; thence N 86-07-12 W 6,934 feet to SRS monument 213; thence N 81-49-46 W 401.41 feet to SRS monument 214; thence N 71-53-25 W 241.25 feet to SRS monument 215; thence N 62-48-18 W 3,190.02 feet to SRS monument 216; thence N 62-47-19 W 130.45 feet to SRS monument 216A; thence N 00-02-59 E 287.75 feet to SRS monument 216B; thence N 08-08-21 E 249.47 feet to SRS monument 216C; thence N 12-08-04 E 702.45 feet to SRS monument 216D; thence S 32-23-56 W 463.52 feet to SRS monument 217; thence S 24-34-28 W 489.38 feet to SRS monument 218B; thence N 52-40-13 W 33.64 feet to SRS monument 218; thence N 52-30-22 W 234.16 feet to SRS monument 219; thence S 28-35-24 W 266.41 feet to SRS monument 220; thence S 68-50-45 W 266.96 feet to SRS monument 221; thence S 67-30-59 W 366.82 feet to SRS monument 222; thence N 47-15-04 W 1,801.64 feet to SRS monument 223; thence S 86-55-41 W 2,405.01 feet to SRS monument 224; thence S 65-34-57 W 2,074.27 feet to SRS monument 225; thence N 62-43-34 W 736.03 feet to SRS monument 226; thence S 57-45-59 W 5,160.30 feet to SRS monument 227; thence S 63-47-24 W 2,519.95 feet to SRS monument 228; thence S 10-22-02 W 4,936.45 feet to SRS monument 229; thence S 42-37-15 E 1,453.45 feet to SRS monument 230; thence S 08-13-23 W 490.96 feet to SRS monument 231; thence N 72-31-44 W 1,560.74 feet to SRS monument 232; thence N 72-47-25 W 1,375.97 feet to SRS monument 233; thence N 72-24-10 W 279.46 feet to SRS monument 234; thence N 72-27-48 W 1,904.63 feet to SRS monument 235; thence along the meander of the Savannah River in a northerly direction 12,500.00 feet to SRS monument 236 (said point having a coordinate value on the SRS coordinate system of S 23141.48 E 36520.97); thence N 84-20-23 E 3,975.48 feet to SRS monument 237; thence N 35-38-46 E 1,688.18 feet to SRS monument 238; thence S 79-27-51 E 2,199.29 feet to SRS monument 239; thence N 68-26-37 E 2,146.70 feet to SRS monument 240; thence N 24-46-05 W 2,751.85 feet to SRS monument 241; thence N 46-02-39 E 289.88 feet to SRS monument 242; thence S 51-48-01 E 2,434.12 feet to SRS monument 243; thence N 60-21-42 E 2,775.41 feet to SRS monument 244; thence N 80-56-18 E 1,933.5 feet to SRS monument 245; thence N 33-55-02 E 643.95 feet to SRS monument 246; thence S 84-37-57 E 837.59 feet to SRS monument 247; thence S 85-30-37 E 1,597.70 feet to SRS monument 247A; thence S 22-12- 30 E 21.96 feet to SRS monument 248; thence S 22-12-40 E 725.91 feet to SRS monument 249; thence N 89-20-33 E 1,095.20 feet to SRS monument 250; thence S 42-56-33 E 1,347.43 feet to SRS monument 251; thence S 55-11-45 E 1,232.68 feet to SRS monument 252; thence S 30-38-05 E 160.06 feet to SRS monument 253; thence S 76-22-12 E 209.76 feet to SRS monument 254; thence S 54-02-54 E 1,844.05 feet to SRS monument 255; thence S 78-20-00 E 3,652.23 feet to SRS monument 256; thence N 54-29-43 E 1,010.80 feet to SRS monument 257; thence N 84-16-01 E 2,275.66 feet to SRS monument 258; thence N 50-02-00 E 1,766.08 feet to SRS monument 259; thence S 23-59-27 E 676.11 feet to SRS monument 260; thence N 54-58-04 E 1,080.09 feet to SRS monument 261; thence N 36-59-45 E 3,917.45 feet to SRS monument 262; thence N 01-17-49 E 864.57 feet to SRS monument 263; thence N 37-20-29 E 1,685.73 feet to SRS monument 264; thence N 19-16-01 W 589.69 feet to SRS monument 265; thence N 11-44-29 E 1,853.94 feet to SRS monument 266; thence N 27-24-00 W 1,039.29 feet to SRS monument 267; thence N 39-05-37 E 1,500.83 feet to SRS monument 268; thence N 56-33-13 E 2,138.92 feet to SRS monument 269; thence N 47-31-00 E 1,590.64 feet to SRS monument 270; thence N 14-09-46 E 1,213.76 feet to SRS monument 270A; thence N 14-08-33 E 54.92 feet to SRS monument 271; thence N 45-35-15 W 60.00 feet to SRS monument 271A; thence N 45-35-33 W 441.05 feet to SRS monument 272; thence N 76-39-41 E 775.37 feet to SRS monument 273; thence N 45-29-47 W 1,088.55 feet to SRS monument 274; thence N 34-29-13 E 3,677.28 feet to SRS monument 275; thence N 70-05-02 W 1,900.34 feet to SRS monument 276; thence N 26-47-01 E 3,315.18 feet to SRS monument 277; thence N 80-47-00 W 720.24 feet to SRS monument 278; thence N 07-32-46 E 2,528.40 feet to SRS monument 279; thence N 73-40-30 E 1,530.33 feet to SRS monument 279A; thence N 15-43-51 E 1,380.39 feet to SRS monument 280; thence N 71-11-25 W 777.45 feet to SRS monument 281; thence S 71-15-35 W 1,043.45 feet to SRS monument 282; thence N 19-40-39 W 270.10 feet to SRS monument 283; thence N 74-51-36 E 630.26 feet to SRS monument 284; thence N 10-22-41 E 1,730.50 feet to SRS monument 285; thence N 52-08-48 W 1,285.80 feet to SRS monument 286; thence N 32-53-14 E 2,084.25 feet to SRS monument 287; thence N 20-25-36 W 661.25 feet to SRS monument 288; thence N 64-03-21 W 650.11 feet to SRS monument 289; thence S 51-26-24 W 470.04 feet to SRS monument 290; thence N 70-03-30 W 375.12 feet to SRS monument 290A; thence N 58-31-13 W 208.18 feet to SRS monument 290B; thence N 52-06-56 W 204.02 feet to SRS monument 290C; thence N 60-51-28 W 207.87 feet to SRS monument 290D; thence N 45-28-03 W 330.19 feet to SRS monument 290E; thence N 55-06-30 W 804.17 feet to SRS monument 290F; thence N 40-55-48 W 934.02 feet to SRS monument 290G; thence N 42-36-21 W 216.34 feet to SRS monument 291; thence N 42-42-30 W 2,497.80 feet to SRS monument 292; thence S 32-35-39 W 1,446.72 feet to SRS monument 293; thence N 49-28-27 W 1,336.97 feet to SRS monument 294; thence S 30-07-03 W 2,479.84 feet to SRS monument 295; thence N 58-31-06 W 1,776.11 feet to SRS monument 296; thence S 52-19-44 W 848.32 feet to SRS monument 297; thence S 45-00-56 W 1,089.09 feet to SRS monument 298; thence N 79-30-46 W 3,022.06 feet to SRS monument 299; thence S 23-44-12 W 944.35 feet to SRS monument 300; thence N 60-50-36 W 1,664.02 feet to SRS monument 301; thence S 37-28-12 W 139.27 feet to SRS monument 302; thence N 64-16-53 W 1,870.03 feet to SRS monument 303; thence S 24-37-42 W 1,213.5 feet to SRS monument 304; thence N 63-42-22 W 1,337.68 feet to SRS monument 305; thence N 79-13-15 W 5,120.73 feet to SRS monument 306; thence S 24-30-33 W 1,573.96 feet to SRS monument 307; thence N 53-08-44 W 6,650.51 feet to SRS monument 308; thence N 73-08-43 W 2,614.12 feet to SRS monument 309; thence along the meander of the centerline of Boggy Gut Creek S 29-42-27 W 1,477.04 feet to SRS monument 310; thence along the meander of the centerline of Boggy Gut Creek S 62-29-19 E 1,340.93 feet to SRS monument 311; thence S 68-59-42 W 2,165.27 feet to SRS monument 312; thence N 10-09-35 W 1,415.01 feet to SRS monument 313; thence along the meander of the centerline of Boggy Gut Creek S 77-24-58 W 3,447.02 feet to SRS monument 314; thence N 03-22-45 W 154.90 feet to SRS monument 315; thence N 15-29-46 W 262.00 feet to SRS monument 316; thence N 11-54-34 W 379.24 feet to SRS monument 317; thence S 78-26-39 W 356.75 feet to SRS monument 318; thence S 78-14-30 W 295.53 feet to SRS monument 319; thence N 30-13-34 W 391.83 feet to SRS monument 320; thence N 39-41-19 W 4,174.28 feet to SRS monument 321; thence S 42-41-41 W 3,048.55 feet to SRS monument 322; thence N 68-00-20 W 1,003.82 feet to SRS monument 323; thence S 41-13-45 W 407.26 feet to SRS monument 324; thence S 35-23-35 W 6,892.76 feet to SRS monument 325; thence follow along the meanders of the Savannah River 108,600 feet to SRS monument 1, the point of beginning.

Excluded from the above-described tract are the following rights-of-way and other parcels which are publicly accessible:

Beginning at the SRS boundary line near the Augusta Barricade; thence in a southerly direction through the former town of Ellenton, continuing in a southeasterly direction through Robbins Station to the SRS boundary line a distance of 14.2 miles and containing 173 acres more or less.

Beginning at Robbins Station, thence in an easterly and northeasterly direction (crossing SRS Road A) to Meyers Mill siding, thence in a northeasterly direction to the intersection of the railroad and the Savannah River Site boundary line between monument 130 and 345.

Beginning at the intersection of the Savannah River Site boundary line and the centerline of US Hwy 278 between SRS monuments 54 and 55 east of the intersection of SC Hwy 19 and US Hwy 278; thence along the meanders of the centerline of US Hwy 278 in an easterly direction to the intersection of US Hwy 278 and SC 54; thence along the meanders of the centerline of US Hwy 278 in an easterly direction to the intersection of the Savannah River Site boundary line between Savannah River Site monuments 75 and 76.

Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of US Hwy 278 and the Savannah River Site boundary line between Savannah River Site monument 86 and 87; thence in a southeasterly direction along the meanders of the centerline of US Hwy 278 to the intersection of the centerline of said highway and the Savannah River Site boundary line between Savannah River Site monuments 88C and 88D.

Beginning at a point of intersection of the southern right-of-way of Brown Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between SRS Monuments 13 and 14; thence along the meander of the southern right-of-way of Brown Road to a point of intersection between the southern right-of-way of Brown Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between SRS Monuments 14 and 15; thence from a point of intersection between the southern right-of-way of Brown Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between SRS Monuments 15 and 16 along the meander of the southern right-of-way to a point of intersection at SRS Monument 17. Beginning again at SRS Monument 22; thence along the meander of the southern right-of-way of Brown Road to a point of intersection between the southern right-of-way of Brown Road and the Savannah Rr Site Boundary Line between SRS Monuments 23 and 23A.

Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Main St and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between Savannah River Site monuments 23A and 23B; thence along the meander of the centerline of Old Main Street in a southeasterly and southerly direction to a point of intersection with SC Hwy 125, south of SRS Monument 24.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the centerline of SC Hwy 125 and the centerline of SRS Road 1; thence along the meander of the centerline of SRS Road 1 in an easterly direction approximately 6.9 miles to a point of intersection between the centerline of SRS Road 1 and SRS Road 2.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the centerline of Green Pond Road and the centerline of SRS Road 1A; thence along the meander of the centerline of Road 1A in a northeasterly direction to a point of intersection between the centerline of Road 1A and SRS Road 1.

Beginning at Savannah River Site monument 33 (a nail in the centerline of said road); thence along the meander of the centerline of Green Pond Road in a southeasterly direction to the intersection of the centerline of Green Pond Road and Savannah River Site Road 1 (intersection being northeast along SRS Road 1 of the 703 building).

Beginning at a point of intersection northeast of Savannah River Site monument 33 with the Savannah River Site boundary line, thence along the meander of the centerline of Doe Ct in a northeasterly direction approximately 2,300 feet to a point of deviation at which said road continues in a northeasterly direction away from the Savannah River Site boundary line.

Beginning at the centerline of Gateway Drive and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between Savannah River Site monuments 41 and 42; thence meandering along the centerline of Gateway Drive in a southerly direction to a point of intersection between the centerline of Gateway Drive and the centerline of SRS Road 1.

Beginning at a point of intersection between SRS Road 2 the Savannah River Site Boundary line between SRS monuments 53 and 54; thence along the meander of SRS Road 2 in a southwesterly direction, approximately 2,064 feet, to a point of intersection between the centerline of SRS Road 2 and the centerline of SRS Road 1.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the centerline of Washington Drive and the Savannah River Site Boundary Line between SRS Monuments 55 and 56; thence along the centerline of Washington Drive in a westerly direction, approximately 200 feet, to a point of intersection between the centerline of Washington Drive and the centerline of Hwy 278.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the centerline of Washington Drive and the northern right-of-way of Birch Street; thence in a southeasterly direction, along the Savannah River Site Boundary Line between SRS Monuments 55 and 56, approximately 3,050 feet; thence turning southwest along a curve and continuing to a point of intersection between the intersection of the centerline of Birch Street and the centerline of Hwy 278.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the northern right of way of Birch Street and the centerline of Truman Street; thence along the meander of the centerline of Truman Street in a southwesterly direction to a point of intersection between the centerline of Truman Street and the centerline of Hwy 278.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the northern right of way of Birch Street and the centerline of Adams Avenue; thence along the meander of the centerline of Adams Avenue in a southwesterly direction to a point of intersection between the centerline of Adams Avenue and the centerline of Hwy 278.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the centerline of Cemetery Road and Hwy 278; thence in a northeasterly direction to an approximate location of N 101626.85 E 82307.62 on the SRS coordinate system; thence in a northwesterly direction to an approximate location of N 102121.21 E 81983.18 on the SRS coordinate system; thence in a southwesterly direction to an approximate location of N 101949.77 E 81611.01 on the SRS coordinate system; thence in a southeasterly direction to an approximate location of N 101518.00 E 81863.40 on the SRS coordinate system; thence in a southeasterly direction to the return point of intersection between the centerline of Cemetery Road and Hwy 27.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the centerline of Boggy Gut Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary Line between SRS Monuments 66R and 67; thence along the meander of the centerline of Boggy Gut Road in a southwesterly direction, approximately 1.3 miles, to a point of intersection between the centerline of Boggy Gut Road and the centerline of Hwy 278.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the centerline of Mt. Beulah Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary Line between SRS Monuments 75 and 76; thence along the meander of the centerline of Mt. Beulah Road in a southwesterly direction, approximately 2,100 feet, to a point of intersection between the centerline of Mt. Beulah Road and the centerline of Hwy 278.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the western right of way of Dunlap Circle and the Savannah River Site Boundary Line between SRS Monuments 80 and 81; thence along the meander of the western right of way of Dunlap Circle approximately 507 feet in a southeasterly direction to a point of intersection between the western right of way Dunlap Circle and the Savannah River Site Boundary Line between SRS Monuments 82 and 83.

Beginning at a point of intersection between SRS Monument 97 and the northern right of way of Crimson Road; thence along the meander of the northern right of way of Crimson Road in a westerly direction to SRS Monument 98.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the centerline of Tennessee Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line near SRS Monument 291; thence along the meander of the northern right-of-way of Tennessee Road in a westerly direction to a point of intersection between the centerline of Tennessee Road and Aaron Price Road.

Beginning at a point of intersection between Lemaster Lane and the northern right-of-way of Tennessee Road; thence along the meander of Lemaster Lane in a southwesterly direction to a point approximately 30 feet Northwest of SRS Monument 297.

Beginning at a point of intersection between the western right-of-way of Duncan Road and the northern right-of-way of Tennessee Road; thence along the meander of the western right-of-way of Duncan Road in a southwesterly direction to a point of intersection between the western right-of-way of Duncan Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between SRS Monuments 301 and 302.

Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Patterson Mill Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between Savannah River Site monuments 288 and 287; thence along the meander of the centerline of Patterson Mill Road in a northeasterly direction to a point of intersection between the centerline of Patterson Mill Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between SRS Monuments 148 and 147.

Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Furse Mill Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between SRS monuments 272 and 273; thence along the meander of the centerline of Furse Mill Road in an easterly direction to a point of intersection between the centerline of Furse Mill Road and the centerline of Washington Badger/Boiling Springs Road.

Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Washing Badger Road (Aiken County) and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between SRS monuments 271A and 270A; thence along the meander of the centerline of Washington Badger Road in a northeasterly direction, crossing over Stinson Bridge (603-23G) into Barnwell County and continuing as Boiling Springs Road in an easterly direction to a point of intersection between the centerline of Boiling Springs Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line near SRS monument 176.

Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Rocky Point Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line northeast of SRS Monument 261; thence along the meander of the centerline of Rocky Point Road in a southeasterly direction to a point of intersection between the centerline of Rocky Point Road and the Savannah River Site Boundary line between SRS Monuments 190 and 191.

Beginning at a point along the southern right of way of SRS Road 1, an approximate location having a site coordinate of N 107192.5 E 49534.55 on the Savannah River Site coordinate system; thence along the meander of the southern right of way of SRS Road 1 in an easterly direction approximately 860 feet; thence south approximately 520 feet to the security fencing; thence along the meander of the security fencing in a westerly direction approximately 860 feet; thence north approximately 520 feet to the point of beginning.

Beginning at a point of intersection with the southern right-of-way of SRS Road 1, an approximate location having a site coordinate of N 107351.88 E 51822.36; thence south approximately 35′ to a point of intersection with the metal fencing; thence along the meander of the outer metal fencing to an approximate location having a site coordinate of N 107243.71 E 51989.90; thence northwest approximately 153′ to an approximate location having a site coordinate of N 107393.64 E 51960.08.

Being a triangular parcel located in the southeast corner of the intersection of SRS Road 1 and SC Hwy 125 described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the southern right-of-way of SRS Road 1 (37.5 feet from the centerline of SRS Road 1) and the eastern right-of-way of SC Hwy 125 (75 feet from the centerline of the median of SC Highway 125); thence with the meanders of the eastern right-of-way of SC Hwy 125 S 2-09 W 1232.11 feet to a point; thence with the Federal Trespass Line fence N 46-40 E 1796.15 feet to a point on the southern right-of-way of SRS Road 1 S 89-56 W 1260.47 feet to the point of beginning, containing 17.81 acres more or less.

Beginning at SRS Monument 1 thence along the property line to SRS Monument 12. From SRS Monument 12 thence in a northern and easterly direction away from the Savannah River Site Boundary to a point of intersection (N 101219.34/E 37029.83) along the meander of SC Hwy 125. From this point of intersection thence along the meander of SC Hwy 125 to the intersection of Upper Three Runs Creek. From Upper Three Runs Creek thence along the meander of Upper Three Runs Creek to a point of intersection on the Savannah River; thence along the meander of the Savannah River north to SRS Monument 1.

Beginning at a point of intersection between SC Hwy 125 and Dominion Energy 115-KV Right of Way thence moving in a southeasterly direction along the 115-KV Right of way to the intersection of Upper Three Runs Creek. From the intersection of Upper Three Runs Creek thence along the meander of Upper Three Runs Creek to the intersection with Dominion Energy 13.8-KV Right of Way. Traveling in a northernly direction along the 13.8-KV Dominion Energy Right of Way to the intersection with Miller Road thence west along Miller Rd to the Intersection of Dominion Energy 13.8-KV Right of Way and the southern Right of Way of SRS Road 2, thence in a southwesterly direction to beginning point along SC Hwy 125.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 18, 2023, by R.T. Bartholomew, Director, Office of Safeguards, Security and Emergency Services, Savannah River Operations Office, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

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

Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on September 15, 2022 during a 60-day comment period. Supporting documents that explain in detail the information that the EPA will collect are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: The EPA recently developed the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Finder application (hereafter “UST Finder”). UST Finder is a publicly available web map application containing a comprehensive, state- sourced national map of UST and leaking underground storage tank (LUST) data. UST Finder is available via EPA's GeoPlatform at https://gispub.epa.gov/ustfinder. UST Finder provides users access to information on the attributes and locations of active and closed USTs, UST facilities, and LUSTs in states in a geographic information system (GIS) environment. This information collection relates to information that state and territorial agencies already collect from UST and LUST owners and operators as part of their customary business practice to manage their compliance and enforcement programs. To successfully implement, maintain, and improve the data quality and usability of UST Finder, the Agency seeks to gather, on a voluntary basis, information from state and territorial agencies that oversee UST/LUST programs. Specifically, EPA will request that these agencies provide location and other relevant data about USTs and LUSTs that is already being collected and managed by states and territories.

This information collection is voluntary and does not require the agencies to collect additional data on USTs/LUSTs beyond the data elements that are already being collected through their previously implemented programs. States and territories will decide the extent of information to be provided.

The EPA intends to implement four options for collecting the UST/LUST data from states and territories: (1) by developing an Exchange server or other automated service through which states can “push” their data to the EPA, (2) by developing a link to the agencies' pre-existing electronic service used to maintain public websites such that the EPA can “pull” the data, (3) by allowing states and territories to submit existing databases or spreadsheets through an approved file sharing method, or (4) by EPA obtaining publicly available data from state and territory public agency websites (an option that will be exercised if states and territories do not voluntarily submit their data). For all data transfer options, the EPA will standardize, curate, and enter records into the UST Finder application.

Form numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: States and territories with delegated authority to operate UST and LUST programs under 40 CFR parts 280, 281, 282, and 40 CFR 302.4.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

Estimated number of respondents: 56 (total). This includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Frequency of response: Semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 3,470 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $175,000 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

Changes in the estimates: This is a new information collection, therefore, there are no previous burden estimates. The estimated burden reflects assumptions based on Agency experience from the development of the UST Finder application and consultation with affected entities. No comments were received on the burden previously published in the Federal Register . Should the EPA request to extend this information collection 3 years from now, changes in burden will be evaluated at that time.

This is a proposed extension of two related ICRs that are being consolidated—the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2023, and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2024. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on January 19, 2023 during a 60-day comment period (88 FR 3409). This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: The information collection activities will occur primarily at the program-level through the State Capitalization Grant Agreement/Intended Use Plan and Annual Report. The information on the Intended Use Plan (IUP) is needed annually to describe how the State intends to use available State Revolving Fund (SRF) funds for the year to meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA) or Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and to further the goal of protecting public health. The Annual Report is needed to provide detailed information on how the State has met its goals and objectives of the previous one or two fiscal years as stated in the IUP and grant agreement. The CWA and SDWA require this information to ensure the national accountability, adequate public review and comment, fiscal integrity, and consistent management needed to achieve public health and CWA and SDWA compliance objectives.

Additional information about the CWSRFs and DWSRFs are available at http://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/learn-about-clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf and https://www.epa.gov/dwsrf/how-drinking-water-state-revolving-fund-works#tab-1, respectively.

This ICR renews the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Number 2040-0185 DWSRF ICR and provides updated estimates of the reporting burden associated with the information collection activities for both DWSRF ICR and CWSRF ICR.

Form numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities affected by this action are states and local governments.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit per the Clean Water Act Title VI and the Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1452.

Estimated number of respondents: 2,836 (total).

Frequency of response: Varies by requirement ( i.e., quarterly, semi-annually, annually).

Total estimated burden: 108,519 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)

Total estimated cost: $12,874,081 (per year), which includes $6,354,600 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 37,500 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the two separate ICRs currently approved by OMB. This change in hourly burden is primarily due to a decrease in annual hourly burden in the DWSRF from the elimination of the application review estimates to align with the estimates from CWSRF.

The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing information collections listed in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments. We invite comments on: (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title: Empty Containers Ready for Use by Location.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-XXXX.

Abstract: The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA 2022) mandated new data collections for Federal agencies to address key gaps in available data. See 46 U.S.C. 41110. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was instructed to collect and report on vessel-level tonnage as well as full and empty containers entering and leaving U.S. ports in international trade. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) was instructed to collect operational data on intermodal equipment and dwell times. Both agencies have work underway on these data collections. The FMC and BTS have further identified data gaps related to location of intermodal shipping containers (as defined in ISO 668—Series 1 Freight Containers) ready for use by shippers, particularly exporters, at key intermodal locations. Exporters would benefit from current information on the geographic areas where empty ocean intermodal equipment is positioned. FMC is seeking to collect daily data on empty containers on a weekly basis as well as a two-week outlook for containers ready for use at 30 intermodal locations, which will include inland dry ports, intermodal container transfer facilities, and marine terminals.

The information collected would be used to compile and publish a weekly report on the throughput and availability of multiple container types ( e.g., refrigerated and dry) and sizes ( e.g., 20-foot, 40-foot, and 45-foot) at key intermodal locations. The universe of respondents is the top 12 ocean common carriers, measured by container volume.

Current Actions: This information being submitted contains a new data collection.

Type of Review: New data collection.

Needs and Uses: The Federal Maritime Commission and Bureau of Transportation Statistics will use collected data to produce a weekly report and to monitor current industry trends.

Frequency: This information will be collected weekly each year. There are 52 weeks in a year.

Type of Respondents: The universe will be the 12 largest ocean common carriers, measured by the total volume of containers moving through U.S. ports in international common carriage.

Number of Annual Respondents: The FMC estimates an annual respondent universe of 12 ocean common carriers, each of which will provide data weekly. The total number of responses will be 624. The FMC expects the estimated number of annual respondents to remain constant in the future.

Estimated Time per Response: The time per response is estimated at 2.5 person-hours for reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: For the 12 carriers with weekly reporting, the burden is calculated as 12 × 52 × 2.5 hours = 1,560 hours.

In the Federal Register of July 13, 2022 (87 FR 41724), on page 41725, in the second column, under “II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period,” the first two sentences should be corrected to read as follows: “FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for ENSPRYNG is 2,494 days. Of this time, 2,128 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 366 days occurred during the approval phase.”

Section 4003(e) of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) establishes the Health Information Technology Advisory Committee (referred to as the “HITAC”). The HITAC will be governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, (5 U.S.C. app.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

The HITAC is comprised of at least 25 members, of which:

• No fewer than 2 members are advocates for patients or consumers of health information technology;

• 3 members are appointed by the HHS Secretary:

○ 1 of whom shall be appointed to represent the Department of Health and Human Services and

○ 1 of whom shall be a public health official;

• 2 members are appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;

• 2 members are appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;

• 2 members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

• 2 members are appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives; and

• Other members are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States.

Members serve for one-, two-, or three-year terms. All members may be reappointed for a subsequent three-year term. Each member is limited to two three-year terms, not to exceed six years of service. Members serve without pay, but will be provided per-diem and travel costs for committee services, if warranted.

The HITAC recommendations to the National Coordinator are publicly available at https://www.healthit.gov/topic/federal-advisory-committees/recommendations-national-coordinator-health-it.

The schedule of meetings to be held in 2023 is as follows:

All meetings are open to the public. Additional meetings may be scheduled as needed. For web conference instructions and the most up-to-date information, please visit the HITAC calendar on the ONC website, www.healthit.gov/topic/federal-advisory-committees/hitac-calendar.

Contact Person for Meetings: Michael Berry, Michael.Berry@hhs.gov. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Please email Michael Berry for the most current information about meetings.

Agenda: As outlined in the 21st Century Cures Act, the HITAC will develop and submit recommendations to the National Coordinator on the topics of interoperability, privacy and security, patient access, and use of technologies that support public health. In addition, the committee will also address any administrative matters and hear periodic reports from ONC. ONC intends to make background material available to the public no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting start time. If ONC is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the material will be made publicly available on ONC's website after the meeting, at www.healthit.gov/hitac.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person prior to the meeting date. An oral public comment period will be scheduled at each meeting. Time allotted for each commenter will be limited to three minutes. If the number of speakers requesting to comment is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled public comment period, ONC will take written comments after the meeting.

Persons attending in-person HITAC meetings must register in advance; virtual attendance is offered as an alternative. If attending in-person, please allow time to clear building security. All visitors will be escorted to the designated meeting room. Please note that access to electrical outlets may be limited or unavailable.

ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its HITAC meetings. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Michael Berry at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.

Notice of these meetings are given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., app. 2).

Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 117-286, 5 U.S.C., ch. 10). The Committee was established on December 4, 2018, by Section 601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-282, 132 Stat. 4190, and is codified in 46 U.S.C. 15107. The Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 46 U.S.C. 15109. The National Navigation Safety Advisory Committee provides advice, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment; routing measures; marine information; and aids to navigation systems.

The agenda for the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee meeting is as follows:

A copy of all meeting documentation will be available by June 9, 2023, by going to the Coast Guard Homeport website, https://homeport.uscg.mil/, selecting the Missions tab, and navigating to the Federal Advisory Committees section. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. George Detweiler as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section above.

There will be a public comment period at the end of meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments.

Please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above to register as a speaker.

This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2023-0248], and must be received by July 24, 2023.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Title: Various International Agreement Certificates and Documents.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0118.

Summary: This information collection is associated with the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), 2006. The Coast Guard established a voluntary inspection program for vessels who wish to document compliance with the requirements of the MLC. U.S. commercial vessels that operate on international routes are eligible to participate. The Coast Guard issues voluntary compliance certificates as proof of compliance with the MLC.

Need: This information is needed to determine if a vessel is in compliance with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.

Forms:

• CG-16450, Maritime Labour Certificate (Statement of Voluntary Compliance).

• CG-16450A, Interim Maritime Labour Certificate (Statement of Voluntary Compliance).

• CG-16450B, Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance—Part I (Statement of Voluntary Compliance).

• CG-16450C, United States Coast Guard, Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 Inspection Report.

Respondents: Vessel owners and operators.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 653 hours a year to 561 hours a year, due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of respondents.

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.

Notice of this meeting is given under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 U.S.C., ch. 10. The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) provides advice to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.

Pre-Registration: Meeting participants may attend either in person or via webinar. All participants must register using one of the methods indicated below:

For members of the public who plan to participate in person, please register online at https://teregistration.cbp.gov/index.asp?w=321 by 5:00 p.m. EDT on June 9, 2023. For members of the public who are pre-registered to attend the meeting in person and later need to cancel, please do so by 5:00 p.m. EDT on June 9, 2023, utilizing the following link: https://teregistration.cbp.gov/cancel.asp?w=321.

For members of the public who plan to participate via webinar, the webinar link and conference number will be posted by 5:00 p.m. EDT on June 13, 2023, at https://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac/coac-public-meetings.

The COAC is committed to ensuring that all participants have equal access regardless of disability status. If you require a reasonable accommodation due to a disability to fully participate, please contact Mrs. Latoria Martin at (202) 344-1440 as soon as possible.

Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.

To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the Agenda section below.

There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on June 14, 2023. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP web page: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac.

The COAC will hear from the current subcommittees on the topics listed below:

1. The Next Generation Facilitation Subcommittee will provide updates on its task forces and working groups. It is expected there will be recommendations for the committee's consideration from the 21st Century Customs Framework (21CCF) Task Force and Focus Group, along with a close out report for this task force. The Customs Interagency Industry Working Group (CII) (formerly the One U.S. Government Working Group) will provide an update on the work addressed this past quarter, which included identifying possible Partner Government Agencies for representation on the working group and discussion of the legislative trade proposals stemming from the 21CCF Task Force and Focus Group. An update is expected on the progress of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 2.0 Working Group regarding its review of the CBP ACE 2.0 Concept of Operations processes. The E-Commerce Task Force will provide updates regarding its discussions this past quarter pertaining to duplicate messaging related to security and trade filings. The Passenger Air Operations (PAO) Working Group aims to identify ways to modernize passenger processing rules and regulations, streamline the passenger experience at U.S. ports of entry, and identify challenges that affect operations. While this is a new group, the expectation is that recommendations will be developed and submitted for consideration at future COAC public meetings.

2. The Rapid Response Subcommittee will provide updates from the Broker Modernization Working Group and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Chapter 7 Working Group. The Broker Modernization Working Group meets monthly and continues to focus on the 19 CFR part 111 final rules relating to Modernization of the Customs Broker Regulations, Continuing Education for Licensed Customs Brokers, and Customs Broker Licensing Exams. The USMCA Chapter 7 Working Group meets bi-weekly. Its current focus is to review the Chapter 7 articles of the USMCA and identify gaps in implementation between the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

3. The Secure Trade Lanes Subcommittee will provide updates on its five active working groups: the Export Modernization Working Group, the In-Bond Working Group, the Trade Partnership and Engagement Working Group, the Cross-Border Recognition Working Group, and the Pipeline Working Group. The Export Modernization Working Group has continued its work on the electronic export manifest pilot program and will provide updates on its progress. The In-Bond Working Group may provide recommendations for the committee's consideration and will provide updates on the implementation of previously submitted recommendations. The Trade Partnership and Engagement Working Group has focused its work on previous recommendations to refine the language of possible benefits for Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Trade Compliance partners and may provide additional recommendations for the committee's consideration. The Cross-Border Recognition and Pipeline working groups will provide updates on their work toward developing recommendations for the committee's consideration.

4. The Intelligent Enforcement Subcommittee will provide updates on the work completed and topics discussed in its working groups. The Antidumping/Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) Working Group will provide updates regarding its work and discussions on importer compliance with AD/CVD requirements. The Intellectual Property Rights Working Group (IPRWG) will provide updates relating to the development of a portal on the CBP Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) web page and to CBP's implementation of the IPRWG's past recommendations concerning the automation of detention and seizure. The Bond Working Group will report on the ongoing discussions and status updates for eBond requirements. The Forced Labor Working Group will provide updates regarding its work and discussions regarding the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and anticipates making recommendations for the committee's consideration during the meeting.

Meeting materials will be available on June 5, 2023, at: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac/coac-public-meetings.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

The purpose of the THSGP is to make grants available to Federally-recognized “directly eligible tribes”, as defined by the Homeland Security Act, and to provide Tribes with the ability to develop and deliver core capabilities using the combined efforts of the whole community, rather than the exclusive effort of any single organization or level of government. The THSGP's allowable costs support efforts of Tribes to build and sustain core capabilities to prepare for, prevent, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism. The THSGP also plays an important role in the implementation of the National Preparedness System by supporting the building, sustainment, and delivery of core capabilities essential to achieving FEMA's National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient Nation. Federally-recognized Tribes are those Tribes appearing on the list published by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454) (25 U.S.C. 5131). “Directly eligible tribes” are defined in section 2001 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended (Pub. L. 107-296) (6 U.S.C. 601).

Title: Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP) Investment Justification Template.

Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0113.

FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-207-FY-22-118 (formerly 089-22), Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP) Investment Justification Template.

Abstract: This information is being collected for the primary purpose of facilitating correspondence between the grant applicant and FEMA and for determining eligibility and administration of FEMA Preparedness Grant Programs, specifically the Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program. The THSGP provides supplemental funding to directly eligible Tribes to help strengthen the nation against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks. This program provides funds to build capabilities at the State, Local, Territorial and Tribal levels and implement goals and objectives included in state homeland security strategies.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 120.

Estimated Number of Responses: 120.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 18,010.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $962,454.

Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.

Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $482,186.

Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. The currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.