The USPTO published a notice for the implementation of the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program on June 29, 2016. See Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program, 81 FR 42328 (June 29, 2016), 1428 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 253 (July 26, 2016) (Cancer Immunotherapy Notice). The pilot program was designed to support the global fight against cancer. The Cancer Immunotherapy Notice indicated that an applicant may have an application advanced out of turn (accorded special status) for examination without meeting all of the current requirements of the accelerated examination program set forth in item VIII of MPEP section 708.02(a), if the application contained at least one claim to a method of treating cancer using immunotherapy and met other requirements specified in the Cancer Immunotherapy Notice.

The Cancer Immunotherapy Notice established that the pilot program would run for twelve months from June 29, 2016. The USPTO extended the pilot program to December 31, 2018, through a notice published in the Federal Register . See Extension of the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program, 82 FR 28645 (June 23, 2017), 1440 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 256 (July 25, 2017). In view of the continued interest in the pilot program, the USPTO has extended the pilot program through June 30, 2020. The extension also will allow the USPTO to continue its evaluation of the pilot program. The requirements of the pilot program have not been modified.

Various stakeholders from around the world have filed petitions to participate in the pilot program—they are independent inventors, universities, research institutions, hospitals, medical centers, government agencies, and large and small companies. To date, over 300 petitions requesting participation in the pilot program have been filed, and over 100 patents have been granted under the pilot program. The USPTO may again extend the pilot program (with or without modifications) depending on the feedback from the participants, continued interest, and the effectiveness of the pilot program.

On December 8, 2010, after considering written comments from the public, the USPTO changed the missing parts examination procedures in certain nonprovisional applications by implementing a pilot program ( i.e., Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program). See Pilot Program for Extended Time Period To Reply to a Notice to File Missing Parts of Nonprovisional Application, 75 FR 76401 (Dec. 8, 2010), 1362 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 44 (Jan. 4, 2011). The USPTO has extended the pilot program through notices published in the Federal Register . On September 6, 2016, the USPTO sought public comment on whether the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program offers sufficient benefits to the patent community for it to be made permanent or whether the USPTO should permit the pilot program to expire. See Request for Comments on the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program, 81 FR 61195 (Sept. 6, 2016), 1430 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 269 (Sept. 27, 2016). The USPTO received only two comments. The two comments are available via the USPTO's internet website at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/comments-public/comments-extended-missing-parts-pilot-program. On January 10, 2018, the USPTO extended the pilot program until January 2, 2019, and indicated that it intended to make a decision before January 2, 2019, on whether the program should be made permanent or permitted to expire. See Extension of Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program, 83 FR 1243 (Jan. 10, 2018), 1447 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 47 (Feb. 6, 2018).

Since the inception of the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program, the USPTO has received fewer than 200 grantable requests per year. In addition, the number of grantable requests has decreased over the past year. In view of the low usage of the pilot program, the limited number of written comments received from the public in response to the 2016 request for comments, and the administrative burden on the USPTO in processing improper requests, the USPTO decided to permit the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program to expire on January 2, 2019.

Any certification and request must have been filed on or before January 2, 2019, in order to participate in the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program. The USPTO will review any certification and request filed on or before January 2, 2019, for compliance with the requirements of the program. Any certification and request filed after January 2, 2019, will not be granted.

Full Text of Announcement I. Pilot Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3) was first authorized by Congress in FY 2014 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (2014 Act), and the authority has been included by Congress in appropriations acts each year since FY 2014. The P3 authority enables pilot sites to blend FY 2018 and FY 2019 Federal funds and obtain waivers of program requirements, including statutory, regulatory, and administrative requirements that are barriers to achieving improved outcomes for youth-serving programs included in the authority. Under P3, pilots can test innovative, outcome-focused strategies to achieve significant improvements in educational, employment, and other key outcomes for disconnected youth using the flexibility provided by P3.

Background: P3 aligns with the Administration's priorities of relieving burden, breaking down “silos,” increasing flexibility, and providing State, local, and Tribal governments greater freedom to innovate. P3 gives ED; the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 1 and Justice (DOJ);  2 the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS); and the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (collectively, the Agencies) authority, provided certain conditions and requirements are met, to waive Federal statutory and regulatory requirements that inhibit effective service delivery for disconnected youth. The authority also advances the Principles of Economic Mobility articulated in Executive Order 13828, Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility. These principles include: Balancing flexibility and accountability in Federal poverty programs; addressing the challenges of high-need special populations; reducing the size of bureaucracy and streamlining services; and empowering the private sector and local communities to develop and apply locally based solutions to poverty. 3

P3 authorizes the Agencies to enter into Performance Partnership Agreements (performance agreements) with State, local, or Tribal governments. The performance agreements provide pilots with additional flexibility in the use of certain of the Agencies' discretionary funds, 4 including competitive and formula grant funds. Pilots must include two or more Federal programs (at least one of which is administered in whole or in part by a State, local, or Tribal government) that are targeted on disconnected youth, or designed to prevent youth from disconnecting from school or work, and that provide education, training, employment, and other related social services. Entities that seek to participate in these pilots will be required to commit to achieving significant improvements in outcomes for disconnected youth in exchange for flexibility permitted under P3. The authorizing statute states that “ ‘[t]o improve outcomes for disconnected youth' means to increase the rate at which individuals between the ages of 14 and 24 (who are low-income and either homeless, in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, unemployed, or not enrolled in or at risk of dropping out of an educational institution) achieve success in meeting educational, employment, or other key goals.”

This notice invites applications for selection as FY 2018 and 2019 pilots. Unlike previous rounds, ED will not award start-up funds to selected pilots, because the Agencies want to encourage potential pilots to create cost-neutral innovations in service delivery. However, the flexibilities available under P3 can generate significant cost savings for pilots by relieving them of some burdensome requirements, as well as enabling them to use Federal dollars more effectively to serve disconnected youth.

P3 provides important opportunities for flexibility and burden reduction. The Agencies have published on Youth.gov a list of the waivers previously granted to pilots under the prior three rounds of P3. 5 These waivers were helpful to the pilots that received them, and, in this fourth round, the Agencies hope that applicants propose even more ambitious and bold efforts to remove Federal constraints on effective and innovative service delivery for disconnected youth. We provide several examples below.

We note that these examples are provided for illustrative purposes only, and that the allowability of specific proposals will depend on the unique circumstances of individual applicants. Any waivers must be consistent with the statutory safeguards that apply to P3, discussed below, and the Agencies will consider whether the inclusion of a program in a specific pilot is consistent with, or conflicts with, other significant legal or policy considerations. Also, the Agencies will review the blending of competitive grants on a case-by-case basis in order to consider how the scope, objectives, and target populations of the existing award align with the proposed pilot. Any changes in terms and conditions of the existing competitive grant awards required for pilot purposes must be justified by the applicant. In addition, the Agencies can only waive Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. The Agencies encourage applicants to analyze whether their request also requires State or local rule changes to implement as those rules are not under the jurisdiction of the Agencies to waive for P3.

Example A: P3 waivers can help a State, local, or Tribal government use funds from multiple competitive and formula grants more cohesively and effectively and relieve some of the paperwork or reporting requirements associated with these grants. For example, an Alaska Native village that is the recipient of a Social and Economic Development Strategies grant from the Administration for Native Americans in HHS, an Alaska Native Education program grant and a Native American Career and Technical Education grant from ED, and an Indian and Native American Program Employment and Training Grant from DOL, might obtain P3 waivers and other flexibilities that would enable it to blend these funds to carry out an apprenticeship program for Alaska Native youth. Through P3, it also might replace the reporting requirements associated with each of these grants with a single set of outcome goals that the village deems most critical for its youth.

Example B: A number of Federal grant programs that award funds by formula to States, such as Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (SSAE) under Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), require or allow States to set aside funds for State-level activities. In most cases, program statutes specify through a list of authorized or required activities how States may or must use funds reserved for State-level activities. A State might request a waiver that would allow it to use State-level funds to support an activity that goes beyond the required and permissive activities set out in the relevant program statute. More specifically, a State might propose to use funds for an activity that, while not clearly included as an allowable use of funds under the relevant statutory list of authorized activities, is designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth and is consistent with the statutory purposes of the program. For example, section 611(e)(2)(C) of Part B of the IDEA contains a list of allowable activities that States may use State-level set-aside funds to support. Through P3, a State might seek a waiver to allow it to use State-level IDEA Part B set-aside funds to support an activity that is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of special education and related services offered to disconnected youth with disabilities, even though that activity is not specifically included as an authorized activity under section 611(e)(2)(C). To expand educational options through a school choice initiative, a State could, for example, propose to use State-level IDEA Part B funds to provide additional IDEA Part B funds beyond the minimum required proportionate share that must be expended by local educational agencies on the provision of special education and related services ( i.e., equitable services) to eligible parentally-placed private school children with disabilities, to cover the cost of equitable services for disconnected youth who are parentally placed private school children with disabilities. These funds could be blended with, and supplemented by, State-level SSAE funds.

Example C: Many Federal programs contain statutory or regulatory requirements that limit eligibility to individuals based on age or other requirements. A P3 applicant could seek flexibility to waive eligibility requirements to broaden the target population. For example, the WIOA Title I Youth program limits eligibility for services to out-of-school youth between the ages of 16 and 24, while the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), Title II of WIOA, limits eligibility to individuals age 16 and older who are not enrolled or required to be enrolled in secondary school under State law. A State could seek a waiver of these eligibility requirements to create an education and employment program for disconnected youth as young as age 14 and use the P3 authority to blend WIOA Title I Youth and AEFLA State-level funds to implement the program.

Example D: P3 authority can also be used by applicants to propose changes to projects funded under multiple Federal grants that are each, separately, intended to support programs designed to help disconnected youth achieve greater success in meeting their educational and employment goals. A public college or university that is considered a unit of State or local government might obtain waivers to blend discretionary, non-entitlement student aid funds under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, dollars received through various Federal formula programs, and competitive grant funds in ways that would achieve better outcomes for disconnected youth. For example, a public college or university might propose to increase the share of the Federal Work Study (FWS) program funds available for Job Location and Development programs and waive the 25 percent cap on the amount of the school's allocation that may be used to pay wages to students employed with private, for-profit organizations so that it could use all or more than 25 percent of its FWS funds to provide students who are at risk of dropping out subsidized career internships in the private sector that are aligned with students' educational and career goals. If the public college or university receives a Federal TRIO or Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs grant, it might also propose to blend funds available under these competitive grant programs ( e.g., TRIO Student Support Services) to provide career counseling and mentoring to the students participating in these career internships. Similarly, a community college might obtain waivers to blend and use a portion of a TRIO Educational Opportunity Center grant and its WIOA Title II AEFLA program subgrant to implement an intensive integrated education and training program for young adults who lack a high school credential.

Although the P3 authority provides broad waiver authority to increase flexibility and relieve burden in order to improve the effectiveness of Federal funding for disconnected youth, it is important to note that there are some limitations on the waivers. In particular, as stated in the original statutory authority for P3, the P3 waivers—

• May not involve any requirement related to nondiscrimination, wage and labor standards, or the allocation of funds to State and sub-State levels;

• Must be consistent with the statutory purposes of the Federal program for which such discretionary funds were appropriated;

• May not result in denying or restricting the eligibility of any individual for any of the services that (in whole or in part) are funded by the agency's programs and Federal discretionary funds that are involved in the pilot;

• Based on the best available information, may not otherwise adversely affect vulnerable populations that are the recipients of such services;

• Must be necessary to achieve the outcomes of the pilot as specified in the performance agreement, and no broader in scope than is necessary to achieve such outcomes; and

• Must result in either (a) realizing efficiencies by simplifying reporting burdens or reducing administrative barriers with respect to such discretionary funds; or (b) increasing the ability of individuals to obtain access to services that are provided by the discretionary funds.

P3 was reauthorized for FY 2018 for programs administered by all of the seven Agencies, and the Agencies may select up to ten pilots. As of the date of this notice, P3 has been reauthorized for FY 2019 for programs administered by ED, HHS, DOL, CNCS, and IMLS, and these five agencies may select up to ten pilots involving programs they administer. Legislation pending in Congress would authorize the inclusion of FY 2019 funds for HUD Homeless Assistance Grants and programs administered by DOJ's Office of Justice programs. We are inviting applications for pilots under both the FY 2018 and FY 2019 authorities. Applicants must indicate in their applications whether they are applying as a FY 2018 or a FY 2019 pilot.

FY 2018 Pilots: An applicant applying as a FY 2018 pilot must propose to include FY 2018 funds from at least one of the seven Federal Agencies, and may choose to include FY 2019 funds from ED, HHS, DOL, CNCS, and IMLS programs. If the pending legislation described above is enacted before the application deadline announced by this notice, applicants may also propose to include FY 2019 Homeless Assistance Grants and Office of Justice Programs in their applications. 6

FY 2019 Pilots: An applicant applying as a FY 2019 pilot must propose to include only FY 2019 funds from ED, HHS, DOL, CNCS, or IMLS programs. If the pending legislation described above is enacted before the application deadline announced by this notice, applicants may also propose to include FY 2019 Homeless Assistance Grants and Office of Justice Programs in their applications in addition to or instead of funds from ED, HHS, DOL, CNCS, and IMLS.

If Congress extends the P3 authority in future years, pilots selected under either authority may propose to expand the number of Federal programs supporting pilot activities using future funding appropriated. However, authority for pilots to expand in future years is subject to Congressional action as well as agency discretion.

For the purposes of this competition, absolute priorities create separate categories for scoring and considering applications. Applicants must address one of two absolute priorities.

As in the third round of P3, the statutory authorities for FY 2018 and FY 2019 direct the Agencies to include communities that have experienced civil unrest among the P3 pilots that are designated for FY 2018 and FY 2019. Consequently, we are including an absolute priority for pilots involving such communities (Absolute Priority 1). Some communities struggle with high youth unemployment, low graduation rates, drug abuse, and crime. These and other continuing challenges can manifest in different instances of civil unrest, such as violent protests, increases in interpersonal violence in concentrated areas, or civil disorder. We believe that P3 flexibilities, including waivers and the blending of funds, will help empower communities to improve educational and employment outcomes for disconnected youth in these communities. The second absolute priority we have included (Absolute Priority 2) in this round is for all other proposed pilots that serve disconnected youth.

This competition includes one competitive preference priority under which we will award up to 15 points to an application, depending on how well that application proposes to align Federal, State, or local funding streams to promote the economic mobility of low-income individuals (as defined under section 312(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended). We believe the flexibilities available through P3 hold great potential for improving economic opportunity and mobility in economically distressed communities, such as communities with one or more Qualified Opportunity Zones established under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 115-97). Created to spur long-term private investment in low-income urban and rural areas of the country, Qualified Opportunity Zones are low-income communities that have been nominated by the governor of each State and Chief Executive Officer of United States territories and the District of Columbia and that have been certified by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. Disconnected youth are highly concentrated in impoverished communities like those designated as Qualified Opportunity Zones; in high-poverty neighborhoods with a poverty rate above 21 percent, one in five young people are disconnected. 7 Effectively addressing the education and skill needs of these youth is central to improving the economic circumstances of these communities and promoting economic mobility among their residents. Skill-building also is essential to maximizing the impact of the new investment that will be flowing into these communities and ensuring that Qualified Opportunity Zone residents are trained and ready to assume the new jobs that will be created by the infusion of capital. Without complementary actions to boost the education and skills of youth and adults in Qualified Opportunity Zones, many of the new jobs will be filled by individuals who reside elsewhere—or they will go unfilled altogether, throttling economic growth. P3 can make possible bold and creative interventions by State, local, and tribal governments to help disconnected youth, such as those in Qualified Opportunity Zones reengage, succeed in education and training, and prosper in the job market.

Priorities: This competition includes two absolute priorities and one competitive preference priority. Absolute Priority 1 is from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141) and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, 2019 (Pub. L. 115-245) and Absolute Priority 2 is from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program published on April 28, 2016, in the Federal Register (81 FR 25339) (P3 NFP) The competitive preference priority is from the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096).

Absolute Priorities: For this competition and any subsequent year in which we make pilot designations from the list of applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet Absolute Priority 1 or 2.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1—Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Communities That Have Experienced Civil Unrest.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that is designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth in one or more communities that have experienced civil unrest. In response to the priority, an applicant should describe the instance(s) of civil unrest, including (1) a description of the civil unrest that occurred or is occurring in the community or communities it intends to serve; and (2) the date or dates of the civil unrest.

Absolute Priority 2—Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that is designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth.

Competitive Preference Priority: For this competition and any subsequent year in which we make pilot designations from the list of applications from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we will award up to an additional 15 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets this priority. This priority is:

Projects designed to increase educational opportunities by reducing academic or nonacademic barriers to economic mobility by aligning Federal, State, or local funding streams to promote economic mobility of low-income individuals (as defined under section 312(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).

Application Requirements:

The application requirements for this competition are from the P3 NFP and are as follows:

(a) Executive summary. The applicant must provide an executive summary that briefly describes the proposed pilot, the flexibilities being sought, and the interventions or systems changes that would be implemented by the applicant and its partners to improve outcomes for disconnected youth.

(b) Target population. The applicant must complete Table 1, specifying the target population(s) for the pilot, including the age range of youth who will be served and the estimated number of youth who will be served over the course of the pilot.

(c) Flexibility, including waivers:

(1) Federal requests for flexibility, including waivers. For each program to be included in a pilot, the applicant must complete Table 2, Requested Flexibility. The applicant must identify two or more discretionary Federal programs that will be included in the pilot, 8 at least one of which must be administered (in whole or in part) by a State, local, or Tribal government. 9 In Table 2, the applicant must identify one or more program requirements that would inhibit implementation of the pilot and request that the requirement(s) be waived in whole or in part. Examples of potential waiver requests and other requests for flexibility include, but are not limited to: Blending of funds and changes to align eligibility requirements, allowable uses of funds, and performance reporting.

(2) Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers. The applicant must provide written assurance that—

(i) The State, local, or Tribal government(s) with authority to grant any needed non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, has approved or will approve such flexibility within 60 days of an applicant's designation as a pilot finalist;  10 or

(ii) Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, is not needed in order to successfully implement the pilot. 11

(d) Budget and budget narrative.

(1) The applicant must complete Table 3 to provide the following budget information:

(i) For each Federal program, the grantee, the amount of funds to be blended or braided (as defined in this notice), the percentage of total program funding received by the grantee that the amount to be blended or braided represents, the Federal fiscal year of the award, and whether the grant has already been awarded; and

(ii) The total amount of funds from all Federal programs that would be blended or braided, as defined in this notice, under the pilot.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

Priorities: This competition includes six absolute priorities and two invitational priorities. The absolute priorities are from section 1203(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA). The invitational priorities are from the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2019 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 one or more of these priorities. Eligible applicants must specify which absolute priority(ies) they are applying under.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1: Developing or improving assessments for English learners, including assessments of English language proficiency as required under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the ESEA and academic assessments in languages other than English to meet the State's obligations under section 1111(b)(2)(F) of the ESEA.

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

Absolute Priority 3: Developing or improving assessments for children with disabilities, including alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities described in section 1111(b)(2)(D) of the ESEA, and using the principles of universal design for learning.

Absolute Priority 4: Allowing for collaboration with institutions of higher education, other research institutions, or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments beyond the requirements for such assessments described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA.

Absolute Priority 5: Measuring student academic achievement using multiple measures of student academic achievement from multiple sources.

Absolute Priority 6: Evaluating student academic achievement through the development of comprehensive academic assessment instruments (such as performance and technology-based academic assessments, computer adaptive assessments, projects, or extended performance task assessments) that emphasize the mastery of standards and aligned competencies in a competency-based education model.

For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are invitational priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets an invitational priority any preference over other applications.

The priorities are:

Promoting Literacy. Projects that are designed to address facilitating the accurate and timely use of data by educators to improve reading instruction and make informed decisions about how to help children or students build literacy skills while protecting student and family privacy.

Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) Education, With a Particular Focus on Computer Science. Projects designed to improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: Science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this notice).

Definitions: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following definitions apply. The definitions of “English Learner”, “Child with a Disability” and “Universal Design for Learning” are from section 8101 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7801). The definitions of “Demonstrates a rationale,” “Logic model,” “Project component,” and “Relevant outcome” are from 34 CFR 77.1. The definition of “computer science” is from the Supplemental Priorities.

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

(A) A child—

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

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

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

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

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

Computer science means the study of computers and algorithmic processes and includes the study of computing principles and theories, computational thinking, computer hardware, software design, coding, analytics, and computer applications.

Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information.

In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply computation in our digital world.

Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.

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

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

(A) Who is aged 3 through 21;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society.

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

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

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

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

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

(b) Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient. 1

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

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

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $17,622,000.

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: $1,000,000 to $4,000,000 total over a 48-month project period.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $2,500,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 4-8.

Project Period: Up to 48 months.

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

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

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

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

1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Notice of Intent to Apply: We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we have a better understanding of the number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of their intent to submit an application for funding. This notification should be brief, and identify the SEA applicant and, if applicable, the SEA that it will designate as the fiscal agent for an award (in the case of consortia applicants). Submit this notification by email to Donald.Peasley@ed.gov with “Intent to Apply” in the email subject line or mail to Donald Peasley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E124, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Applicants that do not provide this notification may still apply for funding.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. We will award up to 105 points to an application under the selection criteria; the total possible points for each selection criterion are noted in parentheses.

(a) Need for project (up to 10 points). The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.

(b) Significance (up to 10 points). The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the 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.

(c) Quality of the project design (up to 20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (5 points)

(2) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population. (5 points)

(3) 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. (5 points)

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

(d) Quality of project services (up to 25 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (10 points)

In addition, the Secretary considers:

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

(2) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services. (5 points)

(e) Adequacy of resources (up to 10 points). The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

(f) Quality of the management plan (up to 20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (5 points)

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

(g) Quality of the project evaluation (up to 10 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

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 of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, 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 $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has developed three measures to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the Competitive Assessment Grant program:

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

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

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

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

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

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 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.

In the 2013 TC&WM EIS ROD, DOE selected Tank Closure Alternative 2B (Expanded WTP Vitrification; Landfill Closure) and announced that it would: (1) Retrieve 99 percent of the waste from the SSTs; (2) treat tank waste, including pretreatment of tank waste with separation into LAW and high-level radioactive waste (HLW); and (3) dispose of the vitrified LAW and secondary waste and construct immobilized HLW (IHLW) interim storage modules to store the IHLW prior to disposal. (See 78 FR 75913, December 13, 2013, for a complete list of the activities covered in the 2013 ROD.) The WTP, as analyzed in the TC&WM EIS, was assumed to have all primary and supporting facilities available at startup. The tank waste was designed to be sent to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it would be separated into HLW and LAW. The process would then send each of these waste streams to the HLW Facility and the LAW Facility, respectively, for further treatment.

Due to technical issues with the WTP Pretreatment Facility and HLW Facility, only the LAW Facility, analytical laboratory and balance of facilities are near completion. The three facilities that are near completion could begin treating tank waste no later than 2023. DOE has developed a sequenced approach to utilize the available facilities to treat LAW before treating HLW. This is referred to as DFLAW. The sequenced approach involves using ion exchange (IX) columns to remove the cesium from the LAW tank waste stream prior to sending the waste to the LAW Facility for immobilization. The cesium-loaded IX columns would be placed on an IX Column Storage Pad until final disposition.

DFLAW will operate in a different sequence than that analyzed in TC&WM EIS Alternative 2B, which was the alternative selected in the 2013 ROD. DOE prepared an SA (DOE/EIS-0391-SA-02) to determine whether supplemental or new NEPA documentation was required to address the DFLAW approach. The SA provides an analysis of the DFLAW approach relative to the analysis in the TC&WM EIS to determine if there are substantial changes to the proposal or if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. The SA was prepared in accordance with DOE's NEPA implementing procedures at 10 CFR 1021.314(c) and concluded that the DFLAW Proposed Action did not represent a substantial change to the proposal evaluated in the TC&WM EIS or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that would require preparation of a supplemental EIS. DOE determined that no further NEPA analysis was required.

The 2013 TC&WM EIS ROD addressed the functions necessary to implement DFLAW (effluent management, solids and cesium removal and waste transfers between facilities) with the exception of the construction and operations of the IX Column Storage Pad. The SA provides a comparative evaluation of the potential impacts associated with the IX Column Storage Pad for each of the environmental resource areas analyzed in the TC&WM EIS. Because the footprint of the IX Column Storage Pad would be within the previously disturbed Industrial-Exclusive Zone that includes the tank farms and WTP complex, impacts to land use, visual resources, noise, air quality, geology and soils, and water and ecological resources were determined to be bounded by or represent a negligible increase to those evaluated in the TC&WM EIS. The SA identified three key areas related to the IX Column Storage Pad for further evaluation: (1) Public and Occupational Health and Safety (Normal Operations), (2) Public and Occupational Health and Safety (Facility Accidents), and (3) Waste Management. In each of these key areas, the SA concluded that the potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the IX Column Storage Pad would be within the estimated impacts presented in the TC&WM EIS.

DOE/EIS-0391-SA-02 concluded that the DFLAW facilities and functions, except for the IX Column Storage Pad, were addressed in the TC&WM 2013 ROD. The SA also concluded that the IX Column Storage Pad does not represent a substantial change to DOE's proposal or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. There are no additional mitigation measures required beyond those commitments in the 2013 TC&WM EIS ROD. The 2013 TC&WM EIS ROD addressed the functions necessary to implement DFLAW, with the exception of those related to the IX Column Storage Pad. DOE's decision is to amend the TC&WM EIS ROD to include construction and operation of the IX Column Storage Pad to support implementation of DFLAW.

Background: The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines that have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction, which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).

In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered on February 12, 2018, pursuant to Executive Order 13708, and will terminate on March 22, 2020.

Purpose: The Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. SPR is responsible for overseeing, tracking, and participating in the reviews of all procedures used in the dose reconstruction process by the NIOSH Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) and its dose reconstruction contractor (Oak Ridge Associated Universities—ORAU).

Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on the following dose reconstruction procedures: (a) Procedures associated specifically with the following sites: Aliquippa Forge, Hooker Electrochemical Co., Birdsboro Steel, Simonds Saw, Idaho National Laboratory, General Steel Industries; (b) general procedures for dose reconstructions: Internal Coworker Dosimetry Data Completeness Test, Parameters when Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Background: The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines which have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule, advice on methods of dose reconstruction which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule, advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program, and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered under Executive Order 13811 on February 12, 2018, and will terminate on March 22, 2020.

Purpose: This Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advising the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class.

Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on: Recording December 2018 Meeting Absentee Votes; Work Group and Subcommittee Reports; Update on the Status of SEC Petitions; Plans for the April 2019 Advisory Board Meeting; and Advisory Board Correspondence. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Purpose: The committee is charged with advising the Director, CDC, on the use of immunizing agents. In addition, under 42 U.S.C. 1396s, the committee is mandated to establish and periodically review and, as appropriate, revise the list of vaccines for administration to vaccine-eligible children through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, along with schedules regarding dosing interval, dosage, and contraindications to administration of vaccines. Further, under provisions of the Affordable Care Act, section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, immunization recommendations of the ACIP that have been approved by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and appear on CDC immunization schedules must be covered by applicable health plans.

Oral Public Comment: This meeting will include one 75-minute session for oral public comment during which members of the public may make an in-person public comment. The oral public comment session will occur near the end of the first day's session on February 27, 2019 and before any scheduled votes including all votes relevant to the ACIP's Affordable Care Act and Vaccines for Children Program roles. Priority will be given to individuals who submit a request to make an oral public comment before the meeting according to the procedures below. On-site, in-person registration for oral public comment at the meeting will only be available if there is time remaining in the oral public comment session after all individuals who submitted a request to make an oral comment before the meeting have had an opportunity to speak. There is no guarantee there will be an opportunity for on-site, in-person registration for oral public comment, and all individuals interested in requesting to make an oral public comment are strongly encouraged to submit a request according to the instructions below.

Procedure for Oral Public Comment: All persons interested in making an oral public comment at the February ACIP meeting must submit a request at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/ no later than 11:59 p.m., EDT, February 13, 2019. Interested persons must include their name; the name of the group or organization the individual is representing, if applicable; and contact information, including email address, mailing address, and telephone number.

If the number of persons requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled 75-minute oral public comment session, CDC will conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled session. CDC staff will notify individuals regarding their request to speak by email by February 15, 2019. To accommodate the significant interest in participation in the oral public comment session of ACIP meetings, each speaker will be limited to 3 minutes, and each speaker may only speak once per meeting. Interested persons who are unable to make an oral public comment during this meeting are invited to submit a written comment according to the instructions below.

Written Public Comment: Written comments will be accepted up to 48 hours following the end of the ACIP Meeting. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-201x-xxxx using the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received in conformance with the regulations.gov suitability policy will be posted without change to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Written public comments submitted by 72 hours prior to the ACIP meeting will be provided to the ACIP members before the meeting.

Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on human papillomavirus vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines, Japanese encephalitis vaccines, influenza vaccines, anthrax vaccine, hepatitis vaccines, Pertussis vaccine, herpes zoster vaccine, and meningococcal vaccines. A recommendation vote is scheduled for anthrax vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccines, and human papillomavirus vaccines. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. For more information on the meeting agenda visit https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/meetings-info.html.

The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Sections 111 and 119 of the Copyright Act (“Act”), title 17 of the United States Code, establish compulsory licenses under which cable operators and satellite carriers may, by complying with the license terms, retransmit copyrighted over-the-air broadcast programming. Among other requirements, cable and satellite licensees must file statements of account and deposit royalty fees with the U.S. Copyright Office (“Office”) on a semi-annual basis.

The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, 1 amended the Act by directing the Register of Copyrights (“Register”) to issue regulations to allow copyright owners to audit the statements of account and royalty fees that cable operators and satellite carriers file with the Office. 2 Following a lengthy rulemaking proceeding, the Office issued such regulations, adopting the audit process now set forth in 37 CFR 201.16. 3 Section 201.16(c)(1) requires any copyright owner who intends to audit a statement of account to provide written notice to the Register no later than three years after the last day of the year in which the statement of account was filed with the Office. 4 Such notice may be submitted by an individual copyright owner or a designated agent that represents a group or multiple groups of copyright owners. 5 The notice must be received in the Office on or after December 1st and no later than December 31st. 6 Between January 1st and January 31st of the next calendar year, the Office will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the receipt of the notice of intent to audit. 7

On December 31, 2018, the Office received the below notices of intent to audit statements of account. The notices were submitted jointly by the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, National Football League, National Basketball Association, Women's National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and National Collegiate Athletics Association pursuant to 37 CFR 201.16(c):

1. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Southern New England Telephone Co. for the cable system serving Hartford, Connecticut and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 62793), for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2014.

2. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Verizon Pennsylvania LLC for the cable system serving Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 62715), for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2014.

3. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Cox Communications Louisiana, LLC for the cable system serving Baton Rouge, Louisiana and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 011484), for the accounting period January 1-June 30, 2016.

4. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by CSC Holdings, LLC d/b/a Altice USA, Inc., for the cable system serving Avon-By-The-Sea (Avon Borough), New Jersey and the surrounding area (Licensing Division No. 007823), for the accounting period July 1-December 31, 2017.

5. Notice of intent to audit the statement of account filed by Dish Network, LLC for the accounting period January 1-June 30, 2017.