In accordance with the provisions set forth in the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (EFAA), 7 U.S.C. 7501, et seq., and the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 7 U.S.C. 2036, the Department makes foods available to States for use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need through TEFAP. In accordance with section 214 of the EFAA, 7 U.S.C. 7515, 60 percent of each State's share of TEFAP foods is based on the number of people with incomes below the poverty level within the State and 40 percent on the number of unemployed persons within the State. State officials are responsible for establishing the network through which the foods will be used by ERAs in providing nutrition assistance to those in need and for allocating foods among those ERAs. States have full discretion in determining the amount of foods that will be made available to ERAs for use in preparing meals and/or for distribution to households for home consumption.

The types of foods the Department expects to make available to States for distribution through TEFAP in FY 2019 are listed in the table below.

Surplus foods donated for distribution under TEFAP are Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) foods purchased under the authority of section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, 7 U.S.C. 1431 (section 416) and foods purchased under the surplus removal authority of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, 7 U.S.C. 612c (section 32). The types of foods typically purchased under section 416 include dairy, grains, oils, and peanut products. The types of foods purchased under section 32 include meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, dry beans, juices, and fruits.

Approximately $242.07 million in surplus foods acquired in FY 2018 are being delivered to States in FY 2019. These foods include beans, blueberries, catfish, cheese, cherries, chicken, ground beef, lentils, milk, mixed fruit, peaches, plums, pork chops, raspberries, strawberries, tomato sauce, and turkey. Other surplus foods may be made available to TEFAP throughout the year. The Department would like to point out that food acquisitions are based on changing agricultural market conditions; therefore, the availability of foods is subject to change.

In accordance with section 27 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 7 U.S.C. 2036, the Secretary is directed to purchase an estimated $294 million worth of foods in FY 2019 for distribution through TEFAP. These foods are made available to States in addition to those surplus foods which otherwise might be provided to States for distribution under TEFAP. For FY 2019, the Department anticipates purchasing the foods listed in the following table for distribution through TEFAP. The amounts of each item purchased will depend on the prices the Department must pay, as well as the quantity of each item requested by the States. Changes in agricultural market conditions may result in the availability of additional types of foods or the non-availability of one or more types listed in the table.

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR, 415 and final rule-related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Additionally, this notice has been determined to be exempt from formal review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

The terms used in this notice have the meaning ascribed to them under 7 CFR part 225 of the SFSP regulations.

This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in SFSP. In accordance with sections 12(f) and 13, 42 U.S.C. 1760(f) and 1761, of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) and SFSP regulations under 7 CFR part 225, the United States Department of Agriculture announces the adjustments in SFSP payments for meals served to participating children during calendar year 2019.

The 2019 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. Reimbursement is based solely on a “meals times rate” calculation, without comparison to actual or budgeted costs.

Sponsors receive reimbursement that is determined by the number of reimbursable meals served, multiplied by the combined rates for food service operations and administration. However, the combined rate is based on separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, each of which is adjusted differently for inflation.

The combined rates are constructed from individually authorized operating and administrative reimbursements. Simplified procedures provide flexibility, enabling sponsors to manage their reimbursements to pay for any allowable cost, regardless of the cost category. Sponsors remain responsible, however, for ensuring proper administration of the Program, while providing the best possible nutrition benefit to children.

The operating and administrative rates are calculated separately. However, the calculations of adjustments for both cost categories are based on the same set of changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. They represent a 2.6 percent increase in this series for the 12-month period, from November 2017 through November 2018 (from 271.152 in November 2017 to 278.306 in November 2018).

Presentation of the 2019 maximum per meal rates for meals served to children in SFSP combines the results from the calculations of operational and administrative payments, which are further explained in this notice. The total amount of payments to State agencies for disbursement to SFSP sponsors will be based upon these adjusted combined rates and the number of meals of each type served. These adjusted rates will be in effect from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019.

These changes are reflected below.

All States except Alaska and Hawaii —Rural or Self-prep Sites—Breakfast—2 dollars and 29.75 cents (6.5 cent increase from the 2018 reimbursement rate), Lunch or Supper—4 dollars and 3.25 cents (11 cent increase), Snack—95.25 cents (2.25 cent increase); All Other Types of Sites—Breakfast—2 dollars and 25.5 cents (6.5 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—3 dollars and 96.75 cents (11 cent increase), Snack—93.25 cents (2.25 cent increase).

Alaska —Rural or Self-prep Sites—Breakfast—3 dollars and 72.5 cents (9.75 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—6 dollars and 52.75 cents (16.5 cent increase), Snack—1 dollar and 54.75 cents (4.5 cent increase); All Other Types of Sites—Breakfast—3 dollars and 65.5 cents (9.5 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—6 dollars and 42.25 cents (16.25 cent increase), Snack—1 dollar and 51.25 cents (4.25 cent increase).

Hawaii —Rural or Self-prep Sites—Breakfast—2 dollars and 68.25 cents (6.5 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—4 dollars and 71.5 cents (12 cent increase), Snack—1 dollar and 11.25 cents (2.5 cent increase); All Other Types of Sites—Breakfast—2 dollars and 63.25 cents (6.5 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—4 dollars and 64 cents (12 cent increase), Snack—1 dollar and 8.5 cents (2.25 cent increase).

The portion of the SFSP rates for operating costs is based on payment amounts set in section 13(b)(1) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(1). They are rounded down to the nearest whole cent, as required by section 11(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(3)(B)(iii).

These changes are reflected below.

All States except Alaska and Hawaii —Breakfast—2 dollars and 9 cents (6 cents increase from the 2018 reimbursement rate), Lunch or Supper—3 dollars and 65 cents (10 cents increase), Snack—85 cents (2 cents increase).

Alaska —Breakfast—3 dollars and 39 cents (9 cents increase), Lunch or Supper—5 dollars and 91 cents (15 cents increase), Snack—1 dollar and 38 cents (4 cents increase).

Hawaii —Breakfast—2 dollars and 44 cents (6 cents increase), Lunch or Supper—4 dollars and 27 cents (11 cents increase), Snack—99 cents (2 cents increase).

The administrative cost component of the reimbursement is authorized under section 13(b)(3) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(3). Rates are higher for sponsors of sites located in rural areas and for “self-prep” sponsors that prepare their own meals at the SFSP site or at a central facility instead of purchasing them from vendors. The administrative portion of SFSP rates are adjusted, either up or down, to the nearest quarter-cent.

These changes are reflected below.

All States except Alaska and Hawaii —Rural or Self-prep Sites—Breakfast—20.75 cents (0.5 cent increase from the 2018 reimbursement rate), Lunch or Supper—38.25 cents (1 cent increase), Snack—10.25 cents (0.25 cent increase); All Other Types of Sites—Breakfast—16.50 cents (0.5 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—31.75 cents (1 cent increase), Snack 8.25 cents (0.25 cent increase).

Alaska —Rural or Self-prep Sites—Breakfast—33.50 cents (0.75 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—61.75 cents (1.5 cent increase), Snack—16.75 cents (0.5 cent increase); All Other Types of Sites—Breakfast—26.50 cents (0.5 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—51.25 cents (1.25 cent increase), Snack—13.25 cents (0.25 cent increase).

Hawaii —Rural or Self-prep Sites—Breakfast—24.25 cents (0.5 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—44.50 cents (1 cent increase), Snack—12.25 cents (0.5 cent increase); All Other Types of Sites—Breakfast—19.25 cents (0.5 cent increase), Lunch or Supper—37 cents (1 cent increase), Snack—9.5 cents (0.25 cent increase).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following are the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be effective from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. The Department's guidelines for free meals and milk and reduced price meals were obtained by multiplying the year 2019 Federal income poverty guidelines by 1.30 and 1.85, respectively, and by rounding the result upward to the next whole dollar.

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

Income calculations are made based on the following formulas: Monthly income is calculated by dividing the annual income by 12; twice monthly income is computed by dividing annual income by 24; income received every two weeks is calculated by dividing annual income by 26; and weekly income is computed by dividing annual income by 52. All numbers are rounded upward to the next whole dollar. The numbers reflected in this notice for a family of four in the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, Guam and the territories represent an increase of 2.6 percent over last year's level for a family of the same size.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-260-1479 and conference call ID number: 6222890. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-260-1479 and conference call ID number: 6222890.

Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at ero@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at: https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzjXAAQ, click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

Agenda: Friday, March 29, 2019.

Background

On December 7, 2012, Commerce published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. 1 On November 1, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of this sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 On November 13, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1), Commerce received a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset review from SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (SolarWorld), in which SolarWorld claimed interested party status as a domestic producer of solar cells under section 771(9)(C) of the Act. 3 This notice was filed within the time period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 4 On December 1, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), SolarWorld filed a timely and adequate substantive response. 5 Commerce did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) first sunset review of the Order. 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. Commerce also notified the ITC of the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail should the Order be revoked. 6 On March 7, 2019, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD duty order on solar cells from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 7

The merchandise covered by the Order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials. The Order covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell. Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the Order.

Excluded from the scope of this Order are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Also excluded from the scope of this Order are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000mm2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.

Additionally, excluded from the scope of this Order are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm2 to 33,782 mm2 with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22 AWG or 24 AWG not more than 206 mm in length when measured from panel extrusion), and not exceeding 2.9 volts, 1.1 amps, and 3.19 watts. For the purposes of this exclusion, no panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports.

Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in China are covered by this Order; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in China from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by this Order.

Merchandise covered by this Order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, 8501.31.8000, 8541.40.6015, 8541.40.6035, 8541.40.6025, and 8541.40.6045. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive.

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 section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on solar cells from China. 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 and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next sunset review of the Order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

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

Title of Collection: Report of Terms of Credit Card Plan.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0001.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Private Sector.

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 175.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 63.

Abstract: Form FR 2572 collects data on credit card pricing and availability from a sample of at least 150 financial institutions that offer credit cards. The data enable the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to present information to the public on terms of credit card plans. The Bureau has introduced an online channel for submission that has driven down burden costs for participating institutions.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title of Collection: Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) 12 CFR 1002.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0013.

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

Affected Public: Private Sector.

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 472,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,220,992.

Abstract: The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) was enacted to ensure that credit is made available to all creditworthy applicants without discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or other prohibited bases under the ECOA. The ECOA allows for creditors to collect information for self-testing against these criteria, while not allowing creditors to use this information in making credit decisions of applicants. For certain mortgage applications, the ECOA requires creditors to ask for some of the prohibited information for monitoring purposes. In addition, for certain mortgage applications, creditors are required to send a copy of any appraisal or written valuation used in the application process to the applicant in a timely fashion.

The ECOA also prescribes that creditors inform applicants of decisions made on credit applications. In particular, where creditors make adverse actions on credit applications or existing accounts, creditors must inform consumers as to why the adverse action was taken, such that credit applicants can challenge errors or learn how to become more creditworthy. Creditors must retain all application information for 25 months, including notices they sent and any information related to adverse actions.

Finally, the ECOA requires creditors who furnish applicant information to a consumer reporting agency to reflect participation of the applicant's spouse, if the spouse if permitted to use or contractually liable on the account.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

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

Title of Collection: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2019-20 through 2021-22.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0582.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 67,785.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 782,921.

Abstract: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) seeks authorization from OMB to make a change to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection. Current authorization expires February 29, 2020 (OMB# 1850-0582 v.20-23). NCES is requesting a new clearance for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 data collections to enable us to make a change to six of the IPEDS data collection components, clarify definitions and instructions throughout the components, and to continue the IPEDS collection of postsecondary data over the next three years. IPEDS is a web-based data collection system designed to collect basic data from all postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions. IPEDS enables NCES to report on key dimensions of postsecondary education such as enrollments, degrees and other awards earned, tuition and fees, average net price, student financial aid, graduation rates, student outcomes, revenues and expenditures, faculty salaries, and staff employed. The IPEDS web-based data collection system was implemented in 2000-01. In 2017-18, IPEDS collected data from 6,642 postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions that are eligible to participate in Title IV Federal financial aid programs. All Title IV institutions are required to respond to IPEDS (Section 490 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 [Pub. L. 102-325]). IPEDS allows other (non-title IV) institutions to participate on a voluntary basis; approximately 200 non-title IV institutions elect to respond each year. IPEDS data are available to the public through the College Navigator and IPEDS Data Center websites. This clearance package includes a number of proposed changes to the data collection. As part of the public comment period review, NCES requests that IPEDS data submitters and other stakeholders respond to the directed questions found in Appendix D of this submission.

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

Title of Collection: Student Aid internet Gateway (SAIG) Enrollment Document.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0002.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 48,013.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,942.

Abstract: This is a request for an extension of the approval of the Student Aid internet Gateway (SAIG) Enrollment forms. These forms allow various Department program partners to apply to participate with the Department in electronically transmitting and receiving data regarding federal student aid programs. These documents are updated annually. This request includes up-dates to award year dates, language clarifications and updated disclosures. No new information is being requested.

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

Title of Collection: Loan Cancellation in the Federal Perkins Loan Program.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0100.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 116,872.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 43,832.

Abstract: This is a request for an extension of the OMB approval for the record-keeping requirements contained in 34 CFR 674.53, 674.56, 674.57, 674.58 and 674.59. The information collections in these regulations are necessary to determine Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Program borrower's eligibility to receive program benefits and to prevent fraud and abuse of program funds.

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

Title of Collection: Foreign Graduate Medical School Consumer Information Reporting Form.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0117.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 24.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 384.

Abstract: This is a request for an extension of the information collection to obtain consumer information from foreign graduate medical institutions that participate in the Federal Direct Loan Program. The form is used for reporting specific graduation information to the Department of Education in accordance with 34 CFR 668.14(b)(7). This is done to improve consumer information available to prospective U.S. medical student interested in foreign medical institutions.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note the three collections are distinct.

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

OMB Control No.: 1902-0215.

Abstract: In accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), the Commission implemented the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA 1935) and implemented the provisions of a newly enacted Public Utility Holding Company Act 2005 (PUHCA 2005). Pursuant to PUHCA 2005, the Commission requires centralized service companies to file the Form No. 60, unless the company is exempted or granted a waiver pursuant to the Commission's regulations. The information collected in Form No. 60 enables better monitoring for cross-subsidization, and aids the Commission in carrying out its statutory responsibilities. In addition, centralized service companies are required to follow the Commission's preservation of records requirements for centralized service companies.

Form No. 60 is an annual reporting requirement for centralized service companies set forth in 18 CFR 366.23. The report's function is to collect financial information (including balance sheet, assets, liabilities, billing and charges for associated and non-associated companies) from centralized service companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Unless the Commission exempts or grants a waiver pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3 and 366.4 to the holding company system, every centralized service company in a holding company system must prepare and file electronically with the FERC the Form No. 60, pursuant to the General Instructions in the form.

FERC-61 is a filing requirement for service companies in holding company systems (including special purpose companies) that are currently exempt or granted a waiver of FERC's regulations and would not have to file the FERC Form No. 60. Instead, those service companies are required to file, on an annual basis, a narrative description of the service company's functions during the prior calendar year (FERC-61). In complying, a holding company may make a single filing on behalf of all of its service company subsidiaries.

The Commission's regulations prescribe a mandated preservation of records requirements for holding companies and service companies (unless otherwise exempted by FERC). This requires them to maintain and make available to FERC, their books and records. The preservation of records requirement provides for uniform records retention by holding companies and centralized service companies subject to PUHCA 2005.

Data from the FERC Form No. 60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A provide a level of transparency that: (1) Helps protect ratepayers from pass-through of improper service company costs, (2) enables the Commission to review and determine cost allocations (among holding company members) for certain non-power goods and services, (3) aids the Commission in meeting its oversight and market monitoring obligations, and (4) benefits the public, both as ratepayers and investors. In addition, the Commission's audit staff uses these records during compliance reviews and special analyses.

If data from the FERC Form No. 60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A were not available, it would be difficult for the Commission to meet its statutory responsibilities under EPAct 1992, EPAct of 2005, and PUHCA 2005, and the Commission would have fewer of the regulatory mechanisms necessary to ensure transparency and protect ratepayers.

Type of Respondent: Centralized service companies

Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

Total Annual Cost: $4,409,919 (Paperwork Burden) + $47,133.45 (Record Retention) = $4,453,052.45.

A more accurate breakdown of the FERC-60/61/555A cost categories follows:

Labor Cost: The total estimated annual cost for labor burden to respondents is $4,405,919 [$185,211 (FERC Form No. 60) + $1,548 (FERC-61) + $4,219,160 (FERC-555A)].

FERC Form No. 60: 2925 hours (75 hours × 39 respondents) * $63.32/hour = $185,211.

FERC-61: 39 hours (.5 hours × 78 respondents) * $39.68/hour = $1,548.

FERC-555A: 126,360 hours (1080 hours × 117 respondents) * $33.39/hour = $4,219,160.

Storage Cost:   8 In addition to the labor (burden cost provided above) the table reflects an additional cost for record retention and storage:

• Paper storage costs (using an estimate of 60 cubic feet × $6.46 per cubic foot): $387.60 per respondent annually. Total annual paper storage cost to industry ($387.60 × 117 respondents): $45,349.20. This estimate assumes that a respondent stores the same volume of paper as it did in the past and that the cost of such storage has not changed. We expect that this estimate should trend downward over time as more companies move away from paper storage and rely more heavily on electronic storage.

• Electronic storage costs: $15.25 per respondent annually. Total annual electronic storage cost to industry ($15.25 × 117 respondents): $1,784.25. This calculation retains the previous estimate that storage of 1GB per year cost of $15.25. We expect that this estimate should trend downward over time as the cost of electronic storage technology, including cloud storage, continues to decrease. For example, external hard drives of approximately 500GB are available for approximately $50. In addition, cloud storage plans from multiple providers for 1TB of storage (with a reasonable amount of requests and data transfers) are available for less than $35 per month.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1214.

Title: Direct Access to Numbers Order, FCC 15-70, Conditions.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 13 respondents; 13 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 40 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time application, on-going and bi-annual reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C 251(e)(1).

Total Annual Burden: 520 hours.

Total Annual Costs: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: If respondents submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

Needs and Uses: In a June 2015 Report and Order (FCC 15-70), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the Numbering Authorization Application process, which allows interconnected VoIP providers to apply for a blanket authorization from the FCC that, once granted, will allow them to demonstrate that they have the authority to provide service in specific areas, thus enabling them to request numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators. This collection covers the information and certifications that applicants must submit in order to comply with the Numbering Authorization Application process. The data, information, and documents acquired through this collection will allow interconnected VoIP providers to obtain numbers with minimal burden or delay while also preventing providers from obtaining numbers without first demonstrating that they can deploy and properly utilize such resources. This information will also help the FCC protect against number exhaust while promoting competitive neutrality among traditional telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP providers by allowing both entities to obtain numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators. It will further help the FCC to maintain efficient utilization of numbering resources and ensure that telephone numbers are not being stranded.

This meeting is open to members of the general public. The meeting will be webcast with open captioning at: www.fcc.gov/ live. In addition, a reserved amount of time will be available on the agenda for comments and inquiries from the public. Members of the public may comment or ask questions of presenters via the email address livequestions@fcc.gov.

The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations or for materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) should be submitted via email to: fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Requests should be made as early as possible; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.

Proposed Agenda: At this meeting, the DAC is expected to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the Committee and its members; issues that the Committee will address; meeting schedules; and any other topics relevant to the DAC's work. The DAC may also receive briefings from Commission staff on issues of interest to the Committee and may discuss topics of interest to the committee, including, but not limited to, matters concerning communications transitions, telecommunications relay services, emergency access, and video programming accessibility.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

2. 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;

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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

Ingress/egress and work boot outsole wear investigation at surface mines (OMB Control No. 0920-1125, Expiration Date 9/30/2019)—Extension—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety & health at work for all people through research and prevention. NIOSH, under Public Law 91-173 as amended by Public Law 95-164 (Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977) has the responsibility to conduct research to improve working conditions and to prevent accidents and occupational diseases in the U.S. mining sector. The goal of the proposed project is to investigate how ingress/egress systems on mobile equipment, and personal protective footwear (boots) used by miners may lead to slips, trips and falls at stone, sand and gravel surface mining facilities. NIOSH is requesting a 2-year extension for this data collection. The extension is requested to help complete data collection for the boot outsole wear study. The results of the boot outsole wear study will be used to inform mine policy and practices by providing miners and mine managers with the knowledge to determine when to replace footwear based on measurable features of the boot outsoles.

The project objective will be achieved through two studies. The first study aims to: Identify elements of ingress/egress systems on haulage trucks and front end loaders that pose a risk of slips, trips, and falls (STFs) and could lead to STF related injuries; to determine worker behavior associated with STF incidents; and to learn how purchasing/maintenance decisions are made for ingress/egress systems. In the surface mining industry, it is still unclear which component of the ingress/egress system poses the greatest risk for STF. Hence, there is a need to understand where, how, and why STF incidents occur during ingress/egress on mobile equipment.

NIOSH will conduct semi-structured interviews and focus groups with mobile equipment operators, and interviews will be conducted with mine management to explore the issues identified above. Focus groups will be conducted in a private setting with 4-6 participants using a predefined list of questions to help guide the discussion. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted either in person or over the telephone. Two separate interview guides will be used for mobile equipment operators and mine management to guide the discussion.

For the focus groups and semi-structured interviews, NIOSH will collect basic demographic information including years of mining experience, years of experience with haul trucks/front end loaders, and models of haul trucks/front end loaders operated most often in the past year. The semi-structured interviews and focus groups will be audio recorded for further analysis of the discussion. The semi-structured interviews will last no longer than 60 minutes and the focus groups will last no longer than 90 minutes.

The second study aims to identify changes in tread (wear) on the work boot outsoles and other outsole characteristics of the boot outsole which that will be used in further analysis to develop guidelines for work boot replacement based on measureable features of boot outsoles. This information will also be used in further analysis to and to determine desirable and undesirable features of work boots based on mine characteristics or job activities. Most mining companies replace footwear at a pre-determined interval, or based on appearance and comfort with little knowledge of the actual condition of the boot outsole and its influence on the likelihood of a STF incident. Although there have been attempts to quantify shoe outsole wear in industrial work when the shoe was ready for disposal, there is a lack of knowledge in the mining industry on how quickly the outsoles of work boots wear, what sorts of wear occur, and how wear patterns influence the likelihood of a STF. This study aims to address this concern through two parts: A longitudinal study of boot outsole wear characteristics and a cross-sectional evaluation of boot outsoles characteristics.

For the longitudinal study, NIOSH will provide participants with a pair of new work boots of their choice, in accordance with their respective mine requirements and policies. Afterwards, participants will complete a preliminary survey and provide some basic demographic information, details of their current work boots, and details of STF incidents in the past 3 months. Participants will be requested to wear the supplied boots at work and treat the boots as they would any pair of work boots they would commonly wear at work.

NIOSH researchers will scan the boot outsoles longitudinally, at 2-3 month intervals for the length of the study. To better understand wear patterns and risks, participants will complete a recurring survey that records hours worked, locations commonly visited, and tasks performed along with details of any near miss or STF events. These self-reports will be collected via survey on a bi-weekly basis. Participants will be offered multiple modalities to respond to the survey (in-person, on paper, over the telephone, via email or using an online survey) to increase response rates. When a participant feels their boots need to be replaced (or when the end of the two-year tracking period has been reached), at the end of the study, the participant will complete a final survey assessing why the boots were at the end of their life, and will return their boots to NIOSH researchers for further analysis.

For the cross cross-sectional study, participants' current work boots will be scanned and participants will complete the preliminary survey that includes basic demographic information, details of current work boots, and details of STF slip, trip or fall events in the past three months.

The results of these research studies will have very different applications, but one goal: Reducing the risks of STF accidents at surface mining facilities. The total estimated burden hours are 643. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

2. 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;

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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

National Syndromic Surveillance Program—Revision—Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Syndromic surveillance uses syndromic data and statistical tools to detect, monitor, and characterize unusual activity for further public health investigation or response. Syndromic data include electronic extracts of electronic health records (EHRs) from patient encounter data from emergency departments, urgent care, ambulatory care, and inpatient healthcare settings, as well as pharmacy and laboratory data. Though these data are being captured for different purposes, they are monitored in near real-time as potential indicators of an event, a disease, or an outbreak of public health significance. On the national level, these data are used to improve nationwide situational awareness and enhance responsiveness to hazardous events and disease outbreaks to protect America's health, safety, and security.

The BioSense Program was created by congressional mandate as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and was launched by the CDC in 2003. The BioSense Program has since been expanded into the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) which promotes and advances development of a syndromic surveillance system for the timely exchange of syndromic data.

CDC requests a three-year approval for a Revision for NSSP (OMB Control No. 0920-0824, Expiration Date 5/31/2019). This Revision includes a new request for approval to receive onboarding data from state, local and territorial public health departments about healthcare facilities in their jurisdiction.

NSSP features the BioSense Platform and a collaborative Community of Practice. The BioSense Platform is a secure integrated electronic health information system that CDC provides, primarily for use by state, local and territorial public health departments. It includes standardized analytic tools and processes that enable users to rapidly collect, evaluate, share, and store syndromic surveillance data. NSSP promotes a Community of Practice in which participants collaborate to advance the science and practice of syndromic surveillance. Health departments use the BioSense Platform to receive healthcare data from facilities in their jurisdiction, conduct syndromic surveillance, and share the data with other jurisdictions and CDC.

The BioSense Platform provides the ability to analyze healthcare encounter data from EHRs, as well as laboratory data. All EHR and laboratory data reside outside of CDC in a cloud-enabled, web-based platform that has Authorization to Operate from CDC. The BioSense Platform sits in the secure, private Government Cloud which is simply used as a storage and processing mechanism, as opposed to on-site servers at CDC. This environment provides users with easily managed on-demand access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources such as networks, servers, software, tools, storage, and services, with limited need for additional IT support. Each site ( i.e., state or local public health department) controls its data within the cloud and is provided with free secure data storage space with tools for posting, receiving, controlling and analyzing their data; an easy-to-use data display dashboard; and a shared environment where users can collaborate and advance public health surveillance practice. Each site is responsible for creating its own data use agreements with the facilities that are sending the data, retains ownership of any data it contributes to its exclusive secure space, and can share data with CDC or users from other sites.

NSSP has three different types of information collection:

(1) Collection of onboarding data about healthcare facilities needed for state, local, and territorial public health departments to submit EHR data to the BioSense Platform;

(2) Collection of registration data needed to allow users access to the BioSense Platform tools and services; and

(3) Collection of data sharing permissions so that state and local health departments can share data with other state and local health departments and CDC.

Healthcare data shared with CDC can include: EHR data received by state and local public health departments from facilities, including hospital emergency departments and inpatient settings, urgent care, and ambulatory care; laboratory tests ordered and their results from LabCorp, a national private sector laboratory company; and EHR data from the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATs).

Respondents include state, local, and territorial public health departments. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate. The only burden incurred by the health departments are for submitting onboarding data about facilities to CDC, submitting registration data about users to CDC, and setting up data sharing permissions with CDC. The estimated annual burden is 195 hours.

Contents

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

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicaid Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement Programs, State Review of Accreditation Status, Medicaid Managed Care Quality Rating System, and Quality Strategy (QS) and Supporting Regulations; Use: Medicaid beneficiaries and stakeholders use the information collected and reported to understand the state's quality improvement goals and objectives, and to understand how the state is measuring progress on its goals. States use this information to help monitor and assess the performance of their Medicaid managed care programs. This information may assist states in comparing the outcomes of quality improvement efforts and can assist them in identifying future performance improvement subjects. CMS uses this information as a part of its oversight of Medicaid programs. Form Number: CMS-10553 (OMB control number: 0938-1281); Frequency: Yearly and occasionally; Affected Public: Private sector (business or other for profits) and State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 603; Total Annual Responses: 6,441; Total Annual Hours: 52,343. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Barbara Dailey at 410-786-9012.)

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection: Developing Systemic Drug Products for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis.” The purpose of this guidance is to provide to sponsors nonclinical and clinical recommendations specific to the development of systemic drug products, with a focus on long-acting systemic drug products (including small molecules and monoclonal antibodies) for the prevention of sexually acquired human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) infection. Specifically, this guidance addresses FDA's current thinking regarding the overall development program and clinical trial designs to support the development of systemic drug products for the prevention of HIV-1 infection. FDA recognizes the challenges in evaluating systemic drug products for the prevention of sexually acquired HIV-1 infection. FDA continues to evaluate possible approaches for the development of new therapies for HIV prevention and will update this guidance if new information becomes available.

This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on June 14, 2018 (83 FR 27782). All public comments received on the draft guidance have been considered and the guidance has been revised as appropriate, along with a few editorial changes.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection: Developing Systemic Drug Products for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information submitted under 21 CFR part 312 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collection of information submitted under 21 CFR part 314 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Pediatric HIV Infection: Drug Product Development for Treatment.” The purpose of this guidance is to provide general recommendations on the development of antiretroviral drug products for the treatment of HIV infection in pediatric patients. The guidance addresses when to initiate pediatric formulation development and begin pediatric studies and offers approaches for enrollment of subjects into pediatric studies to help expedite drug product development. This guidance incorporates the comments received for and finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22270). Changes made to the draft guidance took into consideration written and verbal comments received. In addition to editorial changes primarily for clarification, the major changes are as follows:

• Inclusion of a statement to address neonates and

• Considerations on how to analyze the adolescent data when adolescents are included in the adult phase 3 clinical trials.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Pediatric HIV Infection: Drug Product Development for Treatment.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312, 21 CFR part 314, and 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014, 0910-0001, and 0910-0572, respectively.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm , https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm , or https://www.regulations.gov .

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on Monday, November 26, 2018 at 83 FR 60443.

Title of Information Collection: Manufactured Housing Survey.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-0029.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Form Number: Form—C-MH-9A.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Manufactured Housing Survey collects data on the characteristics of newly manufactured homes placed for residential use. Key data collected includes sales price and the number of units placed and sold within 4 months of shipment. Other selected housing characteristics collected include size, location, and titling. HUD uses the statistics to respond to a Congressional mandate in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 5424 note, which requires HUD to collect and report manufactured home sales and price information for the nation, census regions, states, and selected metropolitan areas and to monitor whether new manufactured homes are being placed on owned rather than rented lots. HUD also used these data to monitor total housing production and its affordability.

Furthermore, the Manufactured Housing Survey serves as the basis for HUD's mandated indexing of loan limits. Section 2145 (b) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 requires HUD to develop a method of indexing to annually adjust Title I manufactured home loan limits. This index is based on manufactured housing price data collected by this survey. Section 2145 of the HERA of 2008 also amends the maximum loan limits for manufactured home loans insured under Title I. HUD implemented the revised loan limits, as shown below, for all manufactured home loans for which applications are received on or after March 3, 2009.

Method of Collection: The methodology for collecting information on new manufactured homes involves contacting dealers from a monthly sample of new manufactured homes shipped by manufacturers. The units are sampled from lists obtained from the Institute for Building Technology and Safety. Dealers that take shipment of the selected homes are mailed a survey form four months after shipment for recording the status of the manufactured home.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 83 FR 45955.

Title of Information Collection: 2019 American Housing Survey.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-0017.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Form Number: None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The purpose of the American Housing Survey (AHS) is to supply the public with detailed and timely information about housing quality, housing costs, and neighborhood assets, in support of effective housing policy, programs, and markets. Title 12, United States Code, Sections 1701Z-1, 1701Z-2(g), and 1710Z-10a mandates the collection of this information.

Like the previous surveys, the 2019 AHS will collect “core” data on subjects, such as the amount and types of changes in the housing inventory, the physical condition of the housing inventory, the characteristics of the occupants, housing costs for owners and renters, the persons eligible for and beneficiaries of assisted housing, remodeling and repair frequency, reasons for moving, the number and characteristics of vacancies, and characteristics of resident's neighborhood. In addition to the “core” data, HUD plans to collect supplemental data on post-secondary education, modifications made to assist occupants living with disabilities, and information on people's concerns regarding the availability and affordability of food.

The AHS national longitudinal sample consists of approximately 85,200 housing units, and includes oversample from the largest 15 metropolitan areas, and approximately 5,200 HUD-assisted housing units. In addition to the national longitudinal sample, HUD plans to conduct 10 additional metropolitan area longitudinal samples, each with approximately 3,000 housing units (for a total 30,000 metropolitan area housing units). The 10 additional metropolitan area longitudinal samples were last surveyed in 2015.

To help reduce respondent burden on households in the longitudinal sample, the 2019 AHS will make use of dependent interviewing techniques, which will decrease the number of questions asked. Policy analysts, program managers, budget analysts, and Congressional staff use AHS data to advise executive and legislative branches about housing conditions and the suitability of public policy initiatives. Academic researchers and private organizations also use AHS data in efforts of specific interest and concern to their respective communities.

HUD needs the AHS data for two important uses.

1. With the data, policy analysts can monitor the interaction among housing needs, demand and supply, as well as changes in housing conditions and costs, to aid in the development of housing policies and the design of housing programs appropriate for different target groups, such as first-time home buyers and the elderly.

2. With the data, HUD can evaluate, monitor, and design HUD programs to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

In addition to the core 2019 AHS, HUD plans to collect supplemental data on housing insecurity in a follow-on survey to the AHS. Housing insecurity is defined as a significant lapse for a given household of one or more elements of secure housing. These elements include affordability, stable occupancy, and whether the housing is decent and safe. “Affordability” implies that shelter costs are manageable over the long term without severely burdening or compromising other consumption that normally is essential for health and well-being. The second element, “stable occupancy”, implies that the household does not face substantial risk of involuntary displacement for economic or non-economic reasons. The final element, “decent and safe”, implies that a unit has physical attributes that satisfy functional needs for well-being related to health, security, and support for activities of daily living. Such attributes include appropriate facilities for excluding external threats, providing climate control, storing and preparing food, maintaining physical and mental hygiene, and developing human potential. Not included are aspects of the neighborhood or environment that one encounters beyond the confines of the structure or property.

HUD plans to conduct the Housing Insecurity Follow-On survey concurrently with the 2019 AHS. Respondents who meet certain criteria based on their responses to the 2019 AHS will be recruited at the end of the production questionnaire and offered an incentive of $40 to participate. Of the respondents who agree to participate in the follow-on survey, a total of 4,000 responses will be collected via telephone. Once the follow-on interview has been completed, respondents will receive the incentive for their participation. Data collected from this follow-on survey will be used for research and scale development purposes.

HUD needs the AHS Housing Insecurity Follow-On data for two important uses. With the data: 1. HUD can evaluate the feasibility of collecting data on housing insecurity and better define housing insecurity.

2. HUD can measure the quality of the questions asked regarding housing insecurity and develop a composite housing insecurity scale.

HUD intends to test the use of incentives to reduce non-response bias in the AHS. The proposed incentive project will test whether offering incentives in geographic areas with a high risk of non-response can successfully increase responses from communities that would otherwise be underrepresented, resulting in lower non-response bias. Conditions will be compared to determine sensitivity to the amount of the incentive in motivating response compared to a no-incentive control.

The incentive project will address the following research questions:

1. Can incentives reduce non-response bias in the AHS?

2. Where is the inflection point for diminishing marginal returns for monetary incentives?

3. What are the long-term effects of introducing incentives into a panel survey?

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

The BLM developed the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment to enhance cooperation with states by improving alignment with state management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. The Approved RMP Amendment also addresses a legal vulnerability, which was exposed when a Federal District Court in Nevada determined that the BLM had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it finalized the 2015 plans.

The BLM developed the Approved RMP Amendment in collaboration with the Wyoming Governor's Office, state wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM amends land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with State of Wyoming plans and management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission.

This Approved RMP Amendment is one of six separate plan amendments developed and issued in response to the Secretary's Order (S.O.) 3353 (Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States) and in accordance with S.O. 3349 (American Energy Independence). The amendments refine the previous management plan adopted in 2015 to strike a regulatory balance and build greater trust among neighboring interests in Western communities.

The Wyoming Greater-Sage Grouse Approved RMP Amendment specifically addresses sagebrush focal areas, mitigation standards, clarification of habitat objectives tables, adjustments to habitat boundaries to reflect new information, and reversing adaptive management responses when the BLM determines that resource conditions no longer warrant those responses. The Approved RMP Amendment amends the following RMPs for BLM-administered lands in Wyoming:

The planning area includes approximately 60 million acres of BLM, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, state, local, and private lands located in 20 counties in Wyoming: Albany, Bighorn, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Hot Springs, Johnson, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Park, Sheridan, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, Washakie, and Weston. Within the decision area, the BLM administers approximately 18 million acres of public land, providing approximately 17 million acres of priority and general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. The ROD approves the Agency Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS. The BLM issued the ROD in compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, and plans, including those guiding agency decisions that may have an impact on resources and their values, services, and functions.

On December 10, 2018, the BLM published the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS (83 FR 63525) in the Federal Register . The publication of the NOA initiated a 30-day protest period for the proposed land-use-planning decision. The protest period was later extended an additional seven days to help account for technical issues the public encountered when submitting protests during the partial Federal government shutdown in January 2019. The NOA publication also initiated a simultaneous 60-day review by the Governor of Wyoming to identify and inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs. At the close of the protest period, five protests had been received. These protests were resolved by the BLM Director; individual protest response letters were sent to all protesting parties. Protest resolution is contained in the Director's Protest Summary Report, which is available online at https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports. The proposed RMP Amendment was not modified as a result of the protest resolution. The Wyoming Governor's review identified the several editorial changes that were accepted by the BLM. The BLM clarified that the 2019 Amendment applies to the BLM's management for Sage-Grouse over all prior versions. The BLM made sure that Management Decision MD SSS-5 is consistent with MD SSS-6. BLM updated Appendix A management directions for special status species numbers 7 through 10 to be consistent with the State's strategy and the process outlined in management direction special status species number 4. The BLM rearranged the sentences within management direction special status species number 12 to place “measures would be considered at the site-specific project level where and when appropriate” at the end of the management action, thereby putting the emphasis on considering new information for noise management. The BLM clarified how components in Appendix C would be used to sufficiently demonstrate that no undue harm to core area populations would be expected as a result of the proposed action and would not impact the statewide viability of the species, providing references to additional processes used when making that determination.

The BLM developed the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment to enhance cooperation with States by improving alignment with State management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. The Approved RMP Amendment also addresses a legal vulnerability, which was exposed when a Federal District Court in Nevada determined that the BLM had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it finalized the 2015 plans.

The BLM developed the Approved RMP Amendment in collaboration with the Governor's Offices in Nevada and California, State wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM amends land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with the State of Nevada and the State of California plans and management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission.

This Approved RMP Amendment is one of six separate plan amendments developed and issued in response to the Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States) and in accordance with SO 3349 (American Energy Independence). The amendments refine the previous management plan adopted in 2015 and aim to strike a regulatory balance and build greater trust among neighboring interests in Western communities.

The Nevada and Northeastern California Approved RMP Amendment specifically addresses Sagebrush Focal Area designations, mitigation, adjustments to habitat management area designations to reflect new information, reversing adaptive management responses when the BLM determines that resource conditions no longer warrant those responses (in addition to addressing updates to the adaptive management strategy based on best available science), allocation exception processes, seasonal timing restrictions, modifying habitat objectives when best available science is available, and through plan clarification: Modifying lek buffers, requirements for required design features, and removal and/or modification to three livestock grazing management decisions in order to comply with 43 CFR 4160.1. The Approved RMP Amendment amends the following RMPs for BLM-administered lands in Nevada and Northeastern California:

The planning area includes approximately 70.3 million acres of BLM, National Park Service, United States Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, local, and private lands located in Nevada and northeastern California, in 17 counties: Churchill, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lassen, Lincoln, Lyon, Mineral, Modoc, Nye, Pershing, Plumas, Sierra, Storey, Washoe, and White Pine. Within the decision area, the BLM administers approximately 45.4 million acres of public lands, providing approximately 20.5 million acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Surface management decisions made in the Approved RMP Amendment apply only to lands administered by the BLM in the decision area.

The BLM prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the NEPA to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternatives. The ROD approves the Agency Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS. The BLM issued the ROD based on compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, and plans, including those guiding agency decisions that may have an impact on resources and their values, services, and functions. On December 10, 2018, the Notice of Action (NOA) for the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS (83 FR 63528) was published in the Federal Register . The publication of the NOA initiated a 30-day protest period for the proposed land-use-planning decision. The protest period was later extended an additional seven days to help account for technical issues the public encountered when submitting protests during the partial Federal government shutdown in January 2019. NOA publication also initiated a simultaneous 60-day review by the Governors of Nevada and California to identify any inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs. At the close of the protest period, 14 protests had been received. These protests were resolved by the BLM Director. Individual protest response letters were sent to all protesting parties. Protest resolution is contained in the Director's Protest Summary Report, which is available online at https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports . The Nevada Governor's review recommended that the BLM reference its Instruction Memorandum 2018-018 (Compensatory Mitigation) and the State of Nevada's Executive Order 2018-32 (order establishing use of the Nevada Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan and Conservation Credit System on state and Federal lands) within the Approved RMP Amendment, relative to compensatory mitigation and allocation exception management decisions. The BLM incorporated these references into the Approved RMP Amendment. The California Governor did not respond to the BLM within the 60-day review period, therefore the proposed RMP Amendment is presumed consistent with the State of California's policies and management strategies.

The BLM developed the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment to enhance cooperation with states by improving alignment with state management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat.

The BLM developed the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment in collaboration with Oregon Governor Kate Brown, State wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM amends land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to further improve alignment with the State of Oregon plans and management strategies in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission. The Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment is one of six separate plan amendments developed and issued in response to Secretarial Order (SO) 3353 (Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States) and in accordance with SO 3349 (American Energy Independence). The six amendments refine the previous management plans adopted in 2015 and aim to strike a regulatory balance and build greater trust among neighboring interests in Western communities.

The Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment specifically addresses the availability or unavailability of livestock grazing in 13 key Research Natural Areas and clarifies plan provisions related to compensatory mitigation. The Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment amends the following RMPs for lands administered by the BLM in Oregon:

The planning area includes approximately 60,649 acres of lands administered by the BLM in three Oregon counties: Harney, Lake, and Malheur. Within the decision area, the BLM administers approximately 21,959 acres of public lands, all of which is Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Surface management decisions made in the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment apply only to lands administered by the BLM in the decision area.

The BLM prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternatives. The ROD approves the agency preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS. The BLM issued the ROD based on compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, and plans, including those guiding agency decisions that may have an impact on resources and their values, services, and functions.

On December 10, 2018, the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS (83 FR 63524) was published in the Federal Register . The publication of the NOA initiated a 30-day protest period for the proposed land use planning decision. The protest period was later extended an additional seven days to help account for technical issues the public encountered when submitting protests during the partial Federal Government shutdown in January 2019. The NOA publication also initiated a simultaneous 60-day review by the Governor of Oregon to identify any inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs. At the close of the protest period, 12 protests had been received. These protests were resolved by the BLM Director; individual protest response letters were sent to all protesting parties. Protest resolution is contained in the Director's Protest Summary Report, which is available online at https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports. The Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment was not modified as a result of the protest resolution. The Oregon Governor's consistency review identified the following inconsistency: Language in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS related to compensatory mitigation failed to fully acknowledge the State of Oregon's jurisdiction, authorities, and abilities to require compensatory mitigation for impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. The BLM clarified in the ROD for the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment that, when the State of Oregon requires compensatory mitigation as a component of compliance with the State's mitigation program, policy, or state regulation, the BLM will incorporate and enforce that compensatory mitigation as a condition of permits or authorizations issued by BLM Oregon.

The BLM developed the Idaho Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment to enhance cooperation with States by improving alignment with State management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. The Approved RMP Amendment also addresses a legal vulnerability, which was exposed when a Federal District Court in Nevada determined that the BLM had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it finalized the 2015 plans.

The BLM developed the Approved RMP Amendment in collaboration with Idaho Governor Butch Otter, state wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Governor's stakeholder group comprised of members from the Idaho Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM amends land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with State of Idaho plans and management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission. This Approved RMP Amendment is one of six separate plan amendments developed and issued in response to the Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (Greater Sage-grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States) and in accordance with SO 3349 (American Energy Independence). The amendments refine the previous management plan adopted in 2015 and aim to strike a regulatory balance and build greater trust among neighboring interests in Western communities.

The Idaho Greater-Sage Grouse Approved RMP Amendment specifically addresses the designation of sagebrush focal areas, mitigation standards, lek buffers, disturbance and density caps, and adjustments to habitat boundaries to reflect new information. The Approved RMP Amendment amends the following RMPs for BLM-administered lands in Idaho:

The planning area includes approximately 39.5 million acres of BLM, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, local, and private lands in 28 counties: Ada, Adams, Bear Lake, Bingham, Blaine, Bonneville, Butte, Camas, Caribou, Cassia, Clark, Custer, Elmore, Fremont, Gem, Gooding, Jefferson, Jerome, Lemhi, Lincoln, Madison, Minidoka, Oneida, Owyhee, Payette, Power, Twin Falls, and Washington. Within the planning area, the BLM administers 11,470,301 acres of public land, providing 8,809,326 acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Surface management decisions made in the Approved RMP Amendment apply only to lands administered by the BLM in the decision area.

The BLM prepared an EIS in accordance with the NEPA to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternatives. The ROD approves the Agency Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS as updated by the Governor's consistency review and accepted by the Idaho State Director. The BLM issued the ROD based on compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, and plans, including those guiding agency decisions that may have an impact on resources and their values, services, and functions.

On December 10, 2018, the NOA for the Idaho Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS (83 FR 63531) was published in the Federal Register . The publication of the NOA initiated a 30-day protest period for the proposed land-use-planning decision. The protest period was later extended an additional seven days to help account for technical issues the public encountered when submitting protests during the partial Federal government shutdown in January 2019. NOA publication also initiated a simultaneous 60-day review by the Governor of Idaho to identify and inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs. At the close of the protest period, 8 protests had been received. These protests were resolved by the BLM Director; individual protest response letters were sent to all protesting parties. Protest resolution is contained in the Director's Protest Summary Report, which is available online at https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports . The proposed RMP Amendment was modified as a result of the protest resolution. The Idaho Governor's review identified several factual corrections/editorial changes that were accepted by BLM. The Governor also identified inconsistencies related to livestock grazing, buffers, required design features, and fire management.

The BLM clarified Management Direction MD LG 17 in the Approved RMP Amendment to the following: “Allotments within PHMA with declining sage-grouse populations, defined by a soft or hard adaptive management trigger being engaged and/or with land health concerns will be prioritized for field checks.” BLM removed redundant 2015 plan exception criteria from Appendix B. The intention was to remove the 2015 exception criteria when adding the stakeholder group's exception criteria between Draft EIS and Final EIS, but the deletion was overlooked when completing the Final EIS. BLM moved the noise buffer section located in the 2018 Final EIS to Required Design Features (RDF) as it was in the 2015 Approved RMP Amendment. BLM will include the words “as appropriate” to the anti-perch device RDF to allow the use of current and/or best science when making perch deterrent decisions.

The BLM developed the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment to enhance cooperation with States by improving alignment with State management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat.

The BLM developed the Approved RMP Amendment in collaboration with Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, State wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM amends land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with the State of Colorado plans and management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission.

This Approved RMP Amendment is one of six separate plan amendments developed and issued in response to the Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (Greater Sage-grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States) and in accordance with SO 3349 (American Energy Independence). The amendments refine the previous management plan adopted in 2015 and aim to strike a regulatory balance and build greater trust among neighboring interests in Western communities.

The Northwestern Colorado Greater-Sage Grouse Approved RMP Amendment specifically allows greater flexibility for the BLM to work with the State of Colorado on issues related to fluid minerals management and mitigation. The Approved RMP Amendment amends the following RMPs for BLM-administered lands in Colorado:

• Colorado River Valley RMP (BLM 2015).

• Grand Junction RMP (BLM 2015).

• Kremmling RMP (BLM 2015).

• Little Snake RMP (BLM 2011).

• White River RMP (BLM 1997) and associated amendments, including the White River Oil and Gas Amendment (BLM 2015).

The planning area is part of the larger Rocky Mountain Region and encompasses approximately 15 million acres, including 8.5 million acres of public lands managed by five BLM field offices in the 10 northwest Colorado counties of Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit. The planning area encompasses National Park Service, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Colorado, county, city, and private lands. Decisions in this RMP Amendment apply solely to BLM-administered surface (totaling approximately 1.7 million acres) and BLM-administered Federal mineral estate (approximately 2.1 million acres) within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Surface management decisions made in the Approved RMP Amendment apply only to lands administered by the BLM in the decision area.

The BLM prepared an EIS in accordance with the NEPA to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternatives. The ROD approves the Agency Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS. The BLM issued the ROD based on compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, and plans, including those guiding agency decisions that may have an impact on resources and their values, services, and functions.

On December 10, 2018, the NOA for the Northwestern Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS (83 FR 63523) was published in the Federal Register . The publication of the NOA initiated a 30-day protest period for the proposed land-use-planning decision. The protest period was later extended an additional seven days to help account for technical issues the public encountered when submitting protests during the partial Federal government shutdown in January 2019. NOA publication also initiated a simultaneous 60-day review by the Governor of Colorado to identify inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs. At the close of the protest period, 18 protests had been received. These protests were resolved by the BLM Director; individual protest response letters were sent to all protesting parties. Protest resolution is contained in the Director's Protest Summary Report, which is available online at https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports. The proposed RMP Amendment was not modified as a result of the protest resolution. The Colorado Governor's review identified minor clarifications to the plan which, if completed, resulted in the Governor's office agreeing that the plan is consistent with state plans, policies, and programs. Colorado BLM made the clarifications, including updating the Governor's 2018 Executive Order for Sage-grouse.

The BSWI Planning Area is located in western Alaska and encompasses approximately 62.3 million acres of land, including 13.5 million acres managed by the BLM. The planning area extends south from the Central Yukon watershed through the Kuskokwim River watershed, including all lands west of Denali National Park and Preserve to the Bering Sea. The BSWI RMP/EIS does not apply to non-BLM-managed lands, including lands conveyed through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act or Alaska Statehood Act; Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; private lands; or Native allotments (including townsite lots).

This RMP replaces the 1981 Southwest Management Framework Plan and a small portion of the 1986 Central Yukon Resource Management Plan, including amendments. It provides:

• Consolidated direction to address land and resource use and development on BLM-managed lands within the planning area and under one RMP, and

• Analysis of the environmental effects that could result from the implementation of the alternatives proposed in the BSWI Draft RMP/EIS.

This Draft RMP/EIS evaluates four alternatives for managing the planning area. Alternative A, the no action alternative, represents existing management described by current land use plans and provides the benchmark against which to compare the other alternatives. Alternative B emphasizes reducing the potential for competition between recreational or developmental uses and subsistence resources by identifying key areas for additional management actions. Alternative C, which is identified as the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management at the planning level to maintain the long-term sustainability of resources while providing for multiple resource uses. Alternative D provides additional flexibility at the project-specific implementation level and fewer management restrictions at the planning level. Alternatives B, C, and D were developed using input from the public, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies. Major planning issues addressed include subsistence resources, including water resources, fisheries, and wildlife; forestry; minerals and mining; recreation; travel management and access; and areas of critical environmental concern.

Section 810 of ANILCA requires BLM to evaluate the effects of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS on subsistence resources and activities, and to hold public hearings if it finds that any alternative may significantly restrict subsistence uses. The preliminary evaluation of subsistence impacts indicates that each of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS and the associated cumulative impacts may significantly restrict subsistence uses. Therefore, BLM will hold public hearings on subsistence resources and activities in conjunction with the Draft EIS public meetings in, or in the vicinity of, potentially affected communities.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The BLM developed the Approved RMPA using its discretion and authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to improve alignment with State management strategies and plans for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. The Approved RMPA also addressed Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) that were challenged in the Federal District Court in Nevada, who determined that the BLM had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in designating these SFAs in the 2015 plans.

The BLM developed the Approved RMPA in collaboration with Utah Governor Gary Herbert, State wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. This Approved RMPA is one of six separate plan amendments developed and issued in response to the Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (Greater Sage-grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States) and in accordance with SO 3349 (American Energy Independence). The amendments refine the previous management plan adopted in 2015 and aim to strike a regulatory balance and build greater trust among neighboring interests in Western communities.

The Utah Greater-Sage Grouse Approved RMPA specifically addresses the following issues: SFA designations; disturbance and density caps; mitigation; modification of habitat objectives; changes to fluid mineral leasing waivers, exceptions, and modification criteria; the need for General Habitat Management Areas; exceptions to Greater Sage-Grouse management within non-habitat portions of Priority Habitat Management Areas; lek buffers; reversing adaptive management responses when the BLM determines that resource conditions no longer warrant those responses; fluid mineral leasing objective; land disposals and exchanges; predation; burial of transmission lines; decisions that require analysis of specific alternatives during implementation; adjustment of habitat boundaries to reflect new information; grazing systems and prioritization of grazing permits; water developments management in relation to water rights; travel and transportation management planning; and surface coal mining. The Approved RMPA amends the following RMPs for BLM-administered lands in Utah:

The planning area includes approximately 48,158,700 acres of BLM, National Park Service, United States Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, local, and private lands located in Utah, in 27 counties: Beaver, Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Rich, Salt Lake, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Wayne, and Weber. Within the decision area, which is limited to the portions of the planning area that are BLM-managed lands, the BLM administers public lands that provide approximately 4.1 million acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, comprised of nearly 2.6 million acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of federal mineral estate. Surface management decisions made in the Approved RMPA apply only to lands administered by the BLM in the decision area.

The BLM prepared an EIS in accordance with the NEPA to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternatives. The ROD approves the Agency's Proposed Plan Amendment identified in the Final EIS. The BLM issued the ROD based on compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, and plans, including those guiding agency decisions that may have an impact on resources and their values, services, and functions.

On December 10, 2018, the NOA for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA and Final EIS (83 FR 63527) was published in the Federal Register . The publication of the NOA initiated a 30-day protest period for the proposed land-use-planning decision. The protest period was later extended an additional seven days to help account for technical issues the public encountered when submitting protests during the partial Federal government shutdown in January 2019. NOA publication also initiated a simultaneous 60-day consistency review by the Governor of Utah to identify any inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs. At the close of the protest period, the BLM received 8 protests. The BLM Director resolved these protests; individual protest response letters were sent to all protesting parties; and the RMPA was not modified as a result of the protest resolutions. Protest resolutions are contained in the Director's Protest Summary Report, which is available online at https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports. The BLM received the Utah Governor's review response on February 4, 2019. The Governor outlined some points of clarification regarding the implementation of disturbance and density caps, modification of habitat objectives, and application of sage-grouse lek buffers. His letter also recommended revisions to the 2019 Approved RMPA and ROD to recognize the recent changes to Utah's Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse, which creates more consistency between Utah's plan and the BLM's Approved RMPA. The State of Utah's disturbance cap in designated sage-grouse habitat was adjusted and set at three percent disturbance above their 2013 baseline, a change made to better align Utah's sage-grouse plan with the BLM's and is highlighted in the ROD. In addition to this change, Utah's plan was also updated to include a “Utah's Habitat Guidelines” table establishing habitat objectives. The BLM's Approved RMPA, Appendix B, has been updated to state that analysis determining impacts on lek persistence will be conducted in coordination with the appropriate State of Utah agency. The BLM also responded to the governor's letter by updating the ROD to document the ongoing coordination required to resolve the consistency issues he identified. In addition to updating the ROD, the BLM will present the field, district, and monument offices with a table and other implementation materials detailing the changes in the 2019 Approved RMPA and which actions from 2015 Approved RMPA will be affected upon the signing of the ROD.

The contracts listed below have been extended to the maximum allowable under 36 CFR 51.23. Under the provisions of the respective concession contracts and pending the completion of the public solicitation of a prospectus for a new concession contract, the National Park Service authorizes continuation of visitor services for a period not-to-exceed 1-year commencing January 1, 2019, under the terms and conditions of the current contract as amended. The continuation of operations does not affect any rights with respect to selection for award of a new concession contract. The publication of this notice merely reflects the intent of the National Park Service but does not bind the National Park Service to continue any of the contracts listed below.

All of the concession contracts listed in the first table below will expire by their terms on or before December 31, 2018. The National Park Service intends to extend the concession contracts shown until the specific date shown in the “Extension Date” column, or until the effective date of a new concession contract, whichever occurs first. For the second table, the contract is extended until the date shown in the “Extension Date” column. Under the provisions of current concession contracts, the National Park Service authorizes extension of visitor services for the listed contracts under the terms and conditions of the current contract (as amended if applicable). The extension of operations does not affect any rights with respect to selection for award of a new concession contract. The National Park Service has determined the proposed extensions are necessary to avoid interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such interruption. The publication of this notice merely reflects the intent of the National Park Service and does not bind the National Park Service to extend or award any of the contracts listed below.

The information in the third table shows concession contracts for which the National Park Service intends to award temporary concession contracts to qualified persons under the authority of 36 CFR 51.24(a), for a term not to exceed 3 years. The NPS intends for the temporary concession contracts to commence as of the specific dates shown in the “Effective Date” column. This notice is not a request for proposals.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

This Federal Register notice notifies the public that the Charter of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice has been renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Section 14(a)(1). The renewal Charter was signed by Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker on January 3, 2019. One can obtain a copy of the renewal Charter by accessing the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice's website at www.facjj.ojp.gov.

This Federal Register Notice notifies the public that the Charter of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice has been renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Section 14(a)(1). The renewal Charter was signed by Acting U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker on January 3, 2019. One can obtain a copy of the renewal Charter by accessing the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice's website at www.facjj.ojp.gov.

This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 36629, and one comment was received. The full submission may be found at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain .

NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Comments: On July 30, 2018, NSF published a request for public comment (83 FR 36629), and one comment was received regarding making this information collection a common form. NSF agrees, and will proceed with the request.

Comments regarding (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; or (d) ways to 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 should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725 17th Street NW, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314, or send email to splimpto@nsf.gov . Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.

Title of Collection: Research Performance Progress Report.

OMB Approval Number: 3145-0221.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend an information collection for three years.

Use of the Information: NSF developed the RPPR as a new service within Research.gov . This service replaced NSF's annual and interim project reporting capabilities which resided in the NSF FastLane System.

Information regarding NSF's implementation of the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) may be found at the following website: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rppr/index.jsp .

Burden on the Public: The Foundation estimates that an average of 5 hours is expended for each report submitted. An estimated 25,000 reports are expected during the course of one year for a total of 125,000 public burden hours annually.

The MOU defines the way in which the NRC and FDOH intend to cooperate in planning and maintaining the capability to transfer reactor plant data via ERDS. The ERDS data will be transmitted to the State of Florida only during emergencies classified at the Alert level or above, during scheduled tests, or during plant exercises when the data is available.

The NRC and the FDOH are entering into the MOU under the authority of Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The State of Florida recognizes the Federal government, primarily the NRC, as having the exclusive authority and responsibility to regulate the radiological and national security aspects of the construction and operation of nuclear production or utilization facilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, except for certain authority over air emissions granted to States by the Clean Air Act. Nothing in the MOU is intended to restrict or expand the scope of regulatory authority of either the NRC or the State of Florida.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), an agency of the State of Florida, enter into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under the authority of Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The State of Florida recognizes the Federal government, primarily the NRC, as having the exclusive authority and responsibility to regulate the radiological and national security aspects of the construction and operation of nuclear production or utilization facilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, except for certain authority over air emissions granted to States by the Clean Air Act. Nothing in this MOU is intended to restrict or expand the scope of regulatory authority of either the NRC or the State of Florida.

In the State of Florida, FDOH, through its Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC), is the State radiation control agency and implements the program regulating sources of radiation, not otherwise regulated by the NRC, for the protection of public health and safety. The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) administers emergency services and disaster preparedness programs in the State of Florida.

A. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, authorize the NRC to license and regulate, among other activities, the manufacture, construction, and operation of utilization facilities (nuclear power plants) in order to assure common defense and security and to protect the public health and safety. Under these statutes, the NRC is the agency responsible for regulating nuclear power plant safety and security.

B. The NRC's mission to protect public health and safety can be served by a policy of cooperation with State governments and has formally adopted a policy statement on “Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities” (54 Federal Register 7530, February 25, 1992). The policy statement provides that the NRC will consider State proposals to enter into instruments of cooperation for certain programs when these programs have provisions to ensure close cooperation with the NRC. This MOU is intended to be consistent with, and implement the provisions of, the NRC's policy statement.

C. The NRC fulfills its statutory mandate to regulate nuclear power plant safety by, among other things, monitoring the status of power reactor facilities and assessing the adequacy of licensees' responses to emergency situations.

D. The State of Florida fulfills, through FDOH, its statutory mandate to provide for preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant through its statutes located in sections 252.60 and 404.051, Florida Statutes.

A. This MOU defines the way in which the NRC and FDOH intend to cooperate in planning and maintaining the capability to transfer reactor plant data via the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) during emergencies at commercial nuclear power plants that have implemented an ERDS interface, and for which any portion of the plant's 10-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) lies within the State of Florida.

B. It is understood by the NRC and FDOH that ERDS data will only be transmitted to the State of Florida during emergencies classified at the Alert level or above, during scheduled tests, or during exercises when available.

C. Nothing in this MOU is intended to restrict or expand the statutory authority of the NRC, the State of Florida, FDOH, or FDEM, or to affect or otherwise alter the terms of any agreement in effect under the authority of Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; nor is anything in this MOU intended to restrict or expand the authority of the State of Florida, FDOH, or FDEM, on matters not within the scope of this MOU.

D. Nothing in this MOU confers upon the State of Florida, FDOH, or FDEM, the authority to (1) interpret or modify NRC regulations and NRC requirements imposed on the licensee; (2) take enforcement actions; (3) issue confirmatory letters; (4) amend, modify, or revoke a license issued by the NRC; or (5) direct or recommend nuclear power plant employees to take, or not take, any action. Authority for all such actions is reserved exclusively to the NRC.

E. This MOU does not confer any binding obligation or right of action on either party. This MOU does not obligate any funds and is subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Under this MOU, the NRC will maintain ERDS. ERDS is a system designed to receive, store, and retransmit data from in-plant data systems at nuclear power plants during emergencies. The NRC will provide the State of Florida up to 10 digital certificates for use by designated personnel within the BRC in accessing ERDS data during emergencies at nuclear power plants that have implemented an ERDS interface, and for which any portion of a plant's 10-mile EPZ lies within the State of Florida. The NRC reserves the right to revoke digital certificates at any time.

A. FDOH, through its BRC, will, in cooperation with the NRC, establish a capability to receive ERDS data. To this end, FDOH will provide the necessary computer hardware and commercially licensed software required for ERDS data transfer to users.

B. FDOH will provide the NRC with an initial, and periodically updated, list of designated persons serving as holders of ERDS digital certificates.

C. FDOH will use ERDS only to access data, at the Alert level or higher, from nuclear power plants for which all or a portion of the 10-mile EPZ falls within the boundaries of the State of Florida.

D. For the purpose of minimizing the impact on plant operators, the State of Florida will seek clarification of ERDS data through the NRC.

A. FDOH and the NRC agree to work in concert to assure that the following communications and information exchange protocol regarding ERDS are followed:

a. FDOH and the NRC agree in good faith to make available to each other information within the intent and scope of this MOU.

b. The NRC and FDOH agree to meet as necessary to exchange information on matters of common concern pertinent to this MOU. Unless otherwise agreed, such meetings will be held in the NRC Headquarters Operations Center. The affected utilities will be kept informed of pertinent information covered by this MOU.

c. The NRC will protect sensitive information to the extent permitted by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.390, and all other applicable authority. FDOH and its BRC will protect sensitive information to the extent permitted by Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and all other applicable authority.

d. The NRC will conduct periodic tests of licensee ERDS data links. The NRC will provide a copy of the test schedule to the FDOH through its BRC. The BRC may test its ability to access ERDS data during these scheduled tests, or may schedule independent tests of the State link with the NRC.

e. The NRC will provide FDOH with access to ERDS for emergency exercises at nuclear power plants that have implemented an ERDS interface, for which any portion of a plant's 10-mile EPZ lies within the State of Florida, and that are capable of transmitting exercise data to ERDS. For exercises in which the NRC is not participating, the FDOH, through its BRC, will coordinate with the NRC in advance to ensure ERDS availability. The NRC reserves the right to preempt ERDS use for any exercise in progress in the event of an actual event at any licensed nuclear power plant.

A. The principal senior management contacts for this MOU will be the Director, Division of Preparedness and Response (DPR), Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) for the NRC, and the Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control, for FDOH. These individuals may designate appropriate staff representatives for the purpose of administering this MOU.

B. Identification of these contacts is not intended to restrict communication between the NRC and FDOH staff members, in particular those within the BRC, on technical and other day-to-day activities.

A. If disagreements arise about matters within the scope of this MOU, the NRC and FDOH will work together in good faith to resolve these differences.

B. Differences between FDOH and the NRC staff over issues arising out of this MOU will, if they cannot be resolved in accordance with Section VIII.A, be resolved by the Director of the NRC's DPR, NSIR.

C. Differences which cannot be resolved in accordance with Sections VIII.A and VIII.B will be reviewed and resolved by the Director of NRC's NSIR.

D. The NRC's General Counsel has the final authority to provide legal interpretation of the Commission's regulations.

This MOU will take effect after it has been signed by both parties, and will remain in effect until terminated by either party.

A formal review, not less than 1 year after the effective date, will be performed by FDOH to evaluate implementation of the MOU. This MOU will be subject to periodic reviews every 3 years and may be amended or modified upon written agreement by both parties, and may be terminated upon 30 days written notice by either party.

If any provision(s) of this MOU, or the application of any provision(s) to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this MOU and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances will not be affected.

The MOU defines the way in which the NRC and MSDH intend to cooperate in planning and maintaining the capability to transfer reactor plant data via ERDS. The ERDS data will be transmitted to the State of Mississippi only during emergencies classified at the Alert level or above, during scheduled tests, or during plant exercises when the data is available.

The NRC and the MSDH are entering into the MOU under the authority of Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The State of Mississippi recognizes the Federal government, primarily the NRC, as having the exclusive authority and responsibility to regulate the radiological and national security aspects of the construction and operation of nuclear production or utilization facilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, except for certain authority over air emissions granted to States by the Clean Air Act. Nothing in the MOU is intended to restrict or expand the scope of regulatory authority of either the NRC or the State of Mississippi.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH), an agency of the State of Mississippi, enter into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under the authority of Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

The State of Mississippi recognizes the Federal government, primarily the NRC, as having the exclusive authority and responsibility to regulate the radiological and national security aspects of the construction and operation of nuclear production or utilization facilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, except for certain authority over air emissions granted to States by the Clean Air Act. Nothing in this MOU is intended to restrict or expand the scope of regulatory authority of either the NRC or the State of Mississippi.

In the State of Mississippi, MSDH, through its Division of Radiological Health (DRH), is the State radiation control agency and implements the program regulating sources of radiation, not otherwise regulated by the NRC, for the protection of public health and safety. The Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) administers emergency services and disaster preparedness programs in the State of Mississippi.

A. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, authorize the NRC to license and regulate, among other activities, the manufacture, construction, and operation of utilization facilities (nuclear power plants) in order to assure common defense and security and to protect the public health and safety. Under these statutes, the NRC is the agency responsible for regulating nuclear power plant safety and security.

B. The NRC's mission to protect public health and safety can be served by a policy of cooperation with State governments and has formally adopted a policy statement on “Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities” (54 Federal Register 7530, February 25, 1992). The policy statement provides that the NRC will consider State proposals to enter into instruments of cooperation for certain programs when these programs have provisions to ensure close cooperation with the NRC. This MOU is intended to be consistent with, and implement the provisions of, the NRC's policy statement.

C. The NRC fulfills its statutory mandate to regulate nuclear power plant safety by, among other things, monitoring the status of power reactor facilities and assessing the adequacy of licensees' responses to emergency situations.

D. The State of Mississippi fulfills, through MEMA, its statutory mandate to provide for preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant through its statutes located in Mississippi Code Ann. § 33-15 (1972).

A. This MOU defines the way in which the NRC and MSDH intend to cooperate in planning and maintaining the capability to transfer reactor plant data via the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) during emergencies at commercial nuclear power plants that have implemented an ERDS interface, and for which any portion of the plant's 10-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) lies within the State of Mississippi.

B. It is understood by the NRC and MSDH that ERDS data will only be transmitted to the State of Mississippi during emergencies classified at the Alert level or above, during scheduled tests, or during exercises when available.

C. Nothing in this MOU is intended to restrict or expand the statutory authority of the NRC, the State of Mississippi, MSDH, or MEMA, or to affect or otherwise alter the terms of any agreement in effect under the authority of Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; nor is anything in this MOU intended to restrict or expand the authority of the State of Mississippi, MSDH, or MEMA, on matters not within the scope of this MOU.

D. Nothing in this MOU confers upon the State of Mississippi, MSDH, or MEMA, the authority to (1) interpret or modify NRC regulations and NRC requirements imposed on the licensee; (2) take enforcement actions; (3) issue confirmatory letters; (4) amend, modify, or revoke a license issued by the NRC; or (5) direct or recommend nuclear power plant employees to take, or not take, any action. Authority for all such actions is reserved exclusively to the NRC.

E. This MOU does not confer any binding obligation or right of action on either party. This MOU does not obligate any funds and is subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Under this MOU, the NRC will maintain ERDS. ERDS is a system designed to receive, store, and retransmit data from in-plant data systems at nuclear power plants during emergencies. The NRC will provide the State of Mississippi up to 10 digital certificates for use by designated personnel within the MSDH and MEMA in accessing ERDS data during emergencies at nuclear power plants that have implemented an ERDS interface and for which any portion of a plant's 10-mile EPZ lies within the State of Mississippi. The NRC reserves the right to revoke digital certificates at any time.

A. MSDH, through its DRH, will, in cooperation with the NRC, establish a capability to receive ERDS data. To this end, MSDH will provide the necessary computer hardware and commercially licensed software required for ERDS data transfer to users.

B. MSDH will provide the NRC with an initial, and periodically updated, list of designated persons serving as holders of ERDS digital certificates.

C. MSDH will use ERDS only to access data, at the Alert level or higher, from nuclear power plants for which all or a portion of the 10-mile EPZ falls within the boundaries of the State of Mississippi.

D. For the purpose of minimizing the impact on plant operators, the State of Mississippi will seek clarification of ERDS data through the NRC.

A. MSDH and the NRC agree to work in concert to assure that the following communications and information exchange protocol regarding ERDS are followed:

a. MSDH and the NRC agree in good faith to make available to each other information within the intent and scope of this MOU.

b. The NRC and MSDH agree to meet as necessary to exchange information on matters of common concern pertinent to this MOU. Unless otherwise agreed, such meetings will be held in the NRC Headquarters Operations Center. The affected utilities will be kept informed of pertinent information covered by this MOU.

c. The NRC will protect sensitive information to the extent permitted by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.390, and all other applicable authority. MSDH and its DRH will protect sensitive information to the extent permitted by the Mississippi Freedom of Information Act Mississippi Code Ann. § 25-61, and all other applicable authority.

d. The NRC will conduct periodic tests of licensee ERDS data links. The NRC will provide a copy of the test schedule to the MSDH through its DRH. The DRH may test its ability to access ERDS data during these scheduled tests, or may schedule independent tests of the State link with the NRC.

e. The NRC will provide MSDH with access to ERDS for emergency exercises at nuclear power plants that have implemented an ERDS interface, for which any portion of a plant's 10-mile EPZ lies within the State of Mississippi, and that are capable of transmitting exercise data to ERDS. For exercises in which the NRC is not participating, the MSDH, through its DRH, will coordinate with the NRC in advance to ensure ERDS availability. The NRC reserves the right to preempt ERDS use for any exercise in progress in the event of an actual event at any licensed nuclear power plant.

A. The principal senior management contacts for this MOU will be the Director, Division of Preparedness and Response (DPR), Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) for the NRC, and the Director, Division of Radiological Health, for MSDH. These individuals may designate appropriate staff representatives for the purpose of administering this MOU.

B. Identification of these contacts is not intended to restrict communication between the NRC and MSDH staff members, in particular those within the DRH, on technical and other day-to-day activities.

A. If disagreements arise about matters within the scope of this MOU, the NRC and MSDH will work together to resolve these differences.

B. Differences between MSDH and the NRC staff over issues arising out of this MOU will, if they cannot be resolved in accordance with Section VIII.A, be resolved by the Director of the NRC's DPR, NSIR.

C. Differences which cannot be resolved in accordance with Sections VIII.A and VIII.B will be reviewed and resolved by the Director of NRC's NSIR.

D. The NRC's General Counsel has the final authority to provide legal interpretation of the Commission's regulations.

This MOU will take effect after it has been signed by both parties.

This MOU will be subject to periodic reviews and may be amended or modified upon written agreement by both parties, and may be terminated upon 30 days written notice by either party.

If any provision(s) of this MOU, or the application of any provision(s) to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this MOU and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances will not be affected.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0045 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0045. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC-2019-0045 on this website.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Document collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search .” For problems with ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession No. ML19058A132. The supporting statement and title of document is Survey of NRC Materials Licensees to Support Rulemaking for NRC's Small Entity Size Standards are available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19058A130.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

• NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0045 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS, and the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.

1. The title of the information collection: Survey of NRC materials licensees to support rulemaking for NRC's small entity size standards.

2. OMB approval number: An OMB control number has not yet been assigned to this proposed information collection.

3. Type of submission: New.

4. The form number, if applicable: Not applicable.

5. How often the collection is required or requested: Once.

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Current materials users licensees.

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 457.

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 457.

9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 151 hours.

10. Abstract: The NRC has its own standards for categorizing small business size entities that are noted in section 2.810 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, “NRC size standards.” The agency's standards differ from those used by the Small Business Administration (SBA) because it is difficult to align NRC licensees with Small Business Administration size standards and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliations Act of 1990 requirement for NRC to recover 90 percent of the annual budget through fees. Since the agency has not surveyed its materials licensees since 1993, the staff will conduct a survey to gather financial data to determine if a change to the size standards is needed. Without conducting a survey, the NRC staff does not have the data needed to determine the impact of shifting from the current nuclear industry-specific standards. The results of the analysis will be used to provide a recommendation to the Commission that is backed with sound empirical data.

The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

I. Background

On July 13, 2018 (83 FR 32690), the NRC published for public comment a proposed revision of BTP 5-3, “Fracture Toughness Requirements,” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan (SRP) for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition.” On September 20, 2018 (83 FR 47647), the NRC reopened the public comment period on this document for 30 days to allow more time for members of the public to review additional revisions that the NRC made to BTP 5-3 since the draft was issued on July 13, 2018, and to assemble and submit their comments. The public comment period closed on October 22, 2018. A summary of comments received and the NRC staff's disposition of the comments are available in a separate document, “Response to Public Comments on Draft SRP BTP 5-3, “Fracture Toughness Requirements,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML18338A517).

Chapter 5 of the SRP provides guidance to the staff for reviewing reactor coolant and connected systems information included in licensing applications. BTP 5-3 of the SRP provides guidance for the review of information addressing piping systems and components.

Issuance of this SRP section revision does not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) nor is it inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The NRC's position is based upon the following considerations.

1. The SRP positions do not constitute backfitting, inasmuch as the SRP is guidance directed to the NRC staff with respect to its regulatory responsibilities.

The SRP provides guidance to the NRC staff on how to review an application for NRC regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in guidance intended for use by only the staff are not matters that constitute backfitting as that term is defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) or involve the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52.

2. Backfitting and issue finality—with certain exceptions discussed below—do not apply to current or future applicants.

Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, the subject of either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52 were intended to apply to every NRC action that substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants.

The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever a 10 CFR part 50 operating license applicant references a construction permit or a 10 CFR part 52 combined license applicant references a license ( e.g., an early site permit) and/or an NRC regulatory approval ( e.g., a design certification rule) for which specified issue finality provisions apply.

The NRC staff does not currently intend to impose the positions represented in this final SRP section in a manner that constitutes backfitting or is inconsistent with any issue finality provision of 10 CFR part 52. If in the future the NRC staff seeks to impose positions stated in this SRP section in a manner that would constitute backfitting or be inconsistent with these issue finality provisions, the NRC staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule or address the regulatory criteria set forth in the applicable issue finality provision, as applicable, that would allow the staff to impose the position.

3. The NRC staff has no intention to impose the SRP positions on existing nuclear power plant licensees either now or in the future (absent a voluntary request for a change from the licensee, holder of a regulatory approval or a design certification applicant).

The staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions described in this final SRP section to existing (already issued) licenses ( e.g., operating licenses and combined licenses) and regulatory approvals. Hence, the issuance of this SRP guidance—even if considered guidance subject to the Backfit Rule or the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52—would not need to be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the NRC staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP on holders of already issued licenses in a manner that would constitute backfitting or does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must make a showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule or address the criteria set forth in the applicable issue finality provision, as applicable, that would allow the staff to impose the position.

The Office of Management and Budget makes the determination that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission action titled “NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” Branch Technical Position 5-3, `Fracture Toughness Requirements'” is non-major under the Congressional Review Act.

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 and the Computer Matching Privacy Protection Amendment of 1990 (Privacy Act), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on the conduct of matching programs, including OMB Final Guidance Interpreting the Provision of Public Law 100-53 (published in the Federal Register on June 19, 1989 (54 FR 25818) and OMB Circular A-108, notice is hereby given of a re-established matching program between the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). This matching program, Computer Matching Agreement 1045, is being re established to enable SSA to disclose wage and self-employment income information to OPM. OPM will match SSA's information with OPM's records on disability retirees under age 60, disabled adult child survivors, certain retirees in receipt of a supplemental benefit under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), and certain annuitants receiving a discontinued service retirement benefit under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The law limits the amount these retirees, survivors, and annuitants can earn while retaining benefits paid to them. Retirement benefits cease upon re-employment in Federal service for discontinued service annuitants. OPM will use the earnings and self-employment information from SSA to determine continued eligibility for benefits under OPM programs.

Participating Agencies: OPM and SSA.

Authority for Conducting the Matching Program: Legal authorities for the disclosures under this agreement are 5 U.S.C. 8337(d), 8341(a)(4)(B), 8344(a)(4)(b), and 8468, which establish earnings limitations for certain CSRS and FERS annuitants. The authority to terminate benefits may be found in 5 U.S.C. 8341(e)(3)(B) and 8443(b)(3)(B). The Internal Revenue Code (IRC), at 26 U.S.C. 6103 (l)(11), requires SSA to disclose tax return information to OPM upon request for purposes of the administration of chapters 83 and 84 of Title 5 of the United States Code.

Purpose: The purpose of this agreement between OPM and SSA is to assist OPM in meeting its legal obligation to offset benefits payable by OPM to annuitants. SSA will disclose income and tax return information to OPM. OPM will use the information obtained from SSA to match against OPM's records of disability retirees under age 60, disabled adult-child survivors, certain retirees receiving supplemental benefit under the Federal Employees Retirement Systems (FERS), and certain annuitants receiving a discontinued service retirement benefit under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Because the law limits the amount these individuals can earn and still retain the benefits paid to them by OPM, OPM will use the SSA information to determine and individual's continued eligibility to receive a benefit from OPM.

Categories Individuals: The individuals whose information is involved in this matching program are those disability retirees under the age of 60, disabled adult-child survivors, certain retirees in receipt of a supplemental benefit under the FERS, and certain annuitants receiving a discontinued service retirement benefit under the CSRS who receive benefits from OPM. SSA will provide information about these individuals by referencing their master file of all individuals with Social Security numbers (SSN) and their file of earnings and self-employment records.

Categories of Records: The categories of records involved in this matching program include the full name, SSN, date of birth, and the tax year for requested earnings for those individuals about who the match is being conducted. In turn, SSA will disclose the following records to OPM: Employer identification number, name, address, wage amount from Form W-2, and earnings amounts form self-employment income.

System(s) of Records: OPM's system of records involved in this matching program is OPM/Central-1, Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records. 64 FR 54930 (Oct. 8, 1999), as amended at 73 FR 15013 (March 20, 2008). SSA's systems of records involved in this matching program are the Master Files of Social Security Number Holders and SSN Applications, 60-0058, 75 FR 82121 (Dec. 29, 2010) as amended at 78 FR 40542 (July 5, 2013), 79 FR 8780 (Feb. 13, 2014), and 83 FR 31250 (July 3, 2018); and the Master Beneficiary Record (MBR), 60-0090, 71 FR 1826 (Jan. 11, 2006), as amended at 72 FR 69723 (Dec. 10, 2007) and 78 FR 40542 (July 5, 2013); and the Earnings Recording and Self-Employment Income System, 60-0059, 71 FR 1819 (Jan. 11, 2006) as amended at 78 FR 40542 (July 5, 2013).

The March 22, 2019 comment due date applies to Docket No. CP2019-103.

The March 25, 2019 comment due date applies to Docket No. CP2019-104.

The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website ( http://www.prc.gov ). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.301. 1

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

1. Docket No(s).: CP2019-103; Filing Title: Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 7 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 13, 2019; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: March 22, 2019.

2. Docket No(s).: CP2019-104; Filing Title: Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 7 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 13, 2019; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: March 25, 2019.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 506 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-80, CP2019-86.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 508 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-82, CP2019-88.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 11, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 71 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-89, CP2019-95.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 12, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 88 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-94, CP2019-100.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 11, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 87 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-90, CP2019-96.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 510 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-84, CP2019-90.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 507 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-81, CP2019-87.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 51 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-88, CP2019-94.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 86 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-79, CP2019-85.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 12, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Parcel Return Service Contract 13 to Competitive Product List . Documents are available at www.prc.gov , Docket Nos. MC2019-95, CP2019-101.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 11, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 94 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-91, CP2019-97.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 70 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-78, CP2019-84.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 512 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-86, CP2019-92.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 11, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 98 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-92, CP2019-98.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 12, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Parcel Return Service Contract 14 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-96, CP2019-102.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 11, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 52 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-93, CP2019-99.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 513 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-87, CP2019-93.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 511 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-85, CP2019-91.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 8, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 509 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-83, CP2019-89.