The regulations require that Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) annually review the national tonnage fees, local tonnage fees, and fees for service. After calculating the tonnage fees according to the regulatory formula in 7 CFR 800.71(b)(1), FGIS then reviews the amount of funds in the operating reserve at the end of the fiscal year (FY2018 in this case) to ensure that it has 4 1/2 months of operating expenses as required by section 800.71(b)(2) of the regulations. If the operating reserve has more, or less than 4 1/2 months of operating expenses, then FGIS must adjust all Schedule A fees. For each $1,000,000, rounded down, that the operating reserve varies from the target of 4 1/2 months, FGIS will adjust all Schedule A fees by 2 percent. If the operating reserve exceeds the target, all Schedule A fees will be reduced. If the operating reserve does not meet the target, all Schedule A fees will be increased. The maximum annual increase or decrease in fees is 5 percent (7 CFR 800.71(b)(2)(i)-(ii)).

Tonnage fees for the 5-year rolling average tonnage were calculated on the previous 5 fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Tonnage fees consist of the national tonnage fee and local tonnage fee and are calculated and rounded to the nearest $0.001 per metric ton. The tonnage fees are calculated as following:

National tonnage fee. The national tonnage fee is the national program administrative costs for the previous fiscal year divided by the average yearly tons of export grain officially inspected and/or weighed by delegated States and designated agencies, excluding land carrier shipments to Canada and Mexico, and outbound grain officially inspected and/or weighed by FGIS during the previous 5 fiscal years.

The national program administrative costs for fiscal year 2018 were $8,075,737. The fiscal year 2019 national tonnage fee, prior to the operating reserve review, is calculated to be at $0.065 per metric ton.

Local tonnage fee. The local tonnage fee is the field office administrative costs for the previous fiscal year divided by the average yearly tons of outbound grain officially inspected and/or weighed by the field office during the previous 5 fiscal years.

The field offices fiscal year tons for the previous 5 fiscal years and calculated 5-year rolling average are as follows:

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were 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 those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title: SNAP Requirement for National Directory of New Hires Employment Verification.

Form Number: N/A.

OMB Number: 0584-0608.

Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations at 7 CFR 272.16 require that each State agency must establish a system to compare identifiable information about each adult household member against data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). This comparison will be used to determine the eligibility status of the household and determine the correct benefit amount the household should receive.

Applicant and Recipient Screening: The State agency must compare identifiable information about each adult household member against information from the NDNH. States must make the comparison of matched data at the time of application and recertification and must independently verify any positive match results.

Verification of Match: The State agency must independently verify the information prior to taking any adverse action against an individual. Should the State agency receive employment information via the NDNH that was previously unreported by the household, the State agency may issue a Request for Contact to the household to verify the information or contact the employer directly, depending upon applicable reporting requirements as defined at 7 CFR 273.12.

Notice: The Notice of Adverse Action or Notice of Denial is issued by State agencies to participating households whose benefits will be reduced or terminated as the result of a change in household circumstances. Should the State agency independently verify unreported or underreported income discovered through NDNH, and that income results in a reduction of benefits or change in eligibility, the State agency must take action by issuing the household a Notice of Adverse Action or Notice of Denial and adjusting benefits accordingly.

Burden Estimates: The previous burden for this collection was 252,432 reporting hours (209,899 reporting burden hours for State agencies + 41,583 reporting burden hours for households). The requested burden is 249,253, which represents a decrease of 3,180 hours for the removal of the Program Activity Statement (FNS-366B) (which is accounted for under OMB#0584-0594; expiration date: 9/30/2019) burden hours from this collection. There are no recordkeeping requirements associated with this collection.

Affected Public: State and local agencies, households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 891,125.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 13.78.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 12,279,702.50.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.0205569019.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 249,252.64 hours. See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-260-1479, conference ID number: 2224726. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. 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 telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at afortes@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzlJAAQ . Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-855-710-4181 and conference ID: 6850406. 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: 1-855-710-4181 and conference ID: 6850406.

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 Evelyn Bohor 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=a10t0000001gzloAAA, 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 numbers, email or street address.

Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. (EDT).

The proposed revision of the standard has been developed and is being processed in accordance with Department of Commerce provisions in 15 CFR part 10, Procedures for the Development of Voluntary Product Standards, as amended (published June 20, 1986). Under 15 CFR part 10, the American Lumber Standard Committee (Committee) acts as the Standing Committee for PS 20-15. The Committee is responsible for maintaining, revising, and interpreting the standard, and is comprised of producers, distributors, users, and others with an interest in the standard.

PS 20-15 establishes standard sizes and requirements for developing and coordinating the lumber grades of the various species of lumber, the assignment of design values, and the preparation of grading rules applicable to each species. Its provisions include implementation of the standard through an accreditation and certification program; establishment of principal classifications and lumber sizes for yard, structural, and factory/shop use; classification, measurement, grading, and grade-marking of lumber; definitions of terms and procedures to provide a basis for the use of uniform methods in the grading inspection, measurement, and description of softwood lumber; commercial names of the principal softwood species; definitions of terms used in describing standard grades of lumber; and commonly used industry abbreviations. The standard also includes the organization and functions of the Committee, the Board of Review, and the National Grading Rule Committee.

NIST invites public comments on the current standard, PS 20-15, which is available at https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/06/13/doc_ps_20-15_american_softwood_lumber_standard-final-2-25-15.pdf.

Attachments will be accepted in plain text, Microsoft Word, or Adobe PDF formats. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies or electronic links of the referenced materials.

All submissions, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. NIST reserves the right to publish comments publicly, unedited and in their entirety. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language or content will not be considered.

Written comments should be submitted in accordance with the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice. The Committee and NIST will consider all responsive comments received and may revise the standard, as appropriate.

Authority: Section 103 of the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-360), 42 U.S.C. 7704(a)(5), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee is composed of 12 members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected for their established records of distinguished service in their professional community, their knowledge of issues affecting NEHRP, and to reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines, competencies, and communities involved in earthquake hazards reduction. In addition, the Chairperson of the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee serves as an ex-officio member of the Committee.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the ACEHR will meet on Tuesday, April 30, 2019, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time and Wednesday, May 1, 2019, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Mountain Time. The meeting will be open to the public. The primary purpose of this meeting is for the Committee to develop a draft of their 2019 biennial Report on the Effectiveness of the NEHRP. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda and any meeting materials will be posted on the NEHRP website at http://nehrp.gov/.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. On April 30, 2019, approximately fifteen minutes will be reserved near the beginning of the meeting for public comments and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be about three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to participate are invited to submit written statements to ACEHR, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Mail Stop 8604, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, via fax at (301) 975-4032, or electronically by email to tina.faecke@nist.gov.

All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your full name, estimated time of arrival, email address, and phone number to Tina Faecke by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Tuesday, April 16, 2019. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Ms. Faecke. Ms. Tina Faecke's email address is tina.faecke@nist.gov, and her phone number is (301) 975-5911. If you wish to participate via teleconference or webinar, please submit your full name, affiliation, and phone number to Ms. Faecke by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Tuesday, April 16, 2019. After pre-registering, participants will be provided with detailed instructions on how to join the teleconference or webinar remotely. For participants attending in person, please note that federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), or by a state that has an extension for REAL ID compliance. NIST currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Ms. Faecke at (301) 975-5911 or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

The committee will receive and discuss documents on potential strategies for overfished stock management, deriving catch advice for stock complexes from assessment and other data, and spatial management considerations. These documents will be incorporated into the draft example Fishery Ecosystem Plan (eFEP) for Georges Bank. The committee may also discuss other related business, including further tasking for the Plan Development Team to complete a draft eFEP. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion at the Post-Data Workshop webinar are as follows:

Participants will finalize data recommendations from the Data Workshop and provide early modeling advice.

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

This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 business days prior to the meeting.

The purposes of the meeting include: (1) To create a Fishery Performance Report by the Council's Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel. This report facilitates structured input from the Advisory Panel members for the MSB specifications process for the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC); and (2) Gather Advisory Panel feedback on the development of the Council's 2020-24 strategic plan, after reviewing the results of a recent strategic planning stakeholder survey. An agenda and background documents will be posted at the Council's website ( www.mafmc.org ) prior to the meeting.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to any meeting date.

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on February 26, 2019, for the 2019 Study Fleet Program. The EFP would exempt 18 commercial fishing vessels from the minimum size and possession limits for species of interest, as well as allow temporary retention of species that would be discarded.

The Center established the Study Fleet Program in 2002 to more fully characterize commercial fishing operations and provide sampling opportunities to augment NMFS's data collection programs. Partnership with the commercial fishing industry allows the Center to provide samples for stock assessment and fish biology research when traditional sampling sources might otherwise be unavailable. Table 1 includes all of the regulations specified at 50 CFR part 648 that participating vessels would be exempt from for at-sea sampling or when retaining and landing fish for research purposes. The exemptions listed in Table 1 are necessary for contracted vessels to acquire the biological samples needed to meet Center research objectives.

Any fish retained under the EFP would be delivered to Center staff upon landing. Additionally, the Center would issue a formal Biological Sampling Request to the vessel to retain fish in excess of possession limits or below the minimum size limit. This would ensure that the landed fish do not exceed any collection needs of the Study Fleet Program, as detailed below in Table 2.

All catch would be attributed to the appropriate commercial fishing quota. For a vessel fishing on a groundfish sector trip, all catch of groundfish stocks allocated to sectors would be deducted from the vessel's sector's Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE). Once the ACE for a stock has been reached in a sector, vessels would no longer be allowed to fish in that stock area unless the sector acquired additional ACE for the stock in question. For common pool vessels, all groundfish catch would be counted toward the appropriate trimester total allowable catch (TAC). Common pool vessels would be exempt from possession and trip limits on EFP trips when directed for sampling by the Center, but would still be subject to trimester TAC closures.

If approved, the Center may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impact that does not change the scope of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

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

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

The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

Additions

On 5/25/2018 (83 FR 102), 11/16/2018 (83 FR 222), 2/1/2019 (84 FR 22), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

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

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

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

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

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

Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

On 2/15/2019 (84 FR 32), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:

The Panel is being terminated under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix) and 41 CFR 102-3.55, and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), effective April 1, 2019.

The Draft Supplemental EIS/OEIS was distributed to federal agencies and federally recognized tribes, with which the DoN consulted. Copies of the Draft Supplemental EIS/OEIS are available for public review at the following public locations:

1. Everett Main Library, 2702 Hoyt Avenue, Everett, WA 98201-3506.

2. Gig Harbor Library, 4424 Point Fosdick Drive NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98335-1700.

3. Jefferson County Library, Port Hadlock, 620 Cedar Avenue, Port Hadlock, WA 98339-5001.

4. Kitsap Regional Library, Poulsbo, 700 NE Lincoln Road, Poulsbo, WA 98370-7688.

5. Kitsap Regional Library, Sylvan Way (Bremerton), 1301 Sylvan Way, Bremerton, WA 98310-3466.

6. North Olympic Library System, Forks Branch, 171 S Forks Avenue, Forks, WA 98331-9023.

7. Lopez Island Library, 2225 Fisherman Bay Road, Lopez Island, WA 98261-8676.

8. Oak Harbor Public Library, 1000 SE Regatta Drive, Oak Harbor, WA 98277-3091.

9. Port Angeles Main Library, 2210 S Peabody Street, Port Angeles, WA 98362-6536.

10. Port Townsend Public Library, 1220 Lawrence Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368-6527.

11. San Juan Island Library, 1010 Guard Street, Friday Harbor, WA 98250-9240.

12. Timberland Regional Library, Aberdeen, 121 E Market Street, Aberdeen, WA 98520-5216.

13. Timberland Regional Library, Hoquiam, 420 Seventh Street, Hoquiam, WA 98550-3616.

14. Astoria Public Library, 450 10th Street, Astoria, OR 97103-4602.

15. Driftwood Public Library, 801 SW Highway 101 #201, Lincoln City, OR 97367-2720.

16. Newport Public Library, 35 NW Nye Street, Newport, OR 97365-3714.

17. Oregon State University, Guin Library Hatfield Marine Science Center, 2030 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365-5300.

18. Tillamook Main Library, 1716 Third Street, Tillamook, OR 97141-2124.

19. Fort Bragg Branch Library, 499 Laurel Street, Fort Bragg, CA 95437-3511.

20. Humboldt County Public Library, Arcata Branch Library, 500 Seventh Street, Arcata, CA 95521-6315.

21. Humboldt County Public Library, Eureka Main Library, 1313 Third Street, Eureka, CA 95501-0546.

22. Redwood Coast Senior Center, 490 N Harold Street, Fort Bragg, CA 95437-3331.

23. Juneau Public Library, Downtown Branch, 292 Marine Way, Juneau, AK, 99801-1361.

24. Ketchikan Public Library, 1110 Copper Ridge Lane, Ketchikan, AK 99901-6250.

The NWTT Draft Supplemental EIS/OEIS is available for electronic viewing or download at www.NWTTEIS.com. A compact disc of the Draft Supplemental EIS/OEIS will be made available upon written request by contacting: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Attention: NWTT Supplemental EIS/OEIS Project Manager, 3730 N. Charles Porter Avenue., Building 385, Oak Harbor, WA 98278-3500.

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: Financial Report for the Endowment Challenge Grant Program and Institutional Service Endowment Activities.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0564.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,500.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,125.

Abstract: This financial reporting form will be utilized for Title III Part A, Title III Part B and Title V Program Endowment Activities and Title III Part C Endowment Challenge Grant Program. The purpose of this Financial Report is to have the grantees report annually the kinds of investments that have been made, the income earned and spent, and whether any part of the Endowment Fund Corpus has been spent. This information allows us to give technical assistance and determine whether the grantee has complied with the statutory and regulatory investment requirements.

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: Middle Grades Longitudinal Study of 2017-18 (MGLS:2017) Main Study First Follow-up (MS2) Tracking and Recruitment and Operational Field Test Second Follow-up (OFT3) Update.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0911.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 20,113.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,891.

Abstract: The Middle Grades Longitudinal Study of 2017-18 (MGLS:2017) is the first study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to follow a nationally representative sample of students as they enter and move through the middle grades (grades 6-8). The data collected through repeated measures of key constructs will provide a rich descriptive picture of the academic experiences and development of students during these critical years and will allow researchers to examine associations between contextual factors and student outcomes. The study focuses on student achievement in mathematics and literacy along with measures of student socioemotional wellbeing and other outcomes. The study includes students with disabilities for whom descriptive information on their outcomes, educational experiences, and special education services are being collected. In preparation for the Main Study (MS), the data collection instruments and procedures were field tested. An Item Validation Field Test (IVFT) was conducted from January through May 2016 to determine the psychometric properties of assessment and survey items and the predictive potential of items so that valid, reliable, and useful assessment and survey instruments could be developed for the Main Study. The MGLS:2017 Operational Field Test (OFT) Base Year (OFT1) data collection was conducted from January through May 2017 to test the near-final instruments and recruitment and data collection procedures and materials in preparation for the MGLS:2017 Main Study Base Year (MS1). The MS1 data collection took place from January to August 2018, and the OFT First Follow-up (OFT2) data collections from February to May 2018. OFT2 was conducted primarily to obtain information on recruiting, particularly for students in three focal IDEA-defined disability groups: specific learning disability, autism, and emotional disturbance; obtain a tracking sample that can be used to study mobility patterns in subsequent years; and test protocols, items, and administrative procedures. The MGLS:2017 Main Study First Follow-up (MS2) Tracking and Recruitment and Operational Field Test Second Follow-up (OFT3) were approved in September 2018 with the latest update approved in December 2018 (OMB# 1850-0911 v.20-22). This current request is to: (1) Update contact materials to reference the administrative records collection, (2) introduce a $10 incentive for panel maintenance participants, (3) update the student roster form in Appendix T for the fall 2019 MS2 tracking and recruitment activities, and (4) introduce a flyer designed to encourage the return of parent permission forms in explicit permission schools.

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: Consolidated Annual Report (CAR) for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006.

OMB Control Number: 1830-0569.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 54.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,296.

Abstract: This information collection is used by the U.S. Department of Education to gather annual performance and financial data from eligible agencies under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 as amended by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 115-224).

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(f)(2)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth below. The Decision and Order grants TCL AC a waiver from the applicable test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M for specified basic models of central air conditioners and heat pumps, provided that TCL AC tests and rates such products using the alternate test procedure specified in the Decision and Order. TCL AC's representations concerning the energy efficiency of the specified basic models must be based on testing according to the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order, and the representations must fairly disclose the test results. Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same requirements when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c))

Consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(j), not later than May 28, 2019, any manufacturer currently distributing in commerce in the United States products employing a technology or characteristic that results in the same need for a waiver from the applicable test procedure must submit a petition for waiver. Manufacturers not currently distributing such products in commerce in the United States must petition for and be granted a waiver prior to the distribution in commerce of those products in the United States. Manufacturers may also submit a request for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 430.27.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 among other things, authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B  2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency for certain types of consumer products. These products include central air conditioners (CACs) and heat pumps (HPs), the focus of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3))

Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that product (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the product complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps (“Appendix M”).

Under 10 CFR 430.27, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. Id.

By letter dated July 10, 2018, TCL AC submitted a petition for waiver and application for interim waiver for certain basic models of CACs and HPs. TCL AC stated that the systems use outdoor units with variable-speed compressors paired with coil-only indoor units (hereinafter referred to as “variable-speed coil-only single-split systems”), and are required to be tested using the test procedure detailed at appendix M to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (“Appendix M”). TCL AC stated in its petition for waiver and application for interim waiver that Appendix M does not include provisions for determining cooling intermediate air volume rate, cooling minimum air volume rate, and heating intermediate air volume rate for the variable-speed coil-only single-split systems specified in its petition. Consequently, TCL AC asserted that it cannot test or rate these systems in accordance with the DOE test procedure.

On November 9, 2018, DOE published a notice that announced its receipt of the petition for waiver and granted TCL AC an interim waiver for specified basic models. 83 FR 56058 (“Notice of Petition for Waiver”). In the Notice of Petition for Waiver, DOE stated that absent an interim waiver, the specified variable-speed coil-only single-split models cannot be tested under the existing test procedure because Appendix M does not include provisions for determining certain air volume rates for variable-speed coil-only single-split systems. 83 FR 56060. Typical variable-speed single-split systems have a communicating system, i.e. , the condensing units and indoor units communicate and indoor unit air flow varies based on the operation of the outdoor unit. However, as presented in TCL AC's petition, its variable-speed outdoor units are non-communicative systems and the indoor blower section maintains a constant indoor blower fan speed. DOE also reviewed public-facing materials ( e.g. , marketing materials, product specification sheets, and installation manuals) for the units identified in the petition, which supported TCL AC's assertion that the units are installed as variable-speed coil-only systems, in which the indoor fan speed remains constant at full and part-load operation. Using the cooling full-load air volume rate for the cooling intermediate and cooling minimum air volume rates, and the heating full load air volume rate as the heating intermediate air volume rate appears appropriate because there is no variability in indoor fan speed. Thus, DOE determined that the alternate test procedure suggested by TCL AC allows for the accurate measurement of energy use of these products, while alleviating the testing problems associated with TCL AC's implementation of CAC and HP testing for the basic models specified in TCL AC's petition. Id.

In the Notice of Petition for Waiver, DOE solicited comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition and the specified alternate test procedure Id . DOE received no comments in response to the Notice of Petition for Waiver.

For the reasons explained here and in the Notice of Petition for Waiver, DOE understands that absent a waiver, the basic models identified by TCL AC in its petition cannot be evaluated on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the recommended procedure suggested by TCL AC and concludes that it will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of the products, while alleviating the testing problems associated with TCL AC's implementation of DOE's applicable CAC and HP test procedure for the specified basic models. Thus, DOE is requiring that TCL AC test and rate the specified CAC and HP basic models according to the alternate test procedure specified in this Decision and Order, which is identical to the procedure provided in the interim waiver.

This Decision and Order is applicable only to the basic models listed and does not extend to any other basic models. DOE evaluates and grants waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner.

TCL AC may request that the scope of this waiver be extended to include additional basic models that employ the same technology as those listed in this waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g). TCL AC may also submit another petition for waiver from the test procedure for additional basic models that employ a different technology and meet the criteria for test procedure waivers. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1).

DOE notes that it may modify or rescind the waiver at any time upon DOE's determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, TCL AC may request that DOE rescind or modify the waiver if the company discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(2).

In accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2), DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) staff concerning the TCL AC petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to DOE granting a waiver to TCL AC for the specified basic models.

After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by TCL AC, and the various public-facing materials ( e.g ., marketing materials, product specification sheets, and installation manuals) for the models identified in the petition, in this matter, it is ORDERED that:

(1) TCL AC must, as of the date of publication of this Order in the Federal Register , test and rate the TCL air conditioner (zhongshan) Co., Ltd. brand and Ecoer Inc. brand single-split CAC and HP basic models TCE-36HA/DV20 and TCE-60HA/DV20, which are comprised of the individual combinations listed below, 3 with the alternate test procedure as set forth in paragraph (2):

(2) The alternate test procedure for the TCL AC basic models identified in paragraph (1) of this Order is the test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M (“Appendix M”), except that as described below, for coil-only combinations: the cooling full-load air volume rate as determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c of Appendix M shall also be used as the cooling intermediate and cooling minimum air volume rates, and the heating full-load air volume rate as determined in section 3.1.4.4.1.a of Appendix M shall also be used as the heating intermediate air volume rate. All other requirements of Appendix M and DOE's regulations remain applicable.

In 3.1.4.2, Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate , include:

f. For ducted variable-speed compressor systems tested with a coil-only indoor unit, the cooling minimum air volume rate is the same as the cooling full-load air volume rate determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c.

In 3.1.4.3, Cooling Intermediate Air Volume Rate , include:

d. For ducted variable-speed compressor systems tested with a coil-only indoor unit, the cooling intermediate air volume rate is the same as the cooling full-load air volume rate determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c.

In 3.1.4.6, Heating Intermediate Air Volume Rate, include:

d. For ducted variable-speed compressor systems tested with a coil-only indoor unit, the heating intermediate air volume rate is the same as the heating full-load air volume rate determined in section 3.1.4.4.1.a.

(3) Representations . TCL AC may not make representations about the efficiency of the basic models referenced in paragraph (1) of this Order for compliance, marketing, or other purposes unless the basic model has been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth above and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing.

(4) This waiver shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27.

(5) This waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documents provided by TCL AC are valid. If TCL AC makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of these basic models, the waiver will no longer be valid and TCL AC will either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may rescind or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, TCL AC may request that DOE rescind or modify the waiver if TCL AC discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(2).

(6) Granting of this waiver does not release TCL AC from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

The Department of Energy (DOE) regulates exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country, pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)). Such exports require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On March 1, 2019, DOE received an application from PSE for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. DOE most recently granted export authorization to PSE on May 6, 2014 for a five-year term, in Order No. EA-98-M. That Order authorized electricity exports by PSE and certain other members of WSPP Inc., which the Order described as “a non-profit organization with approximately 300 electric utility members.” In its present application, PSE requests authorization effective by May 6, 2019, to prevent a lapse in its current authorization under Order No. EA-98-M, which expires on that date.

In its application, PSE's resale and wholesale utility business includes the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric energy. The electric energy that PSE proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy sold to a portfolio of resources, including electric energy generated by PSE's system resources and electric energy acquired from other sellers within the United States and Canada. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five (5) copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

Comments and other filings concerning PSE's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-469. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Robert E. Neate, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Puget Sound Energy, EST-11N, P.O. Box 97034, Bellevue, Washington 98009-9734 and Jason Kuzma, Perkins Coie LLP, 10885 NE 4th Street, Suite 700, Bellevue, Washington 98004.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE determines that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at Angela.Troy@hq.doe.gov.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, (“EPCA”)  1 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317), among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part C  2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency for certain types of industrial equipment. This equipment includes walk-in cooler refrigeration systems, the focus of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) A walk-in cooler and freezer is defined under DOE's regulations as “an enclosed storage space refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet; however[,] the terms do not include products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes.” 10 CFR 431.302. See also 42 U.S.C. 6311(20) (statutory definition for “walk-in cooler, walk-in freezer”).

Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products/equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product/covered equipment during a representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The test procedure used to determine the net capacity and Annual Walk-in Energy Factor (“AWEF”) of walk-in cooler refrigeration systems is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C.

Under 10 CFR 431.401, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii).

DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(l). As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. Id.

The waiver process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the underlying petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the underlying petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(1).

When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2).

On March 9, 2018, Store It Cold filed a petition for waiver and a petition for interim waiver from the test procedure applicable to walk-in cooler refrigeration systems set forth in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, and in response to DOE requests for technical clarification, Store It Cold submitted a revised petition for waiver and petition for interim waiver on May 16, 2018. (Store It Cold, No. 1 at pp. 1-7  3 ) AHRI Standard 1250P (I-P)-2009 titled “Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers” (“AHRI 1250-2009”) is incorporated by reference in the test procedure for walk-in cooler refrigeration systems with the modifications enumerated in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C. Referencing AHRI 1250-2009, 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C provides two possible methods for measuring the refrigeration capacity of single-package systems, 4 the DX Dual Instrumentation method and the DX Calibrated Box method (see section C5.1 through C5.1.2 of AHRI 1250-2009). For both methods, the refrigeration capacity is determined by measuring the enthalpy change and mass flow rate of the refrigerant (“Refrigerant Enthalpy Method”).

Store It Cold's petition for waiver and interim waiver lists walk-in cooler refrigeration system basic models CBLW08, CBLW10, CBLW12, CBLW15, CBLW18, CBLW25), which it states are single-package dedicated refrigeration systems. These walk-in refrigeration system basic models are comprised of a controller ( i.e., the °CoolBot® controller) and a room air conditioner (“RAC”), which as combined form a walk-in refrigeration system. Store It Cold stated in its petition that the resulting walk-in refrigeration systems are designated for both indoor and outdoor use. According to Store It Cold's petition, the CoolBot's technology controls a much smaller air conditioner designed to be installed in a window to maintain desired temperatures, as opposed to a traditional walk-in cooler that would utilize large compressors, large surface area coils, multiple fans, and large volumes of refrigerant to do the same. 5

Store It Cold asserts in its petition that, for the basic models listed in its petition, the Refrigerant Enthalpy Method (referred to as the “refrigerant-side” gross capacity method by Store It Cold) yields inconsistent refrigerant mass flow rates and lower than expected capacities. Store It Cold explains in its petition that the installation of the refrigerant mass flow meters used under this method significantly increased the refrigerant circuit's internal volume, requiring the system to be charged with approximately twice the amount of refrigerant as was present from the factory. As a result, Store It Cold contends that the capacities calculated with this method are untrustworthy and unrepresentative of the equipment's true performance capabilities.

In its suggested alternate test procedure, Store It Cold proposes instead to use an “air-side” method in which the refrigeration capacity is determined by measuring the enthalpy change and mass flow rate of the air passing through the evaporator side ( i.e., Indoor Air Enthalpy Method) and condenser side ( i.e., Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method). The condenser side measurement is adjusted by subtracting the system input power to determine refrigeration capacity. In its petition, Store It Cold presents “refrigerant-side” and “air-side” capacity test results, asserting that the latter yields more consistent measurements and accurate capacities for the basic models assessed. As outlined in the petition, in August of 2017, Intertek Testing Services, NA, Inc., at the request of Store It Cold, attempted to conduct baseline performance evaluations on two of the basic models listed in their petition (CBLW10 and CBLW15) using the DX Dual Instrumentation method, 6 as prescribed by AHRI 1250-2009 for fixed-capacity single-package walk-in cooler refrigeration systems with outdoor condensing units. In November of 2017, Intertek then attempted to conduct baseline performance evaluations on two different basic models listed in their petition (CBLW08 and CBLW25) in accordance with the test procedure set forth in the AHRI 1250-2009, except that the units' refrigeration capacities were determined using the psychrometric “air-side” method proposed in its alternate test procedure. Store It Cold presents the test results in Table 1 and Figure 2 of its petition, which show that the “refrigerant-side” method required charging the unit to approximately twice the factory refrigerant charge because of the additional tubing needed to accommodate the flow meters required by the test procedure. Store It Cold presented data for basic models CBLW08 and CBLW25 at all three of the required capacity test conditions specified in AHRI 1250-2009 for walk-in cooler refrigeration systems with condensing units located outdoors. All three conditions require the same evaporator inlet air temperature but specify progressively decreasing condenser inlet dry-bulb air temperatures: 95 °F for the A test condition, 59 °F for the B test condition, and 35 °F for the C test condition. For the CBLW10 basic model, the net capacity increases from 2,871 Btu/hr in test condition A to 15,897 Btu/hr in condition B and then decreases to 7,690 Btu/hr in condition C. Conversely, for the CBLW15 basic model, the net capacity decreases from 10,271 Btu/hr in condition A to 8,846 Btu/hr in condition B and then increases to 9,160 Btu/hr in condition C.

Store It Cold also presented data from the “air-side” test performed on two basic models, CBLW08 and CBLW25. For the CBLW08 basic model, the net capacity increases from 5,073 Btu/hr in test condition A to 6,134 Btu/hr in condition B and then increases to 6,976 Btu/hr in condition C. For the CBLW25 basic model, the net capacity increases from 17,582 Btu/hr in condition A to 20,265 Btu/hr in condition B and then increases to 21,678 Btu/hr in condition C.

Store It Cold asserted that the proposed “air-side” method yields more accurate results for the basic models listed in its petition and thus that the alternate test procedure offered in its petition alleviates the issues identified with the current procedure.

Store It Cold also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2).

DOE understands that, absent an interim waiver, the specified basic models cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy characteristics. As presented in Store It Cold's petition, the subject basic models of walk-in cooler refrigeration systems are smaller than the typical walk-in cooler refrigeration systems. Because of the smaller size and configuration of the specified °CoolBot® Walk-In Cooler refrigeration systems, installation of the refrigerant mass flow meters as specified in the DOE test procedure significantly impacts the internal refrigeration system volumes and results in inconsistent refrigerant mass flow rate measurements and lower than expected capacities.

EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products or equipment and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations at 10 CFR 431.401 applying to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by Store It Cold in a subsequent Decision and Order.

Store It Cold seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific walk-in cooler refrigeration system basic models. Store It Cold suggested that the specified basic models be tested according to the test procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, except that instead of using the Refrigerant Enthalpy Method to determine capacity, the specified basic units be tested using the Indoor Air Enthalpy and Outdoor Air Enthalpy test methods to determine capacity.

DOE has reviewed Store It Cold's application for an interim waiver, the alternate test procedure requested by Store It Cold, the company's testing and performance data, product characteristics, and product specification sheets published online by Store It Cold. All materials reviewed by DOE can be found in the docket. 7 The test photo provided by Store It Cold shows that the refrigerant tubing exiting the unit has multiple bends in it without any extended straight sections upstream and downstream of the refrigerant mass flow meters, which could have affected the accuracy of the mass flow measurements during testing. Additionally, Store It Cold stated that the refrigerant tubing as configured increased the refrigerant circuit's internal volume, requiring the system to be charged with approximately twice the amount of refrigerant as was present from the factory.

For refrigeration systems in general, it is expected that the capacity of the system would monotonically increase as the condenser air temperature decreases (until further increases are limited by refrigerant mass flow restriction of the expansion device for the lower condensing pressures that would occur for lower condenser air temperatures). This is because the cooler condenser air temperature can further cool the refrigerant such that it leaves the condenser at lower temperature and enthalpy, 8 and similarly enters the evaporator at lower enthalpy. This increases the amount of heat the refrigerant absorbs from the refrigerated space as it flows through the evaporator coil, increasing the capacity of the evaporator. DOE notes that the “refrigerant-side” method test data in Store It Cold's petition do not follow this trend. Instead, as discussed in section II, the measured capacity increases and decreases as condenser air temperature decreases, with opposite trends for the tests of basic model CBLW10 as compared with CBLW15. These inconsistent results suggest that the capacity measurements are not accurate. The mass flow measurements may not be accurate due to the non-optimal test setup of the refrigerant lines conducting the refrigerant to and from the mass flow meters. Conversely, the data from testing using the “air side” method follows the expected trend, showing increasing refrigeration capacity as condenser air temperature decreases for both tested units. This gives much greater confidence that the measurements are accurate. “Air side” capacity measurements are well established for measurement of the capacity of air conditioners ( e.g. as described in American Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) Standard 37-2009, “Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment”, which is incorporated by reference into the requested alternate test procedure), and the principles of air-conditioner capacity measurement apply equally to the capacity measurement for refrigeration systems.

Therefore, DOE initially agrees that, for the basic models listed in Store It Cold's petition, the current test procedure produces results unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics and provides materially inaccurate comparative data. Alternatively, DOE notes that the “air-side” method suggested in Store It Cold's petition does not require installation of a refrigerant mass flow meter or any alteration of the test unit's refrigerant charge. Further, DOE finds that the test data for the proposed “air-side” method is consistent with the performance expected for refrigeration systems ( i.e. refrigeration capacity varies inversely with condenser air temperature).

Based on this review, the alternate test procedure appears to allow for the accurate measurement of the of efficiency of this equipment, while alleviating the testing problems associated with Store It Cold's implementation of walk-in cooler refrigeration systems testing for the basic models specified in its petition. Consequently, it appears likely that Store It Cold's petition for waiver will be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant Store It Cold immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.

DOE recognizes that Store It Cold's refrigeration system, which is based primarily on an off-the-shelf room air conditioner coupled with its CoolBot controller, is an unconventional one compared to most other walk-in refrigeration systems. The Agency acknowledges, however, that Store It Cold identifies this equipment in its petition as a “single-package[d] dedicated system” used to refrigerate walk-in units and also offers this equipment as part of a complete walk-in kit. See https://www.storeitcold.com/coolbot-walk-in-cooler/ . DOE notes that its decision to grant Store It Cold with an interim waiver in this case is limited to the specific facts presented in this particular matter and does not necessarily reflect how DOE would view similar equipment—but involving different facts—in other cases that may come before the Department.

For the reasons stated, DOE has issued an Order stating:

(1) Store It Cold must test and rate the following walk-in cooler refrigeration system basic models with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2):

(2) The alternate test procedure for the Store It Cold basic models listed in paragraph (1) is the test procedure for walk-in cooler refrigeration systems prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, 10 except as detailed below. All other requirements of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, and DOE's regulations remain applicable.

In 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, section 3.1. General modifications: Test Conditions and Tolerances revise sections 3.1.1. and 3.1.4., and add instructions in a new section 3.1.6. regarding Tables 3 and 4 of AHRI 1250-2009, to read:

3.1.1. In Table 1, Instrumentation Accuracy, refrigerant temperature measurements shall have a tolerance of ±0.5 F for unit cooler in/out. Temperature measurements used to determine water vapor content of the air shall be accurate to within ±0.4 F, ±1.0 F for all other temperature measurements.

3.1.4. In Tables 2 through 14, the Test Condition Outdoor Wet Bulb Temperature requirement and its associated tolerance apply only to units with evaporative cooling and single-packaged dedicated systems.

3.1.6. Tables 3 and 4 shall be modified to read as follows:

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

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN) apply to both existing and new facilities that perform surface coating of large household and commercial appliances and related parts where the total Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) emitted are greater than or equal to 10 tons per year of any one HAP, or where the total HAPs emitted are greater than or equal to 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Facilities that perform surface coating of large household and commercial appliances and related parts.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN).

Estimated number of respondents: 10 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 3,870 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $429,000 (per year), which includes $5,400 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The change in the burden and cost estimates occurred due to a decrease in the total number of facilities subject to the NESHAP. The estimate is based on EPA's recent reevaluation of the source category inventory associated with the recently-proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN (83 FR 46262, September 12, 2018). Per EPA's reevaluation, the number of respondents in the source category has decreased from the estimates in the 2002 final rule because the final rule included assumptions regarding several facilities that were not major sources of HAP. Additionally, there have been changes within the large appliance surface coating industry that result in fewer facilities being subject to the NESHAP. For example, many facilities that used liquid coatings have switched to powder coatings, or have switched to plastic parts and stainless steel instead of painted steel parts, or are using precoated metal coils instead of coating finished parts. As a result, there is a much smaller number of major sources. In addition to the burden decrease from the decreased number of respondents, there is also a burden decrease in the operating and maintenance costs due to the determination that only one affected source uses an emission control device to comply with the NESHAP. These changes result in an overall decrease in the labor hours O&M costs, and number of responses.

In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as set forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQS. A list of all reference or equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.

The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new equivalent method for measuring concentrations of O 3 in ambient air. This designation is made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65291-65468).

The new equivalent method for O 3 is an automated method (analyzer) utilizing the measurement principle based on UV photometry. This newly designated equivalent method is identified as follows:

EQOA-0219-251, “KENTEK Inc. Model MEZUS 410 O 3 Analyzer,” UV photometric analyzer operated in a range of 0-0.5 ppm, with 0.5 µm, 47 mm diameter Teflon® filter installed, operated at temperatures between 20 °C and 30 °C, with temperature and pressure compensation, at a nominal sampling flow rate of 800 cc/min, using a 5 minute averaging time, with either 105VAC-125VAC or 200VAC-240VAC input power options installed, 230-watt power consumption, equipped with 7 inch LCD touch screen display, and operated according to the KENTEK Inc. Model MEZUS 410 Ozone Analyzer User's Instruction Manual.

This application for a reference method determination for this O 3 method was received by the Office of Research and Development on January 29, 2019. This analyzer is commercially available from the applicant, Kentek Inc., Hansin S-MECA 65, Techno 3-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34016, Korea.

A representative test analyzer was tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015. After reviewing the results of those tests and other information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in accordance with part 53, that this method should be designated as an equivalent method.

As a designated equivalent method, this method is acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, this method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any specifications and limitations ( e.g., configuration or operational settings) specified in the designated method description (see the identification of the method above).

Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,” EPA/600/R-94/038a and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program,” EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html ). Provisions concerning modification of such methods by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.

Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions should be reported to: Director, Exposure Methods and Measurement Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

Designation of this equivalent method is intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to the applicant.

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

Abstract: Under the authority of sections 3004, 3005, 3008 and 3010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, EPA revised the RCRA hazardous waste permitting program to allow a “standardized permit.” The standardized permit is available to facilities that generate hazardous waste and routinely manage the waste on-site in non-thermal units such as tanks, containers, and containment buildings. In addition, the standardized permit is available to facilities that receive hazardous waste generated off-site by a generator under the same ownership as the receiving facility, and then store or non-thermally treat the hazardous waste in containers, tanks, or containment buildings. The RCRA standardized permit consists of two components: A uniform portion that is included in all cases, and a supplemental portion that the Director of a regulatory agency includes at his or her discretion. The uniform portion consists of terms and conditions, relevant to the unit(s) at the permitted facility, and is established on a national basis. The Director, at his or her discretion, may also issue a supplemental portion on a case-by-case basis. The supplemental portion imposes site-specific permit terms and conditions that the Director determines necessary to institute corrective action under section 264.101 (or state equivalent), or otherwise necessary to protect human health and the environment. Owners and operators have to comply with the terms and conditions in the supplemental portion, in addition to those in the uniform portion.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are business or other for-profit.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary (40 CFR 270.275).

Estimated number of respondents: 1.

Frequency of response: One time.

Total estimated burden: 218 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $11,612 (per year), includes $525 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 13,730 hours for this renewal. This decrease is based on the decrease from the estimated number of respondents from 86 to 1. In the 13 years since the Standardized Permit Rule was finalized, there has only been one such permit issued.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0466.

Title: Sections 74.783, 73.1201 and 74.1283, Station Identification.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 27,516 respondents; 27,516 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.166-1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or maintain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307 and 308.

Total Annual Burden: 25,925 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements for this collection are as following: 47 CFR 73.1201(a) requires television broadcast licensees to make broadcast station identification announcements at the beginning and ending of each time of operation, and hourly, as close to the hour as feasible, at a natural break in program offerings. Television and Class A television broadcast stations may make these announcements visually or aurally.

47 CFR 74.783(b) requires licensees of television translators whose station identification is made by the television station whose signals are being rebroadcast by the translator, must secure agreement with this television station licensee to keep in its file, and available to FCC personnel, the translator's call letters and location, giving the name, address and telephone number of the licensee or his service representative to be contacted in the event of malfunction of the translator. It shall be the responsibility of the translator licensee to furnish current information to the television station licensee for this purpose.

47 CFR 73.1201(b)(1) requires that the official station identification consist of the station's call letters immediately followed by the community or communities specified in its license as the station's location. The name of the licensee, the station's frequency, the station's channel number, as stated on the station's license, and/or the station's network affiliation may be inserted between the call letters and station location. Digital Television (DTV) stations, or DAB Stations, choosing to include the station's channel number in the station identification must use the station's major channel number and may distinguish multicast program streams. For example, a DTV station with major channel number 26 may use 26.1 to identify a High Definition Television (HDTV) program service and 26.2 to identify a Standard Definition Television (SDTV) program service. A radio station operating in DAB hybrid mode or extended hybrid mode shall identify its digital signal, including any free multicast audio programming streams, in a manner that appropriately alerts its audience to the fact that it is listening to a digital audio broadcast. No other insertion between the station's call letters and the community or communities specified in its license is permissible. A station may include in its official station identification the name of any additional community or communities, but the community to which the station is licensed must be named first.

47 CFR 74.783(e) permits low power TV permittees or licensees to request to be assigned four-letter call signs in lieu of the five-character alpha-numeric call signs.

47 CFR 74.1283(c)(1) requires a FM translator station licensee whose identification is made by the primary station must arrange for the primary station licensee to furnish the translator's call letters and location (name, address, and telephone number of the licensee or service representative) to the FCC. The licensee must keep this information in the primary station's files.

All visitors must be processed in accordance with established federal policies and procedures. For foreign nationals or non-U.S. citizens, pre-approval is required (please contact Gwen Mustaf, 301-458-4500, glm4@cdc.gov, or Sayeedha Uddin, isx9@cdc.gov at least 10 days in advance for requirements). All visitors are required to present a valid form of picture identification issued by a state, federal or international government. As required by the Federal Property Management Regulations, Title 41, Code of Federal Regulation, Subpart 101-20.301, all persons entering in or on Federal controlled property and their packages, briefcases, and other containers in their immediate possession are subject to being x-rayed and inspected. Federal law prohibits the knowing possession or the causing to be present of firearms, explosives and other dangerous weapons and illegal substances.

Purpose: This committee is charged with providing advice and making recommendations to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, CDC; and the Director, NCHS, regarding the scientific and technical program goals and objectives, strategies, and priorities of NCHS.

Matters To Be Considered: Day 1 meeting agenda includes welcome remarks and a Center update by NCHS leadership; update on the release of linked data files; update on the Implementation of the Redesigned National Health Interview Survey; report by the National Health Interview Survey Redesign Key Health Indicators Workgroup; update on Patient Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund Projects; Day 2 meeting agenda includes update on Comparability Study for OPIOID Questions; an update on NCHS Statistics Maternal Mortality Data. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

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

Purpose: The Committee is charged with providing advice and guidance to the Director, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP), the Director, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), the Director, CDC, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services, regarding (1) the practice of healthcare infection prevention and control; (2) strategies for surveillance, prevention, and control of infections, antimicrobial resistance, and related events in settings where healthcare is provided; and (3) periodic updating of CDC guidelines and other policy statements regarding prevention of healthcare-associated infections and healthcare-related conditions.

Matters To Be Considered: The agenda will include updates on CDC's activities for prevention of healthcare-associated infections. It will also include updates from the following HICPAC workgroups: The Healthcare Personnel Guideline Workgroup and the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) Guideline Workgroup. The agenda also includes updates on CDC and DHQP activities. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees (SGEs), requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for NIOSH MSHRAC membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in January 2020, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. SGE Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:

Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address).

Cover letter, including a description of the candidate qualifications and why the candidate would be a good fit for MSHRAC.

At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency ( e.g., CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.).

Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.

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

Purpose: The BSC, OID, provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director and the Deputy Director for Infectious Diseases (DDID), CDC; and the Directors of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in the following areas: Strategies, goals, and priorities for programs; research within the national centers; and overall strategic direction and focus of DDID and the national centers.

Matters To Be Considered: The agenda will include updates from the infectious disease national centers and the Center for Global Health along with focused discussions on recent outbreaks and affected populations and the CDC Surveillance Strategy and Public Health Data Strategy. Reports back from three workgroups will also be given: (1) The Board's Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM) Task Force; (2) the Board's Food Safety Modernization Act Surveillance Working Group; and (3) the Vector-borne Diseases Workgroup of the BSC, OID, and the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees (SGEs), requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for HICPAC membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in July 2020, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. SGE Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:

Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address).

At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency ( e.g., CDC, NIH, FDA, etc).

Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for ACBCYW membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in November 2020, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year.

Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:

Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address).

At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency ( e.g., CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.).

Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.

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

On October 31, 1988, the Congress enacted the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) (Pub. L. 100-578), which amended section 353 of the Public Health Service Act. We implemented the accreditation provisions of CLIA in the final rule published in the July 31, 1992 Federal Register (57 FR 33992). Under those provisions, we may grant deeming authority to an accreditation organization if its requirements for laboratories accredited under its program are equal to or more stringent than the applicable CLIA program requirements in 42 CFR part 493 (Laboratory Requirements). Subpart E of part 493 (Accreditation by a Private, Nonprofit Accreditation Organization or Exemption under an Approved State Laboratory Program) specifies the requirements an accreditation organization must meet to be approved by CMS as an accreditation organization under CLIA.

In this notice, we approve and grant deeming authority to the Accreditation Association for Hospitals and Health Systems/Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (AAHHS/HFAP) as an organization that may accredit laboratories for purposes of establishing their compliance with CLIA requirements for all specialty and subspecialty areas under CLIA. We have examined the initial AAHHS/HFAP application and all subsequent submissions to determine its accreditation program's equivalency with the requirements for approval of an accreditation organization under subpart E of part 493. We have determined that AAHHS/HFAP meets or exceeds the applicable CLIA requirements. We have also determined that AAHHS/HFAP will ensure that its accredited laboratories will meet or exceed the applicable requirements in subparts H, I, J, K, M, Q, and the applicable sections of R.

Therefore, we grant AAHHS/HFAP approval as an accreditation organization under subpart E of part 493, for the period stated in the DATES section of this notice for all specialty and subspecialty areas under CLIA. As a result of this determination, any laboratory that is accredited by AAHHS/HFAP during the time period stated in the DATES section of this notice will be deemed to meet the CLIA requirements for the listed subspecialties and specialties, and therefore, will generally not be subject to routine inspections by a state survey agency to determine its compliance with CLIA requirements. However, the accredited laboratory may be subject to validation and complaint inspection surveys performed by CMS, or its agent(s).

The following describes the process used to determine that AAHHS/HFAP accreditation program meets the necessary requirements for approval by CMS as an accreditation program with deeming authority under the CLIA program. AAHHS/HFAP formally applied to CMS for approval as an accreditation organization under CLIA for all specialties and subspecialties under CLIA. In reviewing these materials, we reached the following determinations for each applicable part of the CLIA regulations.

AAHHS/HFAP submitted information required under § 493.553 including a detailed comparison of the individual accreditation requirements with the comparable condition-level requirements, a detailed description of the inspection process, a statement concerning whether inspections are announced or unannounced, a description of the process for monitoring proficiency testing (PT) performance, a list of all its current laboratories and the expiration date of their accreditation, and procedures for making PT information available. The AAHHS/HFAP policies and procedures for oversight of laboratories performing laboratory testing for all CLIA specialties and subspecialties are equivalent to those of CLIA in the matters of inspection, monitoring proficiency testing (PT) performance, investigating complaints, and making PT information available. AAHHS/HFAP submitted additional information as required in § 493.557 including its mechanism for monitoring compliance with all requirements equivalent to condition-level requirements within the scope of specialty and subspecialty areas for which it requested deeming authority, a description of its data management and analysis system with respect to its inspection and accreditation decisions, detailed information concerning the inspection process, procedures for removal or withdrawal of accreditation status, a proposed agreement with CMS with respect to the notification requirements, and information demonstrating its ability to provide CMS with required electronic data and reports, adequacy of staffing and other resources, and adequacy of funding for performing required inspections. The requirements of the accreditation program submitted for approval are equal to or more stringent than the requirements of the CLIA regulations.

AAHHS/HFAP's requirements are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.801 through 493.865 for participation in PT for laboratories performing nonwaived testing. Like CLIA, all of AAHHS/HFAP's accredited laboratories are required to participate in an HHS-approved PT program for tests listed in subpart I.

The AAHHS/HFAP requirements for the submitted subspecialties and specialties are equal to the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1100 through 493.1105 for facility administration for nonwaived testing.

The AAHHS/HFAP requirements are equal to the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1200 through 493.1299 for quality systems for nonwaived testing.

We have determined that the AAHHS/HFAP's requirements are equal to the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1403 through 493.1495 for personnel for nonwaived testing for laboratories that perform moderate and high complexity testing.

We have determined that the AAHHS/HFAP requirements for the submitted subspecialties and specialties are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1771 through 493.1780 for inspections. AAHHS/HFAP will continue to conduct biennial onsite inspections consistent with the requirements at §§ 493.1771 through 493.1780.

AAHHS/HFAP meets the enforcement procedures requirements of subpart R as applicable accreditation organizations. AAHHS/HFAP policies set forth the actions the organization takes when laboratories it accredits do not comply with its requirements and standards for accreditation. When appropriate, AAHHS/HFAP will deny, suspend, or revoke accreditation of a laboratory accredited by AAHHS/HFAP and report that action to CMS within 30 days. AAHHS/HFAP also provides an appeals process for laboratories that have had accreditation denied, suspended, or revoked. We have determined that AAHHS/HFAP's laboratory enforcement and appeal policies are equal to the requirements of part 493 subpart R as they apply to accreditation organizations.

Consistent with the requirements at §§ 493.563 through 493.571, the federal validation inspections of laboratories accredited by AAHHS/HFAP may be conducted on a representative sample basis or in response to substantial allegations of noncompliance (that is, complaint inspections). The outcome of those validation inspections, performed by CMS or our agents, or the state survey agencies, will be our principal means for verifying that the laboratories accredited by AAHHS/HFAP remain in compliance with CLIA requirements. This federal monitoring is an ongoing process.

Section 493.575 provides that we may rescind the approval of an accreditation organization, for cause, before the end of the effective date of approval if we determine that the accreditation organization has failed to adopt, maintain and enforce requirements that are equal to, or more stringent than, the CLIA requirements, or that systemic problems exist in its monitoring, inspection or enforcement processes. We may impose a probationary period, not to exceed 1 year, in which the accreditation organization would be allowed to address any identified issues. Should the accreditation organization be unable to address the identified issues within that timeframe, we may revoke accreditation organization's deeming authority under CLIA in accordance with applicable regulations.

Should circumstances result in our withdrawal of AAHHS/HFAP's approval, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining the justification for removing its deeming authority.

This document does not impose information collection requirements that is reporting, recordkeeping or third party disclosure. Consequently, it does not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled, “Review and Update of Device Establishment Inspection Processes and Standards.” FDA is issuing this guidance document to comply with section 702(b) of FDARA (Pub. L. 115-52), which directs FDA to issue draft guidance that specifies how FDA will review processes and standards applicable to inspections of domestic and foreign device establishments in effect as of August 18, 2017, and update such processes and standards, as needed, through the adoption of uniform processes and standards that meet the criteria set forth in section 704(h)(1)(A) through (D) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 374(h)(1)(A) through (D)), as added by section 702(a) of FDARA. FDARA 702(b) also requires the draft guidance to provide for standardized methods of communication when communication is required under 704(h)(1), establish a standard timeframe for inspections, and identify practices for investigators and device establishments to facilitate the continuity of inspections of such establishments.

FDA is issuing this draft guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. 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 draft guidance refers to currently approved collections of information. These collections of information 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 803 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0437. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet at either https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Review and Update of Device Establishment Inspection Processes and Standards; Draft Guidance for Industry” may send an email request to ORAPolicyStaffs@fda.hhs.gov to receive an electronic copy of the document.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

The bottled water regulations in parts 129 and 165 (21 CFR parts 129 and 165) require that if any coliform organisms are detected in weekly total coliform testing of finished bottled water, followup testing must be conducted to determine whether any of the coliform organisms are Escherichia coli. The adulteration provision of the bottled water standard (21 CFR 165.110(d)) provides that a finished product that tests positive for E. coli will be deemed adulterated under section 402(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(3)). In addition, the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for bottled water in part 129 require that source water from other than a public water system (PWS) be tested at least weekly for total coliform. If any coliform organisms are detected in the source water, the bottled water manufacturers are required to determine whether any of the coliform organisms are E. coli. Source water found to contain E. coli is not considered water of a safe, sanitary quality and would be unsuitable for bottled water production. Before a bottler may use source water from a source that has tested positive for E. coli, a bottler must take appropriate measures to rectify or otherwise eliminate the cause of the contamination. A source previously found to contain E. coli will be considered negative for E. coli after five samples collected over a 24-hour period from the same sampling site are tested and found to be E. coli negative.

Description of Respondents: The respondents to this information collection are domestic and foreign bottled water manufacturers that sell bottled water in the United States.

In the Federal Register of November 7, 2018 (83 FR 55726), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.

The current CGMP regulations already reflect the time and associated recordkeeping costs for those bottlers that are required to conduct microbiological testing of their source water, as well as total coliform testing of their finished bottled water products. We therefore conclude that any additional burden and costs in recordkeeping based on followup testing that is required if any coliform organisms detected in the source water test positive for E. coli are negligible.

We estimate that the labor burden of keeping records of each E. coli followup test is about 5 minutes per test. We also require followup testing of source water and finished bottled water products for E. coli when total coliform positives occur. We expect that 319 bottlers that use sources other than PWSs may find a total coliform positive sample about 3 times per year in source water testing and about 3 times in finished product testing and thus would need to conduct 6 tests for E. coli, for a total of 153 hours of recordkeeping. In addition, about 95 bottlers that use PWSs may find a total coliform positive sample about 3 times per year in finished product testing and thus would need to conduct 3 tests for E. coli, for a total of 23 hours of recordkeeping.

We expect that three bottlers per year will test positive for E. coli in source water and will need to take actions to rectify or eliminate the cause of the contamination and verify that E. coli is negative by taking five samples over a 24-hour period from the same sampling site that originally tested positive for E. coli. We expect that recordkeeping for the followup test for E. coli will also take about 5 minutes per test. As shown in table 1, we expect that three bottlers per year will test positive for E. coli in source water and will have to carry out the additional E. coli testing, with a burden of 1 hour. These bottlers will also have to keep records about rectifying the source contamination, for a burden of 2 hours. For all expected total coliform testing, E. coli testing, and source rectification, we estimate a total burden of 179 hours. We base our estimate on our experience with the current CGMP regulations.

FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that SYMDEKO (tezacaftor/ivacaftor), manufactured by Vertex Pharmaceutical, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. SYMDEKO (tezacaftor/ivacaftor) is indicated for the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis aged 12 years and older who are homozygous for the F508del mutation or who have at least one mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene that is responsive to tezacaftor/ivacaftor based on in vitro data and/or clinical evidence.

For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further information about SYMDEKO (tezacaftor/ivacaftor), go to the “ Drugs@FDA ” website at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). Topics of the Meeting: The April 29, 2019 meeting of the Advisory Council will focus on person-centered planning for older adults including information about implementation of care plans for people living with cognitive symptoms. There will also be discussion about the use of antipsychotic medication for people with dementia and other conditions living in community settings.

Procedure and Agenda: This meeting is open to the public. Please allow 30 minutes to go through security and walk to the meeting room. The meeting will also be webcast at www.hhs.gov/live.