The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as KIM-C1, LLC of Fresno, California has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Huvepharma EOOD of Sofia, Bulgaria has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-800-682-0995 and conference call ID: 7996743. Please be advised that, before being placed 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 telephone number provided.

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 number: 1-800-682-0995 and conference call 7996743.

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 Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1040, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at ebohor@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://gsageo.force.com/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzksAAAclick the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. 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 Rocky Mountain Regional Office.

Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstances of the federal government shutdown.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 855-719-5012, conference ID number: 6867210. 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=a10t0000001gzkUAAQ.

Please click on “Committee Meetings” tab. 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, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Background

Commerce published its CVD Preliminary Determination on December 3, 2018. 1 On March 4, 2019, Commerce published its AD Preliminary Determination within which we amended the scope of the investigation to exclude certain products, based upon comments received from interested parties. 2

The product covered by this investigation is steel racks from China. We are amending the scope of the CVD investigation to conform with the scope of the companion AD investigation, including the exclusions of: (1) Decks, i.e., shelving that sits on or fits into the horizontal supports to provide the horizontal storage surface of the steel racks; (2) wire shelving units, i.e., units made from wire that incorporate both a wire deck and wire horizontal supports (taking the place of the horizontal beams and braces) into a single piece with tubular collars that slide over the posts and onto plastic sleeves snapped on the posts to create a finished unit; (3) pins, nuts, bolts, washers, and clips used as connecting devices; and (4) non-steel components. These exclusions were first enumerated in the AD Preliminary Determination. For a complete description of the amended scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

We have not revised the estimated cash deposit rates published in the CVD Preliminary Determination. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the amended scope of the investigation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , and to continue to require a cash deposit, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d). Additionally, because certain products are now excluded from the scope of the investigation, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate suspension of liquidation of those excluded products, and to refund any cash deposits previously posted with respect to them.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission of its amended determination. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

The United States Investment Advisory Council (Council) was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to duties imposed by 15 U.S.C. 1512 upon the Department and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.

The Council functions solely as an advisory committee in accordance with the provisions of FACA. In particular, the Council advises the Secretary on government policies and programs that affect businesses engaging in foreign direct investment (FDI), the expansion of domestic operations, or the transferring of operations to the United States from overseas. The IAC identifies and recommends programs and policies to help the United States attract and retain business investment and recommends ways to support the United States in remaining the world's preeminent investment destination. The Council acts as a liaison among the stakeholders represented by the membership and provides a forum for the stakeholders to provide feedback on current and emerging issues regarding FDI and business expansion.

The Council reports to the Secretary of Commerce on its activities and recommendations regarding FDI and business investment. In creating its reports, the Council is to survey and evaluate the investment and investment-facilitating activities of stakeholders, identify and examine specific problems facing potential business investors, and examine the needs of stakeholders to inform the Council's efforts. The Council is to recommend specific solutions to the problems and needs that it identifies.

Each member is to be appointed for a term of two years and serves at the pleasure of the Secretary. The Secretary may at his/her discretion reappoint any member to an additional term or terms, provided that the member proves to work effectively on the Council and his/her knowledge and advice is still needed.

The Council consists of no more than forty (40) members appointed by the Secretary. Members are to represent companies and organizations investing, seeking to invest, seeking foreign investors, or facilitating investment across many sectors, including but not limited to:

• U.S.-incorporated companies that are majority-owned by foreign companies or by a foreign individual or individuals, or that generate significant foreign direct investment ( e.g., through their supply chains);

• Companies or entities whose business includes FDI-related activities or the facilitation of FDI; and

• U.S. incorporated companies, regardless of ownership, that are considering expanding their operations in the United States or transferring to the United States operations that are currently being conducted overseas;

• Economic development organizations and other U.S. governmental and non-governmental organizations and associations whose missions or activities include the promotion or facilitation of business investment and/or FDI.

All members must be a U.S. national. Members shall be selected based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the IAC, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines, in a manner that ensures that the IAC is balanced in terms of points of view, industry sector or subsector, and organizational type. Members shall also represent a broad range of products and services and shall be drawn from large, medium, and small enterprises, private-sector organizations that have invested or are considering investing in the United States, and other investment-related entities, including non-governmental organizations, associations, and economic development organizations.

For members selected on the basis of their involvement in FDI and FDI-related activities, the IAC should also be balanced in terms of the geographic sources and destinations of the FDI and the volume and nature of FDI involved. For members selected on the basis of their interest in expanding their operations in, or transferring operations to the United States, the IAC should also be balanced in terms of the size and nature of the operations under consideration for expansion or transfer.

In selecting members, priority may be given to the selection of executives, i.e., Chief Executive Officer, Executive Chairman, President, or an officer with a comparable level of responsibility.

Members serve in a representative capacity, representing the views and interests of their sponsoring entity and those of their particular sector (if applicable), and they are, therefore, not Special Government Employees. Members will receive no compensation for their participation and will not be reimbursed for travel expenses related to Council activities. Appointments to the Council shall be made without regard to political affiliation. All members must be a U.S. national.

The Secretary designates a Chair and Vice Chair from among the members. The Council will meet a minimum of two times a year, to the extent practical, with additional meetings called at the discretion of the Secretary or his/her designee. Meetings will be held in Washington, DC or elsewhere in the United States, or by teleconference, as feasible. Members are expected to attend a majority of Council meetings.

To be considered for membership, submit the following information by 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 6, 2019 to the email address listed in the ADDRESSES section:

1. Name and title of the individual requesting consideration.

2. A sponsor letter on the sponsoring entity's letterhead containing a brief statement of why the applicant should be considered for membership on the Council. This sponsor letter should be written by an individual senior to the applicant and address the applicant's experience and leadership related to foreign direct investment or business expansion. The letter can also come from a source outside the company, preferably from someone whose business is related to the applicants, and also in a senior position.

3. The applicant's personal resume and short bio (less than 300 words).

4. An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all eligibility criteria, including an affirmative statement that the applicant is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

5. Information regarding the ownership and control of the sponsoring entity, including the stock holdings as appropriate.

6. The sponsoring entity's size, place of incorporation, product or service line, major markets in which the entity operates, and the entity's export or import experience.

7. A profile of the entity's foreign direct investment or expansion activities, including investment activities, investment plans, investment-facilitation activities, or other foreign direct investment activities.

8. Brief statement describing how the applicant will contribute to the work of the Council based on his or her unique experience and perspective (not to exceed 100 words).

9. All relevant contact information, including mailing address, fax, email, phone number, and support staff information where relevant.

On February 19, 2019, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the preliminary results of the 2016-2017 administrative review of the antidumping duty order for certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Russian Federation. Commerce inadvertently stated it intended to issue the final results of this administrative review no later than 90 days after the date these preliminary results of review were issued, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act). Commerce properly intends to publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues addressed in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of the preliminary results, unless extended. 1 This notice serves as a correction notice.

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We published the notice of initiation of this investigation on September 5, 2018. 1 We exercised our discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018, through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019. 2 On February 6, 2019, we postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now April 15, 2019. 3 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The products covered by this investigation are certain steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, 5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 6 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this investigation, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 7 We are preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the revised scope in Appendix I to this notice.

We are conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, we have preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences (AFA), for the China-wide entity, including each of the companies selected for individual examination: Xiamen Sunrise Wheel Group Co., Ltd. (Sunrise), Xingmin Intelligent Transportation System Co., Ltd. (Xingmin), and Zhejiang Jingu Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Jingu). As AFA, we have assigned the highest margin alleged in the Petition of 44.35 percent. 8

We preliminarily find a single entity, Changzhou Chungang Machinery Co., Ltd. (Chungang Machinery), which was not selected for individual examination in this investigation, to have demonstrated eligibity for a separate rate. However, because none of the mandatory respondents are receiving a separate rate and we are determining the China-wide rate based on AFA, we look to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act for guidance and are, consistent with that provision, using “any reasonable method” to determine the rate for exporters that are not being individually examined and found to be entitled to a separate rate. As “any reasonable method,” we find it appropriate to assign the simple average of the Petition rates ( i.e., 38.27 percent)  9 to Chungang Machinery, the separate rate applicant not individually examined. 10

For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of certain steel wheels from China for Chungang Machinery, the company eligible for a separate rate, and the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, 11 Commerce stated that it would calculate producer/exporter combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice. 12

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above as follows: (1) For the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all third-country exporters of merchandise under consideration not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese producer/exporter combination (or the China-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter.

Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from the following producer/exporter combinations: Chungang Machinery, the company eligible for a separate rate, and the China-wide entity. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to all unliquidated entries of merchandise from the producer/exporter combinations identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). Any such adjusted rates may be found in the “Preliminary Determination” section's chart of estimated weighted-average dumping margins above.

Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting cash deposits at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated in this preliminary determination unadjusted for the passed-through domestic subsidies or for export subsidies at the time the CVD provisional measures expire.

These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied AFA to the mandatory respondents in this investigation in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the Petition, and the rate assigned to the separate rate company was a simple average of the Petition rates, there are no calculations to disclose.

Because the mandatory respondents in this investigation did not provide information requested by Commerce and Commerce preliminarily determines each of the mandatory respondents to have been uncooperative, verification will not be conducted.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. 13 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1) provide that Commerce will issue the final determination within 75 days after the date of its preliminary determination. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 75 days after the signature date of this preliminary determination.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

On September 6, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 1 On December 17, 2018, Commerce extended the final results deadline until March 5, 2019. 2 In addition, Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018, through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. Accordingly, the deadline for the final results of this review was revised to April 15, 2019. 3

A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published these results, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for these final results, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. 4

The products covered by the scope of the order are certain light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we made certain revisions to the preliminary margin calculations for Maquilacero and Regiopytsa. The Issues and Decision Memorandum contains a description of these revisions. 5

The final weighted-average dumping margins for the exporters or producers listed below are as follows:  6

We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. We will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 41 days after publication of the final results of this review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 3.76 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation. 8 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).

Background

In response to requests from interested parties, Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) which it initiated on April 16, 2018. 1 The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018. On August 9, 2018, we rescinded the review with respect to Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company and Seavina Joint Stock Company. 2 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018, through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019. 3 Accordingly, the revised deadline for these preliminary results is now April 9, 2019.

The merchandise subject to the Order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description, available in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, remains dispositive. 4

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export prices and constructed export prices were calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV was calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of information from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and information provided by 18 companies, we preliminarily determine that these 18 companies  5 subject to this review did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. Commerce finds, consistent with its assessment practice in non-market economy cases, that it is appropriate not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances, but to complete the review with respect to these 18 companies and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review. 6 For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce finds that 67 companies ( see Appendix II) for which a review was requested have not established eligibility for a separate rate and are considered to be part of the Vietnam-wide entity for these preliminary results. 7 Because no party requested a review of the Vietnam-wide entity, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate of 25.76 percent is not subject to change. 8

For companies for which a review was requested and that have established eligibility for a separate rate, Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

Commerce will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results, and rebuttal comments within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless these deadlines are extended at a later date. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 11 Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. 12

The New England Aquarium (NEAQ) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on March 25, 2019, to conduct fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. NEAQ is requesting an exemption from Federal lobster regulations that would authorize two federally-permitted commercial lobster vessels to participate in a ropeless lobster gear study. NEAQ is requesting an exemption from the following regulation:

1. Gear marking requirements to allow for the use of a single buoy marker on a trawl of more than three traps (50 CFR 697.21(b)(2)).

The purpose of this study is to test a prototype ropeless fishing system as a potential technique to prevent entanglements of protected species, primarily North Atlantic right whales. This study is funded through the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (NA18NMF4720279).

The EFP would authorize two participating vessels to deploy two experimental trawls consisting of five or more traps. Experimental trawls would have a rope spool, fitted with an acoustic release, deployed on one end of the trawl, with a buoy line attached to the other. Soak time would be between 2-5 days, but may be modified depending on what each fisherman decides is appropriate for fishing. Sampling would occur from May to September, 2019 in Lobster Conservation Management Area 3. Initial deployments would be overseen by a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute engineering team, but later would be observed by NEAQ personnel. There would be a total of 42 deployments of experimental trawls.

If approved, the applicant 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 impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. The EFP would prohibit any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activities.

Agenda Monday, May 6, 2019 to Tuesday, May 7, 2019

The agenda will include: (a) Core Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) maintenance; (b) FEP objectives; (c) development of action module workplan; (d) outreach and communication; and (e) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at meetings.npfmc.org prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to meetings.npfmc.org/meeting/details/723 or through the mail: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

I. Abstract

Patent applications that contain nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence disclosures that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must include, as a separate part of the application disclosure, a copy of the sequence listing in accordance with the requirements in 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. Applicants may submit sequence listings for both U.S. and international patent applications. Submissions of sequence listings in international applications are in accordance with Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Rules 5.2 and 13 ter, as well as the PCT Administrative Instructions, Annex C.

This information collection covers the submission of the sequence listing information itself. Information pertaining to the filing of the initial U.S. application is collected under OMB Control Number 0651-0032, and information pertaining to the filing of the initial international application is collected under OMB Control Number 0651-0021.

In particular, this information collection accounts for sequence listings submitted on paper, compact disc (CD), or through EFS-Web, the USPTO's online filing system. Sequence listings may be submitted via EFS-Web as an ASCII text file or in Portable Document Format (PDF). For U.S. applications, § 1.821(c) permits all modes of submission: Paper, CD, or EFS-Web. Sequence listings for international applications may be submitted on paper or through EFS-Web only, though sequence listings that are too large to be filed electronically though EFS-Web may be submitted on CD.

This information collection also accounts for the requirement under § 1.821(e) that a copy of the sequence listing required by § 1.821(c) be submitted in computer readable form (CRF) in accordance with the requirements of § 1.824. Under §§ 1.821(e)-(f), applicants who submit their sequence listings on paper, CD, or as a PDF via EFS-Web must submit a copy of the sequence listing in CRF with a statement indicating that the CRF copy of the sequence listing is identical to the paper, CD, or PDF copy provided under § 1.821(c). Applicants may submit the CRF copy of the sequence listing to the USPTO on CD or other acceptable media as provided in § 1.824. If a new application is filed via EFS-Web with an ASCII text file sequence listing that complies with the requirements of §§ 1.824(a)(2)-(6) and (b), and applicant has not filed a sequence listing on paper, CD or as a PDF file, the text file will serve as both the copy required by § 1.821(c) and the CRF required by § 1.821(e). Moreover, the associated statement of identity would not be required.

This information collection also covers the mechanism in § 1.821(e) where an applicant may request, in limited circumstances, a transfer of the CRF from the application already on file to the new application, if the CRF sequence listing in a new application is identical to the CRF sequence listing of another application that the applicant already has on file at the USPTO. In such a case, the applicant may submit a letter identifying the application and CRF sequence listing that is already on file and stating that the sequence listing submitted in the new application is identical to the CRF copy already filed with the previous application. The USPTO provides a form, Request for Transfer of a Computer Readable Form Under 37 CFR 1.821(e) (PTO/SB/93), in order to assist customers in submitting this statement.

The USPTO uses the sequence listings during the examination process to determine the patentability of the associated patent application. The information in CRF is entered into the USPTO's database for searching and printing nucleotide and amino acid sequences. Sequence listings also are disclosed as part of the published patent application or issued patent and are provided to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) for inclusion in their sequence database.

By mail, hand delivery, or electronic submission to the USPTO.

OMB Number: 0651-0024.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations; and not-for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 28,850 responses per year. Of this total, the USPTO expects that 25% will be from small entities.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take approximately 6 minutes (0.10 hours) to 6 hours to complete a single IC item in this collection, depending on the instrument. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, create the documents, and submit the completed request to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 163,955 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $31,771,829.00. The USPTO estimates that a sequence listing will take approximately five hours of paraprofessional time at an estimated rate of $145 per hour and one hour of attorney time at $438 per hour, for a weighted average rate of $193.83 per hour for preparing a sequence listing. These rates are found in the 2017 Report of the Economic Survey of the America Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). The USPTO expects that the Request for Transfer of a CRF will be prepared by a paraprofessional at an estimated rate of $145 per hour. Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates $31,771,829.00 per year for the total hourly costs associated with respondents.

Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $1,774,500.00. This collection has no capital startup, maintenance, or operating fees. This collection does have a non-hourly cost burden in the form of filing fees and postage costs.

In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(G), the USPTO charges a fee for submitting a sequence listing as part of a U.S. application or as part of an international application entering the U.S. national stage if the sequence listing (i) is not filed via EFS-Web or not filed on an electronic medium in compliance with §§ 1.52(e) and 1.821(c) or (e), and (ii) causes the application to exceed 100 pages. (See 37 CFR 1.52(f)). Under 37 CFR 1.16(s) and 1.492(j) for U.S. applications and international applications entering the U.S. national stage, respectively, if the application, including the sequence listings filed on paper or on a non-compliant electronic medium, exceeds 100 pages, the application size fee is $400 (or $200 for small entities and $100 for micro entities) for each additional 50 pages or fraction thereof. The USPTO estimates the following with respect to the number of applications that will include long sequence listings filed on paper or on a non-compliant electronic medium and the average application size fee that such applications will incur: (i) Approximately 160 applications from large entities will incur an average application size fee of $1,200; (ii) approximately 80 applications from small entities will incur an average application size fee of $600; and (iii) approximately 32 applications from micro entities will incur an average application size fee of $300. The estimate corresponds to a total fee cost of $240,000, $60,000, and $12,000, respectively.

As a Receiving Office, the USPTO collects the international filing fee for each international application it receives. The basic international filing fee only covers the first 30 pages of the international application. As a result, a $15 fee per page is added to the international filing fee for each page over 30 pages of an international application including a sequence listing filed on paper or in PDF format. No page fees are triggered by sequence listings that are submitted via EFS-Web in the proper text format. The average length of a sequence listing filed on paper or in PDF format in an international application is 150 pages, which would carry an additional fee of $2,250 if the international application were already at least 30 pages long without the listing. The USPTO estimates that approximately 520 of the 6,000 sequence listings filed per year on paper or in PDF format will be for international applications.

The USPTO charges a fee for the handling of mega sequence listings, i.e., sequence listings of 300 MB or more. Pricing for this fee is divided into two tiers with Tier 1 for file sizes 300 MB to 800 MB and Tier 2 for file sizes greater than 800 MB. The USPTO also charges a fee, i.e., the Late Furnishing Fee for Providing a Sequence Listing in Response to an Invitation Under PCT Rule 13 ter, to encourage timely filing of sequence listings in international applications and to facilitate the effective administration of the patent system.

Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total fee costs for this collection will total $1,538,425.00.

Mailed submissions may include the sequence listing on either paper or CD, the CRF copy of the listing on CD, and a transmittal letter containing the required identifying information. The USPTO estimates that the average postage cost for a paper or CD sequence listing submission will be $6.55 (USPS Priority Mail, flat rate envelope) and that 5,300 sequence listings will be mailed to the USPTO per year, for a total of $34,715.00 in postage costs.

With filing fee costs totaling $1,538,425.00 and postage costs totaling $34,715.00, the USPTO estimates that the total annual non-hourly cost burden for this collection will amount to $1,573,140.00.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

I. Background

On October 29, 2018, the Office published a request for comments (“RFC”) on a proposed procedure for motions to amend filed in inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered business method patent reviews (collectively AIA trials) before the PTAB. See Request for Comments on MTA Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 FR 54319 (Oct. 29, 2018) (hereinafter RFC or MTA RFC). The Office received 49 comments in response to this RFC as of December 21, 2018 (the closing date for comments). See Comments on Motion to Amend Practice and Procedures in AIA Trials, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, https://go.usa.gov/xEXS2 (comments received by December 21, 2018, in response to the RFC) (last visited Feb. 8, 2019) (hereinafter PTAB RFC Comments website). On March 15, 2019, the Office published a notice of a pilot program for MTA practice and procedures in AIA trial proceedings before the Board. See Notice Regarding a New Pilot Program Concerning Motion to Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings under the America Invents Act before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 84 FR 9497 (March 15, 2019). In addition to the comments addressed in the MTA program notice, the Office received a number of comments and questions relating to reissue or reexamination as an alternative vehicle for claim amendments. The comments included requests for clarification regarding existing reissue and reexamination procedures at the Office.

In response to those comments and questions, this notice provides a summary of various pertinent practices regarding existing Office procedures that apply to reissue and reexamination, including after a petitioner files an AIA petition challenging claims of the same patent, after the Board institutes a trial, and after the Board issues a final written decision. This notice also provides summary information about factors the Office currently considers when determining whether to stay or suspend a reissue proceeding, or stay a reexamination proceeding, that involves a patent at issue in an AIA proceeding, and when and whether to lift such a stay or suspension.

This notice is only meant to summarize existing practice, and not to amend, supersede, or otherwise alter it. This notice should not be cited in papers submitted to the Office. Instead, applicants, parties, and the public should consult relevant statutes, regulations, case law, and the Office's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) for a full assessment of the issues, and for sources of citations in papers submitted to the Office.

The Office will consider a reissue application or a request for reexamination any time before, but not after, either: (1) The Office issues a certificate that cancels all claims of a patent, e.g., a trial certificate in an AIA trial proceeding, or (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issues a mandate in relation to a decision that finds all claims of a patent are invalid or unpatentable. The Office will not issue a trial certificate relating to a patent at issue in an AIA proceeding until after either: (i) The deadline for the filing of a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. 142 has passed ( i.e., 63 days after the date of a final written decision or, if a request is timely filed, 63 days after the date of a decision on a request for rehearing relating to the final written decision) (37 CFR 90.3); or (ii) all decisions or determinations in relation to an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding the patent are finally resolved.

Thus, patent owners may avail themselves of a reissue application or a request for reexamination before, during, or after an AIA trial proceeding results in a final written decision, as long as the application or request is timely filed as discussed above ( i.e., before the Office issues a certificate that cancels all relevant claims, or before the Federal Circuit issues a relevant mandate, as applicable). 1 For example, a patent owner may file a reissue application or a request for reexamination within 63 days of a final written decision regarding the patent at issue. Actions taken by the Office in response to such an application or request will depend on the timing of the filing and other relevant facts and issues, as explained in further detail below.

Under the current statutory scheme, a patent owner may file a reissue application to amend claims before, during, or after an AIA trial proceeding concludes with a final written decision, as discussed above. In particular, although 35 U.S.C. 251 requires an “error,” both the Office and the Federal Circuit have recognized that the error requirement is satisfied by the patent owner's failure to previously present narrower claims. See In re Tanaka, 640 F.3d 1246, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MPEP 1402(I). In other words, no admissions as to the patentability of original claims are required in a reissue application, and the oath accompanying a reissue application may include a statement about the error requirement related to the original patent's failure to earlier present narrower claims. 2 A reissue then proceeds through examination in much the same way as an application for a patent under original examination. 35 U.S.C. 251(c).

As stated in 37 CFR 1.178(a), an “application for reissue of a patent shall constitute an offer to surrender that patent, and the surrender shall take effect upon reissue of the patent.” A patent owner may abandon a reissue application at any time before reissue of the patent, for example, after obtaining a favorable result in a final written decision in an AIA proceeding or on appeal. Before reissuance of a patent, the original patent is not surrendered and remains in effect. 3 As discussed above, a reissue application must be filed before the issuance of a trial certificate that cancels all claims of a patent in an AIA trial proceeding or before the Federal Circuit issues a mandate in relation to a decision that determines or affirms that all claims of a patent are invalid or unpatentable. See MPEP 1449.01.

A reissue proceeding involves expedited prosecution. Under 37 CFR 1.176, “[a]pplications for reissue will be acted on by the examiner in advance of other applications,” and, as stated in MPEP 708.01, “[r]eissue applications, particularly those involved in stayed litigation, should be given priority.” Further, under MPEP 1442, reissue applications have “special status” and “will be taken up for action ahead of other `special' applications.” The Office may stay examination of a reissue application, however, pending a final written decision in an AIA trial proceeding addressing the same patent, as discussed in more detail below.

Office procedures provide for third party notice (by announcement of the reissue application in the Official Gazette, see MPEP 1430) and a (limited) opportunity for a third party to be heard (by filing a protest, see MPEP 1441.01). In addition, any 35 U.S.C. 315(b) bar triggered by service of a complaint alleging infringement of the original patent may not apply to the reissued patent. See Eizo Corp. v. Barco N.V., Case IPR2014-00358, Paper 21 at 7-8 (PTAB July 14, 2015); cf. Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (rejecting petitioners' effort to deem a reexamined patent a “new patent” for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 315(b), noting that “`[u]nlike reissue, reexamination does not result in the surrender of the original patent and the issuance of a new patent'”) (quoting Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1341-42 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).

A patent owner also may seek to amend its claims by filing a request for ex parte reexamination before, during, or after an AIA trial proceeding concludes with a final written decision, as discussed above. Reexamination presents considerations, however, not present with regard to reissue applications. Of particular note, under 35 U.S.C. 303, the Director is required to determine whether a request for reexamination raises “a substantial new question [SNQ] of patentability affecting any claim of the patent concerned.”

An SNQ is not raised if the “question of patentability has already been . . . decided in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent by the Office” (MPEP 2242(I)). Thus, an SNQ for reexamination cannot be a question raised in a ground already decided in a final written decision. In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 96-1307(I), at 6466 (1980)) (the SNQ requirement bars “reconsideration of any argument already decided by the office, whether during the original examination or an earlier reexamination”); accord id. at 1380. Thus, after the Board issues a final written decision on the patent in an AIA proceeding, an SNQ in a later-filed request for reexamination on that patent must differ from any question raised in a ground addressed in a final written decision.

In addition, current Office interpretation requires that the “substantial new question of patentability [is] established for the existing claims in the patent in order to grant reexamination” (MPEP 2242(I)) and that the reexamination “request should be decided on the wording of the patent claims in effect at that time (without any proposed amendments)” (MPEP 2221). Thus, an SNQ cannot be established based on new questions raised in relation to amended or new claims proposed during reexamination. See also 35 U.S.C. 303 (requiring the SNQ affect “any claim of the patent”). Once an SNQ has been established for the original claims in a reexamination proceeding, however, an SNQ is not required for examination of amended or new claims.

On the other hand, prior to the issuance of a final written decision, an SNQ may be established based on a question raised in a ground presented in an AIA petition. See MPEP 2242(I). 4 If the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) grants a reexamination request, however, the Office may stay the reexamination pending a final written decision in an AIA trial proceeding addressing the same patent, as discussed in more detail below.

In contrast to reissue, a reexamination results in the issuance of a certificate in the original patent, rather than the issuance of a new patent. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 315(b) bar triggered by service of a complaint alleging infringement of the original patent applies to a reexamined patent, even if the reexamination involves amended claims. See Click-To-Call Techs., 899 F.3d at 1336-37 (rejecting petitioners' effort to deem a reexamined patent a “new patent” for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 315(b)); BioDelivery Sciences Int'l, Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC, Case IPR2013-00315, Paper 31 at 3-5 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2013).

Also in contrast to a reissue proceeding, which may address all statutory requirements relating to patentability ( i.e., 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112), a reexamination proceeding generally addresses only issues relating to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, and 35 U.S.C. 112 under limited circumstances ( i.e., only as raised by newly added subject matter in an amendment). In addition, a reexamination proceeding must be based on prior art consisting of patents and printed publications (35 U.S.C. 301, 302). For example, a reexamination proceeding does not address issues involving public use or sale.

This notice provides additional information as to how the Office may handle the imposition of a stay or the lifting of a stay in a reissue or reexamination proceeding (“parallel Office proceeding”) in view of a co-pending AIA proceeding involving the same patent. Any parallel Office proceeding, however, will be evaluated based on its particular facts and circumstances.

The Director has authority to determine the approach with regard to a possible stay of a reissue or ex parte reexamination proceeding. 35 U.S.C. 315(d), 325(d). The Director has previously authorized the Board to enter an order to effect a stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of parallel Office proceedings involving the same patent during the pendency of an AIA trial proceeding. 37 CFR 42.3(a), 42.122(a), 42.222(a). Under that authority, the Board ordinarily will stay a parallel Office proceeding where good cause exists. Good cause for staying a case may exist if, for example, an on-going AIA proceeding, which is subject to statutory deadlines, is addressing the same or overlapping claims of a patent at issue in a parallel Office proceeding.

Parties to an AIA trial proceeding may request authorization to file motions to stay or motions to lift stays at any time during the pendency of the AIA proceeding. The Board typically will consider motions to stay a concurrent Office proceeding (or may impose a stay sua sponte ) any time after institution of an AIA trial proceeding and before the filing of a notice of appeal or the deadline for filing a notice of an appeal to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. 142 has passed ( i.e., 63 days after the date of a final written decision or, if a request is timely filed, 63 days after the date of a decision on a request for rehearing relating to the final written decision). See 37 CFR 42.3(a), 42.122(a), 42.222(a), 90.3.

In deciding whether to grant a stay of a parallel proceeding involving the same patent within the Office, the Office (typically the Board) may consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

• Whether the claims challenged in the AIA proceeding are the same as or depend directly or indirectly from claims at issue in the concurrent parallel Office proceeding;

• Whether the same grounds of unpatentability or the same prior art are at issue in both proceedings;

• Whether the concurrent parallel Office proceeding will duplicate efforts within the Office;

• Whether the concurrent parallel Office proceeding could result in inconsistent results between proceedings ( e.g., whether substantially similar issues are presented in the concurrent parallel Office proceeding);

• Whether amending the claim scope in one proceeding would affect the claim scope in another proceeding;

• The respective timeline and stage of each proceeding;

• The statutory deadlines of the respective proceedings;

• Whether a decision in one proceeding would likely simplify issues in the concurrent parallel Office proceeding or render it moot.

The Board also may deny institution under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) of a requested AIA trial proceeding if a parallel Office proceeding, for example, is in a more advanced stage and involves overlapping issues with the proposed AIA trial proceeding.

The Patents Organization (which are the offices under the Commissioner for Patents, hereinafter “Patents”) also may decide to suspend proceedings in a parallel reissue application either sua sponte or on request of the applicant under 37 CFR 1.103. See also MPEP 1442.02. Patents typically will consider similar factors to those discussed above but will weigh them in view of relevant facts and circumstances at the time suspension is being considered.

For example, action in a reissue application typically will be suspended (either sua sponte or if requested by petition) when there is concurrent litigation or a pending trial before the PTAB. MPEP 1442.02. However, the Office may or may not suspend a reissue application, using its discretion based upon the facts of the situation, for example if it is evident to the CRU examiner, or the applicant indicates, that “the . . . trial before the PTAB has been terminated”; “there are no significant overlapping issues between the application and the litigation or pending trial before the PTAB”; or “it is applicant's desire that the application be examined at that time.” Id.

In deciding whether to lift a stay of a parallel proceeding involving the same patent within the Office, the Board may consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

• Whether factors considered when ordering the stay ( i.e., factors indicating good cause) have changed from when the stay was ordered;

• Whether the patent owner has requested adverse judgment or canceled all claims at issue in the AIA trial proceeding;

• Whether the patent owner is requesting rehearing or appealing the final written decision in the AIA trial proceeding to the Federal Circuit;

• Whether the patent owner agrees to abide by the estoppel provisions set forth in 37 CFR 42.73(d)(3) ( i.e., not obtain a claim patentably indistinct from a claim cancelled or found unpatentable during an AIA trial proceeding); and

• Whether lifting the stay would be in the interests of the efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system ( cf. 35 U.S.C. 316(b)).

When ordering the stay of a parallel Office proceeding, the Board generally indicates that the stay will remain in place “pending the termination or completion of the instant proceeding.” Thus, absent a motion to lift the stay, a stay typically will remain in place until at least after the deadline for the filing of a notice of an appeal to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. 142 has passed. The issuance of a trial certificate signifies the completion of a trial proceeding and the end of the Board's jurisdiction, and thus automatically lifts a stay entered with the language above.

If a patent owner files a motion to lift a stay of a parallel Office proceeding after the Board issues a final written decision (and after any requests for rehearing are resolved, if applicable), the Board typically will lift the stay, absent reasons not to do so, e.g., in view of factors as discussed above. For example, the Board typically will lift the stay of a parallel Office proceeding if the patent owner proposes amendments in that proceeding in a meaningful way not previously considered by the Office. Meaningful amendments may include those that narrow the scope of claims considered in an AIA proceeding or otherwise attempt to resolve issues identified in the final written decision.

Non-exhaustive factors considered by the Office when determining whether the Board will lift a stay, or Patents will lift a suspension, of a parallel reissue application are discussed above. Further information specific to reissue proceedings are provided below.

After a final written decision issues in an AIA proceeding (and after any requests for rehearing are resolved, if applicable), if requested by the patent owner, Patents may lift a suspension of or otherwise decide to proceed with, i.e., not suspend, a related reissue proceeding while an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding the final written decision is pending. For example, Patents may lift a suspension if the reissue application attempts to (1) resolve issues with the original or proposed substitute claims identified in the final written decision ( e.g., amends the claims in a meaningful way not previously considered by the Office, also taking into account estoppel provisions set forth in 37 CFR 42.73(d)(3)), if applicable; or (2) correct an unrelated issue with the patent ( e.g., correction of a priority claim, inventorship, or a drawing). Otherwise, Patents generally will not lift a suspension or proceed with prosecution of a reissue application after the Board issues a final written decision and while a Federal Circuit appeal of that decision is ongoing.

If a Federal Circuit appeal of a final written decision in an AIA trial remains ongoing when allowable subject matter is identified in the reissue application, the Office typically will not pass that application to allowance until the Federal Circuit appeal concludes. In that situation, after an appeal to the Federal Circuit concludes, a patent owner may confer with the examiner and decide how to proceed with the reissue application ( e.g., proceed to issuance, file a request for continued examination (“RCE”) for further amendments/prosecution, or abandon the reissue application). The examiner also may need to reevaluate the status of allowable subject matter in view of a decision by the Federal Circuit.

As long as patent owner files the reissue application in a timely manner as discussed above, and raises issues different than those already considered in the AIA proceeding ( e.g., amendments meaningfully different than those in a previously presented motion to amend), the Office typically will consider the reissue application (subject to possible considerations for suspension discussed above).

Non-exhaustive factors considered by the Board when determining whether to lift a stay of a parallel reexamination are discussed earlier. As noted previously, under certain circumstances, the Office will proceed with a reexamination after the Board issues a final written decision relating to the same patent.

Unlike reissue applications, patent owners do not have the option to abandon ex parte reexamination applications. Once started, reexaminations proceed with special dispatch to completion. See 35 U.S.C. 305. Thus, after the Office determines that it is appropriate to lift a stay, or that a stay is not appropriate, a reexamination typically will continue to completion, notwithstanding a Federal Circuit appeal of a final written decision on the same patent.

If the Office identifies allowable subject matter in a reexamination proceeding, or after conclusion of a reexamination determining that some or all claims of a patent are unpatentable, the Office typically will issue a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate (“NIRC”) and reexamination certificate even if a Federal Circuit appeal remains ongoing, unless the patent owner timely files a notice of appeal in the ex parte reexamination proceeding. A patent owner who is dissatisfied with an examiner's decision to reject claims in an ex parte reexamination proceeding may appeal the final rejection of any claim to the Board by filing a notice of appeal within the required time. See MPEP 2273, 2687; 35 U.S.C. 134. In order to ensure that the reexamination certificate does not cancel original patent claims that are separately on appeal at the Federal Circuit, the patent owner must timely file an appeal in the reexamination proceeding of any final rejection of those original claims.

I. Abstract

This collection of information is required by the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which became operational in June 1978 and is administered by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland. The provisions of the PCT have been implemented by the United States in Part IV of Title 35 of the U.S. Code (Chapters 35-37) and Subpart C of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 CFR 1.401-1.499). The purpose of the PCT is to provide a standardized filing format and procedure that allows an applicant to seek protection for an invention in several countries by filing one international application in one location, in one language, and paying one initial set of fees.

The information in this collection is used by the public to submit a patent application under the PCT and by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to fulfill its obligation to process, search, and examine the application as directed by the treaty. The USPTO acts as the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) for international applications filed by residents and nationals of the United States. These applicants send most of their correspondence directly to the USPTO, but they may also file certain documents directly with the IB. The USPTO serves as an International Searching Authority (ISA) to perform searches and issue international search reports (ISR) and the written opinions of international applications. The USPTO also issues international preliminary reports on patentability (IPRP Chapter II) when acting as an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).

By mail, hand delivery, or electronic submission to the USPTO.

OMB Number: 0651-0021.

IC Instruments and Forms: PCT/IB/372; PCT/IPEA/401; PCT/RO/101; PCT/RO/134; PTO-1382; PTO-1390; PTO/SB/64/PCT.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 431,135 responses per year.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public between 15 minutes (0.25 hours) and 4 hours to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or document, and submit the information to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 352,769.78 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $154,513,163.64. The USPTO expects that an attorney will complete the materials in this collection. The professional hourly rate for intellectual property attorneys in private firms is $438. The rate is established by estimates in the 2017 Report on the Economic Survey, published by the Committee on Economics of Legal Practice of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $438 per year.

Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $280,004,662.50. This collection has annual (non-hour) costs in the form of filling fees, translations, drawings, and postage costs.

This chart provides an estimate of the fees associated with this collection and details the various entity size costs associated with each fee.

Applicants entering the national stage in the U.S. are required to file an English translation of the international application if the international application was filed in another language and was not published under PCT Article 21(2) in English. A processing fee is required for accepting an English translation after 30 months from the priority date. This requirement may carry additional costs for the applicant to contract for a translation of the documents in questions. According to the PCT Applicant's Guide—National Phase—National Chapter—US, put out by WIPO, the average cost for such a translation is $140. The USPTO estimates that it received approximately 2,475 English translations after 30 months from the priority date annually, for a total of $346,500 per year for English translations of non-English language documents for PCT applications.

Applicants may also incur costs for drawings that are submitted as part of PCT applications. Some applicants may produce their own drawings, while others may contract out the work to various patent illustration firms. For the purpose of estimating burden for this collection, the USPTO will consider all applicants to have their drawings prepared by these firms. According to the PCT Applicant's Guide—National Phase—National Chapter—US, drawings may cost an average of $400 to produce. The USPTO expects that it will receive 3 sets of drawings for a total of $1,200 per year.

Customers may incur postage costs when submitting the information in this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be $0.50 and that approximately 7,440 submissions (approximately 2% of the total responses) will be mailed to the USPTO per year, for a total estimated postage cost of $4,298.50 per year.

The USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of translations ($346,500), drawings ($1,200), filing fees ($279,652,624), and postage costs ($4,298.50), is $280,004,622.50 per year.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the Commission is publishing notice of the proposed extension of the existing collection of information listed below. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Title: Clearing Exemption for Swaps Between Certain Affiliated Entities (OMB Control No. 3038-0104). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Section 2(h)(1)(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act requires certain entities to submit for clearing certain swaps if they are required to be cleared by the Commission. Commission regulation 50.52 permits certain affiliated entities to elect not to clear inter-affiliate swaps that otherwise would be required to be cleared, provided that they meet certain conditions. The rule further requires the reporting of certain information if the inter-affiliate exemption from clearing is elected. The Commission will use the information described in this collection and reported pursuant to Commission regulation 50.52 to monitor the use of the inter-affiliate exemption from the Commission's clearing requirement and to assess any potential market risks associated with such exemption.

With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations. 1

The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection for counterparties to swaps between certain affiliated entities that elect the inter-affiliate exemption under Commission regulation 50.52. The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 310.

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 310 hours.

Frequency of Collection: Annually; on occasion.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

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

Title: Futures Volume, Open Interest, Price, Deliveries and Purchases/Sales of Futures for Commodities or for Derivatives Positions (OMB Control No. 3038-0012). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Commission Regulation 16.01 requires the U.S. futures exchanges to publish daily information on the items listed in the title of the collection. The information required by this rule is in the public interest and is necessary for market surveillance. This rule is promulgated pursuant to the Commission's rulemaking authority contained in Section 5 of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 7 (2010).

With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations. 1

The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Respondents/Affected Entities: Designated Contract Markets.

Estimated number of respondents: 15.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 3,750 hours. 2

Frequency of collection: Daily.

Title of Collection: Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (Regulations J, K & L) 12 CFR 1010, 1011, 1012.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0012.

Type of Review: Extension without change of an existing information collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit entities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 197.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,412.

Abstract: The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) requires land developers to register subdivisions of 100 or more non-exempt lots or units and to provide each purchaser with a disclosure document designated as a property report, 15 U.S.C. 1703-1704. ILSA was enacted in response to a nation-wide proliferation of developers of unimproved subdivisions who made elaborate and often fraudulent, claims about their land to unsuspecting lot purchasers. Information is submitted to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) to assure compliance with ILSA and the implementing regulations. The Bureau also investigates developers who are not in compliance with the regulations.

Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on December 17, 2018, (83 FR 64566), Docket Number: CFPB-2018-0041. Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be reviewed by OMB as part of its review of this request. All comments will become a matter of public record.

In the Federal Register of December 3, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-26212, on page 62311, in the second column, correct the “Summary” caption to read:

Statutory Authority and Function: The National Advisory Council on Indian Education is authorized by § 6141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. NACIE is established within the U.S. Department of Education to advise the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Interior on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction and includes Indian children or adults as participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults, including any program established under Title VII, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In addition, NACIE advises the Secretary of the Interior regarding these same Department of Education programs, and also, in accordance with section 5(a) of Executive Order 13592, advises the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaskan Native Education. NACIE submits to the Congress each year a report on the activities of the Committee and include recommendations that are considered appropriate for the improvement of Federal education programs that include Indian children or adults as participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults, and recommendations concerning the funding of any such program.

All attendees must RSVP for the meeting to ensure there is sufficient space to accommodate everyone. Please RSVP via email to Angeline.Boulley@ed.gov no later than April 22, 2019. If you would like to provide public comment, please submit your request no later than April 22, 2019 to Angeline.Boulley@ed.gov. Speakers will have up to five (5) minutes to provide a comment. Members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so via email at Angeline.Boulley@ed.gov. Comments should pertain to the work of NACIE and/or the Office of Indian Education.

Meeting Agenda: The purpose of the meeting is to convene NACIE to conduct the following business:

(1) Welcome and Introductions; (2) Presentation-(OESE) Leadership Team; (3) Discussion and Development of NACIE Priorities; (4) Presentation-BIE; (5) Presentation-Director of NIEA; (6) Presentation-OIE Program Activities;

(1) U.S. Department of Education Staff Presentations; (2) Discussion and Drafting of NACIE 2019 Annual Report to Congress; (3) Establish NACIE Meeting Calendar for 2019-2020.

Reasonable Accommodations: The hearing site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting ( e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify Erica Outlaw at 202-358-3144 or at Erica.Outlaw@ed.gov no later than April 22, 2019. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after request due date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to make arrangements.

Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the OESE website at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/index.html?src=oc. 21 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the FACA, the public may also inspect the materials at the Office of Indian Education, United States Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202, Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time or by emailing Angeline.Boulley@ed.gov or by calling Erica Outlaw at (202) 358-3144 to schedule an appointment.

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

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-0895.

Title: Numbering Resource Optimization.

Form Number: FCC Form 502.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities and State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,793 respondents; 10,165 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour—44.4 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and semi-annual reporting requirements and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205 and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934.

Total Annual Burden: 132,384 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $4,407,451.84

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Disaggregated, carrier specific forecast and utilization data will be treated as confidential and will be exempt from public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

Needs and Uses: The data collected on FCC Form 502 helps the Commission manage the ten-digit North American Numbering Plan (NANP), which is currently being used by the United States and 19 other countries. Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission was given “exclusive jurisdictions over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertains to the United States.” Pursuant to that authority, the Commission conducted a rulemaking in March 2000 that the Commission found that mandatory data collection is necessary to efficiently monitor and manage numbering use. The Commission received OMB approval for this requirement and the following:

(1) Utilization/Forecast Report;

(2) Application for initial numbering resource;

(3) Application for growth numbering resources;

(4) Recordkeeping requirement;

(5) Notifications by state commissions;

(6) Demonstration to state commission; and

(7) Petitions for additional delegation of numbering authority.

The data from this information collection is used by the FCC, state regulatory commissions, and the NANPA to monitor numbering resource utilization by all carriers using the resource and to project the dates of area code and NANP exhaust.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection.

Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0856.

Title: Universal Service—Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Program Reimbursement Forms.

Form Numbers: FCC Forms 472, 473, and 474.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions, Not-for-profit institutions, and State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 22,000 respondents; 158,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour per form.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements and third-party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The Commission's statutory authority to collect this information is derived from 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

Total Annual Burden: 158,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to OMB, which is an extension of a currently approved collection, to obtain a full three-year clearance from OMB. FCC Forms 472, 473, and 474 have no revisions. The hourly burden will decrease by 165 hours for FCC Forms 472, 473, and 474. The public burden for the collection contained herein will decrease to 158,000 burden hours.

The FCC Form 472 is used by an eligible entity to seek reimbursement from the service provider for the discounts on services paid in full. After receiving an invoice from the service provider, together with an FCC Form 472, USAC is able to verify the eligible service and approved amounts that should be reimbursed and can make the appropriate payment to the service provider. The FCC Form 472 is also used to ensure that each service provider has provided discounted services within the current funding year for which it submits an invoice to USAC and that invoices submitted from service providers for the costs of discounted eligible services do not exceed the amount that has been approved.

The FCC Form 473 is used to verify that the service provider is eligible to participate in the schools and libraries universal service support program (E-Rate program) and to confirm that the invoice forms submitted by the service provider are in compliance with the Federal Communications Commission's E-Rate program rules. The FCC Form 473 is also used by USAC to assure that the dollars paid out by the universal service fund go to eligible providers.

The FCC Form 474 is used by an eligible service provider to seek payment for the discounted costs of services it provided to billed entities for eligible services. After receiving an invoice from the service provider, together with an FCC Form 474, USAC is able to verify that the eligible and approved amounts can be paid. The FCC Form 474 is also used to ensure that each service provider has provided discounted services within the current funding year for which it submits an invoice to USAC and that invoices submitted from service providers for the costs of discounted eligible services do not exceed the amount that has been approved.

All of the requirements contained in this information collection are necessary to implement the Congressional mandate for the E-Rate program and reimbursement process.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0192.

Title: Section 87.103, Posting Station License.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local and tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 33,622 respondents, 33,622 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 303.

Total Annual Burden: 8,406 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impacts.

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

Needs and Uses: Section 87.103 states the following: (a) Stations at fixed locations. The license or a photocopy must be posted or retained in the station's permanent records. (b) Aircraft radio stations. The license must be either posted in the aircraft or kept with the aircraft registration certificate. If a single authorization covers a fleet of aircraft, a copy of the license must be either posted in each aircraft or kept with each aircraft registration certificate. (c) Aeronautical mobile stations. The license must be retained as a permanent part of the station records. The recordkeeping requirement contained in Section 87.103 is necessary to demonstrate that all transmitters in the Aviation Service are properly licensed in accordance with the requirements of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301, No. 2020 of the International Radio Regulation, and Article 30 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

A. Purpose

GSAR clause 552.211-77, Packing List, requires a contractor to include a packing list or other suitable document that verifies placement of an order and identifies the items shipped. In addition to information contractors would normally include on packing lists, the identification of cardholder name, telephone number and the term “Credit Card” is required.

Respondents: 8,561.

Responses per Respondent: 19.

Total Annual Responses: 162,659.

Hours per Response: .05.

Total Burden Hours: 8,133.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, at 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0246, Packing List Clause, in all correspondence.

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

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

The Tobacco Control Act, enacted on June 22, 2009, amended the FD&C Act and provided FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco products (Pub. L. 111-31; 123 Stat. 1776). Specifically, section 101(b) of the Tobacco Control Act amended the FD&C Act by adding chapter IX (21 U.S.C. 387 through 387u), which provides FDA with tools to regulate tobacco products. Section 901 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387a) states that Chapter IX—Tobacco Products applies to all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco and to any other tobacco products that the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation deems to be subject to this chapter.

The FD&C Act provides FDA authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and any other tobacco products that the Agency by regulation deems to be subject to the law. On May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28973) FDA issued a final rule to deem products meeting the statutory definition of “tobacco product” to be subject to the FD&C Act. This final rule extended FDA's “tobacco product” authorities under Chapter IX to all tobacco products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)).

Section 910(a)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387j(a)(1)) defines a “new tobacco product” as a tobacco product that was not commercially marketed in the United States on February 15, 2007, or a modification (including a change in design, any component, any part, or any constituent, including a smoke constituent, or in the content, delivery, or form of nicotine, or any other additive or ingredient) of a tobacco product where the modified product was commercially marketed in the United States after February 15, 2007. An order under section 910(c)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act is required prior to marketing a new tobacco product. This requirement applies unless the product has been shown to be substantially equivalent to a valid predicate product or is exempt from substantial equivalence.

Section 910(b) of the FD&C Act states that a premarket tobacco application (PMTA) shall contain full reports of all investigations of health risks; a full statement of all components, ingredients, additives, and properties, and of the principle or principles of operation of such tobacco product; a full description of methods of manufacturing and processing (which includes; a listing of all manufacturing, packaging, and control sites for the product); an explanation of how the product complies with applicable tobacco product standards; samples of the product and its components; and labeling.

FDA also encourages persons who would like to study their new tobacco product to meet with the Office of Science in the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) to discuss their investigational plan. The request for a meeting should be sent in writing to the Director of CTP's Office of Science and should include adequate information for FDA to assess the potential utility of the meeting and to identify FDA staff necessary to discuss agenda items.

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

FDA estimates that it will take each respondent approximately 1,500 hours to prepare a PMTA seeking an order from FDA allowing the marketing of a new tobacco product. FDA also estimates that it would on average take an additional 213 hours to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with the requirements of 21 CFR 25.40, for a total of 1,713 hours per PMTA application. This average represents a wide range of hours that will be required for these applications under different circumstances, with a small number requiring more hours ( e.g., as many as 5,000 hours for early applications that involve complex products and for which the company has no experience conducting studies or preparing analysis of public health impacts, or for which reliance on master files is not possible) as well as many requiring fewer hours ( e.g., as few as 50 hours for applications for products that are very similar to other new products). A PMTA may require one or more types of studies including chemical analysis, nonclinical studies, and clinical studies. FDA also estimates the number of PMTAs that FDA expects to receive annually will be 750 (642 ENDS Liquids and 108 ENDS Delivery Systems).

For tobacco products already on the market at the time of the final rule, much of the information required to support a PMTA may be obtained from previously published research on similar products. Therefore, FDA expects that a large portion of applications may be reviewed with no or minimal new nonclinical or clinical studies being conducted to support an application. In contrast, nonclinical and clinical studies may be required for market authorization of a new product for which there is limited understanding of its potential impact on the public health. The range of hours involved to compile these two types of applications would be quite variable.

FDA anticipates that the 200 potential respondents to this collection may need to meet with CTP's Office of Science to discuss their investigational plans. To request this meeting, applicants should compile and submit information to FDA for meeting approval. FDA estimates that it will take approximately 4 hours to compile this information, for a total of 800 hours additional burden.

Therefore, the total annual burden for submitting PMTA applications is estimated to be 1,285,550 hours. FDA's estimates are based on the corresponding information collection estimates that apply to tobacco products currently subject to the FD&C Act and an assumption that manufacturers would submit applications for the premarket review of tobacco products.

In § 1143.3(c) (21 CFR 1143.3(c)) an exemption is provided to the manufacturer of a product that otherwise would be required to include the warning statement in § 1143.3(a)(1) on its packages and in its advertisements, i.e., “WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.” This warning will be required to appear on at least 30 percent of the two principal display panels of the package and on at least 20 percent of the area of the advertisement.

To obtain an exemption from this requirement, a manufacturer would be required to certify to FDA that its product does not contain nicotine and that the manufacturer has data to support that assertion. For any product that obtains this exemption, the section requires that the product bear the statement: “This product is made from tobacco.” The parties that package and label such products will share responsibility for ensuring that this alternative statement is included on product packages and in advertisements. Companies are permitted to obtain an exemption from this warning requirement in the event that such tobacco products are developed in the future.

The estimated average burden per response is based on currently approved information collection estimates. Although very few certifications are expected for tobacco products that do not contain nicotine, FDA estimates that the number of certification submissions could rise if the Agency decides in the future to address not only nicotine, but any other addictive substances.

The estimated hours listed in the burden table for certification submissions reflect the time needed to test the product for nicotine and to prepare and submit the self-certification request. FDA expects that these types of certifications will be rare and estimates that the Agency will receive on average five submissions per year.

FDA concludes that the labeling statements in §§ 1143.3(a)(1) and 1143.5(a)(1) and the alternative statement in § 1143.3(c) ( i.e., “This product is made from tobacco”) are not subject to review by OMB because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Rather, these labeling statements are a “public disclosure” of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of “disclosure to the public” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).

Agenda: On June 19 and 20, 2019, the committee will discuss and make recommendations on information related to recent observations of increased long-term mortality in peripheral arterial disease patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloons and paclitaxel-eluting stents compared to patients treated with uncoated comparator devices. FDA requests panel input regarding the presence and magnitude of the signal and potential causes. FDA also seeks input regarding appropriate regulatory actions associated with the findings.

FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) on or before May 22, 2019. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled on June 19, 2019, between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.; and on June 20, 2019, between approximately 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before May 14, 2019. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by May 15, 2019.

Representatives from industry, professional organizations, and societies interested in making formal presentations to the committee should notify the contact person on or before May 22, 2019.

Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Artair Mallett at Artair.Mallett@fda.hhs.gov or 301-796-9638 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title of the Collection: Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424).

Type of Collection: Reinstatement without change.

OMB No. 4040-0004.

Abstract: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) form provides the Federal grant-making agencies with a common and standard form for organizations to apply for financial assistance.

Type of respondent: Organizations seeking financial assistance. This form is submitted to the Federal grant-making agencies for evaluation and review.

Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title of the Collection: Application for Federal Assistance—Individual.

Type of Collection: Reinstatement without change.

OMB No. 4040-0005.

Abstract: The Application for Federal Assistance—Individual form provides the Federal grant-making agencies an alternative to the Standard Form 424 data set and form. Agencies may use Application for Federal Assistance—Individual form for grant programs not required to collect all the data that is required on the SF-424 core data set and form.

Type of respondent: The Application for Federal Assistance—Individual form is used by organizations to apply for Federal financial assistance in the form of grants. This form is submitted to the Federal grant-making agencies for evaluation and review.

Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title of the Collection: Application for Federal Assistance SF 424 R&R forms.

Type of Collection: Reinstatement without change.

OMB No.: 4040-0001.

Abstract: The SF-424 R&R family of forms provides the Federal grant-making agencies an alternative to the Standard Form 424 data set and form. Agencies may use the SF-424 R&R forms for grant programs not required to collect all the data that is required on the SF-424 core data set and form.

Type of respondent: The SF-424 R&R family of forms are used by organizations to apply for Federal financial assistance in the form of grants. These forms are submitted to the Federal grant-making agencies for evaluation and review.

Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title of the Collection: Project/Performance Site Location(s), Project Abstract, and Key Contacts forms.

Type of Collection: Reinstatement without change.

OMB No. 4040-0010.

Abstract: The Project/Performance Site Location(s), Project Abstract, and Key Contacts forms provide the Federal grant-making agencies an alternative to the Standard Form 424 data set and form. Agencies may use Project/Performance Site Location(s), Project Abstract, and Key Contacts forms for grant programs not required to collect all the data that is required on the SF-424 core data set and form.

Type of respondent: Project/Performance Site Location(s), Project Abstract, and Key Contacts forms are used by organizations to apply for Federal financial assistance in the form of grants. This form is submitted to the Federal grant-making agencies for evaluation and review.

“Sexual and gender minority” is an umbrella term that encompasses lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations as well as those whose sexual orientation, gender identity and expressions, or reproductive development varies from traditional, societal, cultural, or physiological norms.

The Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO) coordinates sexual and gender minority (SGM)-related research and activities by working directly with the NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. The Office was officially established in September 2015 within the NIH Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI) in the Office of the Director.

The SGMRO has the following research-related goals: (1) Expand the knowledge base of SGM health and well-being through NIH-supported research; (2) Remove barriers to planning, conducting, and reporting NIH-supported research about SGM health and well-being; (3) Strengthen the community of researchers and scholars who conduct research relevant to SGM health and well-being; and (4) Evaluate progress on advancing SGM research.

Two non-monetary awards of recognition will be offered to early stage investigators who demonstrate both contemporary achievement in and a commitment to an area of SGM-related health research. The awardees will be invited, with all travel expenses covered (limited to reimbursement based on Federal Travel Regulations and HHS and NIH guidance), to give a lecture at the NIH in September 2019. This event will be webcast live and the presentations will be archived and available for future viewing.

The following individuals are not eligible to be nominated: Federal employees and interns/fellows; federal contractors; members of the NIH SGM Research Working Group, and previous NIH SGM Investigator awardees.

• At the time of the nomination due date, June 10, the candidate must meet the NIH's definitions of an early stage investigator (ESI) ( https:// grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-101.html ).

A Letter of Intent (LOI) to submit a nomination is required (nominees may self-nominate and submit their own LOIs). The LOI should be a 1-page, single-spaced Word or PDF document and include:

1. Nominee's name, title, affiliation, and date of terminal degree.

2. eRA Commons ID.

a. Before submitting the LOI, researchers should confirm ESI status is correctly marked in their eRA Commons ( https://era.nih.gov/ ) profile. If the status is incorrect, please contact the NIH eRA Service Desk ( https://grants.nih.gov/support/index.html ) to resolve the issue before submitting an LOI.

3. SGM research focus of nominee's work.

Attach the LOI (as a Word or PDF document) to an email and send it to sgmhealthresearch@od.nih.gov with the subject line “2019 SGM Investigator Award Letter of Intent” no later than 11:59 p.m. local time on May 20, 2019.

Nomination packages may be submitted by the nominee or a nominee's mentor or colleague. Nomination packages must be a single PDF file that includes:

1. CV and NIH Biosketch including a link (URL) to the nominee's My Bibliography in PubMed.

a. If you do not have a My Bibliography in PubMed, refer to these simple step-by-step instructions to save your citations in PubMed to a “My Bibliography.”

b. Use the URL that PubMed automatically generates when you change your “My Bibliography” sharing setting to public.

2. Letter of nomination (1,000 words or less) from a mentor or colleague familiar with the nominee's work, addressing the nominee's innovative contribution to the field of SGM health research, crosscutting and collaborative nature of that research, trajectory of career development, and leadership strengths. The strongest letters will demonstrate the lasting significance and impact of the nominee's work to date.

3. Two letters of endorsement from other mentors or colleagues. Letters of endorsement may be less encompassing than the letter of nomination, but should address similar themes.

4. A PDF of a key, peer-reviewed article published in the past 24-month period, which is first-authored by the nominee. If in press, please provide the accepted paper and the letter of acceptance from the journal.

After compiling all the above elements into a single PDF file, attach the PDF to an email, and send it to sgmhealthresearch@od.nih.gov with the subject line header “2019 NIH SGM Investigator Award Nomination” no later than 11:59 p.m. local time on June 10, 2019.

• Stage 1: The SGMRO will assemble a review panel composed of NIH staff with relevant expertise. This panel will provide recommendations for two awardees to the SGMRO Director and the DPCPSI Director.

• Stage 2: The SGMRO and DPCPSI Directors will review the recommendations and select the final two awardees.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation will be available at http://www.reginfo.gov upon its submission to OMB. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.

OMB Control Number 1652-0062; Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) Program. Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) and delegated authority from the Secretary of Homeland Security, TSA has broad responsibility and authority for “security in all modes of transportation including security responsibilities over modes of transportation that are exercised by the Department of Transportation.”  1 TSA is required to “assess the security of each surface transportation mode and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of current Federal Government surface transportation security initiatives.” E.O. 13416, sec. 3(a) (Dec. 5, 2006).

TSA developed the Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) program in 2007, in an effort to engage with surface transportation entities to establish a “baseline” of security and emergency response operations. This program was initially created for Mass Transit/Passenger Rail (MT/PR) ( i.e., transit, including transit bus) and passenger rail. However, based on the success of the program, TSA developed the Highway (HWY) BASE program in 2012, with full implementation in 2013. This incorporated trucking, school bus contractors, school districts, and over-the-road motor coach. This voluntary program has served to collect and evaluate physical and operational preparedness information and critical assets and key point-of-contact lists. The program also reviews emergency procedures and domain awareness training and provides an opportunity to share industry best practices.

While many MT/PR and HWY entities have security and emergency response plans or protocols in place, there is no consistent approach to evaluate the extent to which security programs exist, nor the content of those programs. As a result, there also is no consistent data about these transportation security programs, nor a database that can be used to benchmark the programs. The BASE program is designed to address these issues.

The program provides TSA with current information on adopted security practices within the MT/PR and HWY modes of the surface transportation sector. This information also allows TSA to adapt programs to the changing threat dynamically, while incorporating an understanding of the improvements surface transportation entities make in their security posture. Without this information, the ability of TSA to perform its security mission would be severely hindered. Additionally, the relationships these face-to-face contacts foster are critical to TSA's ability to reach out to the surface transportation entities participating in the BASE program.

In carrying out the voluntary BASE program, TSA's Transportation Security Inspectors—Surface (TSIs—S) conduct BASE reviews during site visits with security and operating officials of MT/PR and HWY systems, throughout the Nation. The TSIs—S receive and document relevant information using a standardized electronic checklist. Advance coordination and planning ensures the efficiency of the assessment process. The TSIs-S review and analyze the stakeholders' security plan, if adopted, and determine if the mitigation measures included in the plan are being effectively implemented, while providing additional resources for further security enhancement. In addition to examining the security plan document, TSIs-S reviews one or more assets of the private and/or public owner/operator.

During BASE site visits of MT/PR and HWY entities, TSIs—S collect information and complete a BASE checklist from the review of each entity's documents, plans, and procedures. They also interview appropriate entity personnel and conduct system observations prompted by questions raised during the document review and interview stages. TSA conducts the interviews to ascertain and clarify information on security measures and to identify security gaps. The interviews also provide TSA with a method to encourage the surface transportation entities participating in the BASE reviews to be diligent in effecting and maintaining security-related improvements.

While TSA has not set a limit on the number of BASE program reviews to conduct, TSA estimates it will conduct approximately 80 MT/PR BASE reviews and approximately 90 HWY BASE reviews on an annual basis. TSA does not intend to conduct more than one BASE review per mass transit or passenger rail system in a single year. TSA estimates that the hour burden per MT/PR entity to engage its security and/or operating officials with inspectors in the interactive BASE program review process is approximately 12 hours. Also, TSA estimates that the hour burden per HWY entity to engage its security and/or operating officials with inspectors in the interactive BASE program review process is approximately 6 hours. Thus, the total annual hour burden for the MT/PR BASE program review is 936 hours annually (80 × 11.7 hours = 936 hours) and for HWY BASE 522 hours annually (90 × 5.8 hours = 522 hours).

TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on December 5, 2018, 83 FR 62879.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation will be available at http://www.reginfo.gov upon its submission to OMB. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.

Title: Federal Flight Deck Officer Program.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number: 1652-0011.

Forms(s): N/A.

Affected Public: Volunteer pilots, flight engineers, and navigators.

Abstract: The FFDO Program enables TSA to screen, select, train, deputize, and supervise qualified volunteer pilots, flight engineers, and navigators to defend the flight decks of commercial passenger and all-cargo airliners against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. Information collected as the result of this proposal is used to assess the eligibility and suitability of prospective and current FFDOs, to ensure the readiness of every FFDO, to administer the program, and for security purposes.

Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 3,000 hours annually.

TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on October 31, 2018, 83 FR 54760.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation will be available at http://www.reginfo.gov upon its submission to OMB. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.

Title: Enhanced Security Procedures at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number: 1652-0035.

Forms(s): DCA Access Standard Security Program (DASSP).

Aircraft Operator Application Form.

Affected Public: GA aircraft operators and passengers, ASOs, flight crewmembers, fixed base operators, and gateway airport operators.

Abstract: TSA is requesting an extension of this information collection. In accordance with 49 CFR part 1562, subpart B, TSA requires GA aircraft operators who wish to fly into or out of DCA to designate a security coordinator and adopt the DASSP. Once aircraft operators have complied with the DASSP requirements, they must request a slot reservation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and request authorization from TSA for each flight into and out of DCA. This information collection is approved under OMB control number 1652-0033, TSA Airspace Waiver Applications.

As part of the DASSP requirements, individuals designated as security coordinators, ASOs, and flight crewmembers assigned to duty on a GA aircraft flying into and out of DCA must submit fingerprints for a Criminal History Records Check (CHRC). In addition, GA aircraft operators must also maintain CHRC records of all employees and authorized representatives for whom a CHRC has been completed.

Under the Armed Security Officer Program, DASSP approved entities can nominate candidates through an online nomination form. Once approved by TSA to participate, the candidates are vetted for suitability for the program by providing various application materials. A law enforcement employment verification check is then completed. In addition, they are required to submit their fingerprints so that a CHRC can be conducted. Upon successful completion of the application process, a final determination of eligibility is adjudicated. All qualified applicants must then successfully complete a TSA-approved training course.

Number of Respondents: 160.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 174 hours annually.

We announce the availability of the final revised stock assessment report (SAR) for the northern sea otter ( Enhydra lutris kenyoni ) stock in the State of Washington.

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 18, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regulates the taking; import; and, under certain conditions, possession; transportation; purchasing; selling; and offering for sale, purchase, or export, of marine mammals. One of the goals of the MMPA is to ensure that stocks of marine mammals occurring in waters under U.S. jurisdiction do not experience a level of human-caused mortality and serious injury that is likely to cause the stock to be reduced below its optimum sustainable population (OSP) level. OSP is defined under the MMPA as “the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element” (16 U.S.C. 1362(9)).

To help accomplish the goal of maintaining marine mammal stocks at their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA requires the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to prepare a SAR for each marine mammal stock that occurs in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. A SAR must be based on the best scientific information available; therefore, we prepare it in consultation with established regional scientific review groups established under 117(d) of the MMPA. Each SAR must include:

1. A description of the stock and its geographic range;

2. A minimum population estimate, current and maximum net productivity rate, and current population trend;

3. An estimate of the annual human-caused mortality and serious injury by source and, for a strategic stock, other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock;

4. A description of commercial fishery interactions;

5. A categorization of the status of the stock; and

6. An estimate of the potential biological removal (PBR) level.

The MMPA defines the PBR as “the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its [OSP]” (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)). The PBR is the product of the minimum population estimate of the stock (N min ); one-half the maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small population size (R max ); and a recovery factor (F r ) of between 0.1 and 1.0, which is intended to compensate for uncertainty and unknown estimation errors. This can be written as:

Section 117 of the MMPA also requires the Service and NMFS to review the SARs (a) at least annually for stocks that are specified as strategic stocks, (b) at least annually for stocks for which significant new information is available, and (c) at least once every 3 years for all other stocks. If our review of the status of a stock indicates that it has changed or may be more accurately determined, then the SAR must be revised accordingly.

A strategic stock is defined in the MMPA as a marine mammal stock “(A) for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the [PBR] level; (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, [as amended] (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) [ESA], within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the [ESA], or is designated as depleted under [the MMPA]” 16 U.S.C. 1362(19).

The Washington sea otter SAR was last revised in August 2008. The Washington sea otter is not a strategic stock, thus the Service is required to review the stock assessment at least once every 3 years. The Service reviewed the Washington sea otter SAR in 2011 and concluded that a revision was not warranted because the status of the stock had not changed, nor could it be more accurately determined. However, upon review in 2016, the Service determined that revision was warranted because of changes in population estimates and distribution.

Before releasing our draft SAR for public review and comment, we submitted it for technical review internally and for scientific review by the Pacific Regional Scientific Review Group, which was established under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386(d)). In a January 17, 2018 (83 FR 2461), Federal Register notice, we made our draft SAR available for the MMPA-required 90-day public review and comment period. Following the close of the comment period, we revised the SAR based on public comments we received (see Response to Public Comments) and prepared the final revised SAR.

The following table summarizes some of the information contained in the final revised SAR for northern sea otters in Washington State, which includes the stock's N min , R max , F r , PBR, annual estimated human-caused mortality and serious injury, and status.

We received comments on the draft revised SAR from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and the Makah Tribe. We present substantive issues raised in those comments that are pertinent to the SAR, edited for brevity, along with our responses below.

Comment 1: The Service should conduct annual reviews of this SAR, given the rapid population increase. In addition, the annual reviews and OSP analysis should be reviewed by, and input incorporated from, the Pacific Scientific Review Group (PSRG) before the revised SAR is made available for public review and comment, as required by section 117 of the MMPA.

Response: As required in section 117(c) of the MMPA, the Service strives to meet its statutory requirement of reviewing the SAR for this non-strategic stock every 3 years. If our review indicates the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined, the Service revises the SAR in accordance with section 117(b), which includes providing an opportunity for public review and consideration of advice offered by the PSRG. However, prior to public notification of the availability of a draft revised SAR, the Service seeks input from the PSRG to ensure it accurately reflects the best scientific information available at the time of preparation. In addition, the Service updates the PSRG on any new information and ongoing studies during the PSRG's annual meetings.

The Service considers the ongoing population increase of 9 percent per year to be the population trajectory for almost three decades and, as such, does not represent significant new information that would warrant a review or revision on an annual basis. We appreciate the commenter's concern over the time it takes for review and, if warranted, subsequent revision of the SAR but balance that concern with the need to ensure our SAR accurately reflects the best available science and is subject to the public comment process.

Comment 2: The Service should develop methods for estimating total abundance of sea otters and associated uncertainty to inform an Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) analysis so that more accurate comparisons with carrying capacity estimates can be made.

Response: Although the Service has provided funds to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for conducting the annual summer census (which at least provides a minimum population estimate for estimating the PBR), the Service does not currently have the resources to develop and implement a survey method that would accurately estimate the total abundance and associated uncertainty for the Washington sea otter stock. Such a survey would most likely be cost-prohibitive because it would require considerably more flight and staff time in order to cover the full extent of the range where otters may occur. Although a statistically rigorous analysis to develop an estimate of uncertainty could potentially be developed, it would also require a significant investment of resources because development of a detection function requires observer verification. A detection function based on past survey data would likely not be appropriate for the following reasons: (a) The number of ground stations throughout the range in different habitat types is not sufficient; (b) the ground observers miss otters that are observed by the aerial observer, and aerial photo counts often are higher than ground observer counts, further complicating the ability to calculate the error; and (c) since 1989, there has been one consistent aerial observer, thus any confidence interval developed for past data may not be applicable to surveys post-2019 when the current observer will be retiring.

At this time, the Service does not have a reliable estimate of carrying capacity, and therefore, the Service has not identified the OSP for the Washington stock of northern sea otters. The Service is aware of a Ph.D. student out of the University of Washington who is currently working on an updated estimate of carrying capacity for northern otters in Washington, which may assist the Service in determining a more appropriate lower end of the OSP range ( i.e., approximately 60 percent of carrying capacity). This will allow the Service to provide a more accurate determination of the stock's status relative to OSP; however, because the population continues to increase at 9 percent per year, we consider it unlikely that the stock is at OSP. Also, see response to Comment 5.

Comment 3: The Service should revise the discussion of fisheries information to indicate more precisely the nature of the Makah fishery, including the target species, where it is active, and whether it is a commercial fishery.

Response: NMFS (under the Secretary of Commerce) has the responsibility under MMPA section 118 for development of the List of Fisheries. NMFS's regulations at 50 CFR 229.1(d) state that those regulations do not apply “to Northwest treaty Indian tribal members exercising treaty fishing rights.” Therefore, NMFS does not include the commercial fisheries operated by Northwest treaty Indian Tribes in the List of Fisheries. For example, in the 2016 List of Fisheries (81 FR 20550, April 8, 2016), Treaty Indian fishing is specifically excluded from the Washington Puget Sound region and Washington Grays Harbor salmon drift gillnet fisheries, which are commercial fisheries in which Tribes participate. The Makah Tribe's marine set-gillnet fishery is a commercial treaty fishery and is included in the Washington northern sea otter SAR in that category accordingly. The fishing areas where the fishery is active are also included in this SAR, specifically Catch Areas 4/4A/4B/5/6A/6C. The Service does not have access to the number of vessels participating in this fishery. Landing information for fisheries in these Catch Areas has been provided to the Service for ESA consultations with NMFS, but it does not break down the information by Tribe or fishery ( i.e., includes both drift and set gill nets), nor does it include number of vessels.

We have reached out to NMFS to obtain reports of incidental taking of sea otters and have received no reports. Per NMFS' regulations, as mentioned above, fisheries operated by Northwest treaty Indian Tribal members exercising treaty fishing rights are exempt and are thus not subject to the reporting requirements of MMPA section 118(e). Unless a Tribe has their own regulations that require reporting and those reports are provided to NMFS and the Service, we are not privy to any incidental take. The Makah Tribe has provided incidental take information directly to the Service, per their regulations. Other Tribes may have similar self-reporting regulations regarding incidental catch of marine mammals, but we have not received reports from any other Tribe.

Comment 4: The Service should consult with NMFS, Tribal authorities, and other relevant groups to arrange for the placement of observers aboard trap and gillnet fishing vessels that may pose a significant risk of incidentally taking sea otters within their range in Washington State.

Response: Under the MMPA, only Category I and II fisheries are required to accommodate an observer on board their vessel(s). Category III fisheries are generally not required to accommodate observers aboard vessels due to the remote likelihood of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Any request to place an observer on board a vessel must originate from NMFS. The Service does not have the authority to request observers be placed aboard fishing vessels. The fisheries that may result in mortality or serious injury of sea otters are either Tribal or Category III fisheries, except for the Washington coast Dungeness crab pot fishery, which is a Category II fishery. In addition, the pots are set and left and most of these vessels are small and cannot accommodate an observer on board. While an observer program may increase our opportunity to detect bycatch, analyses indicate that high levels of observer effort would be required to avoid false-negative conclusions, even if the rate of bycatch mortality is substantial enough to reduce the population growth rate (Hatfield et al. 2011). The Service will continue to work with the WDFW, NMFS, and Tribes to explore options for assessing sea otter bycatch, subject to funding availability.

Comment 5: The commenter asserted the recovery factor should be 0.75 or higher for the following reasons: (a) The SAR does not follow NMFS guidelines, (b) a State listing status cannot be used in the rationale for a recovery factor, (c) the WDFW proposed to change the State's status from endangered to threatened in February 2018, and (d) the current (2017) estimate indicates the population is approaching carrying capacity and has attained OSP.

Response: The Service appreciates and supports the efforts of NMFS in developing their Office of Protected Species Technical Memorandum and the 2016 Guidelines for Preparing Stock Assessment Reports. However, these NMFS guidelines have not been adopted by the Service, and, while we consider the information contained within them to the extent applicable, they are not binding on the Service.

The WDFW's proposed change in status (Sato 2018) was not available at the time the SAR was developed nor before the SAR was made available for public comment, thus could not be considered in this SAR. Regardless, the recovery factor of 0.1 was not entirely based on the State listing status. As was recommended to the Service by the PSRG, we relied on the Taylor et al. (2003) factor for a small population (consisting of between 1,500 and 7,500 individuals) that has an increasing trend, but is considered vulnerable, regardless of listing status. The Washington sea otter stock is within the range considered to be a small population (whether or not a newer population estimate is used) and is considered to be vulnerable because of their restricted range making more than 50 percent of the stock vulnerable to a potential catastrophe, such as an oil spill, at any point in time. Therefore, the Service continues to agree with the recommendation made by the PSRG to use a recovery factor of 0.1.

A carrying capacity estimate was produced by Laidre et al. (2011); however, the Service does not consider this to be a viable estimate for the full range of this stock for the following reasons:

(1) This carrying capacity estimate relied on population density estimates associated with rocky habitat in Washington where the population has continued to grow at about 5 percent per year.

(2) Laidre et al. (2011) relied upon density estimates developed for southern sea otters for the mixed and sandy habitat in Washington. This is not an appropriate density estimate to apply because southern sea otters are food limited, whereas Washington sea otters are not. An appropriate carrying capacity estimate for Washington sea otters needs to be based on food availability within the different habitat types that occur in Washington.

(3) Some areas that Laidre et al. (2011) delineated as rocky habitat should have been delineated as mixed or sandy, within which a more appropriate density estimate should be applied.

(4) Subsequent to the data relied upon by Laidre et al. (2011), exponential population growth has occurred within the areas that are primarily mixed and sandy habitat types. This type of population growth is not an indicator that a population is approaching carrying capacity.

(5) Because there is evidence that Washington sea otters move around within their range more than otters in other stocks, basing a density estimate on a population estimate taken only once per year may not provide a realistic evaluation of the use of the habitat. Although Laidre et al. (2011) provided a total carrying capacity estimate of 1,854 sea otters for this stock, this is not a good representation of the number of otters the habitat in Washington is capable of supporting. In addition, the rate at which the Washington sea otter population is increasing ( i.e., average rate of 9 percent per year 1989 to 2016) indicates the stock has not reached it's carrying capacity. Without an updated estimate of carrying capacity, the status of the Washington sea otter stock relative to OSP cannot be determined at this time; however, because the population is increasing at such a significant rate, it is unlikely to be at OSP.

Thus, the Service has retained the recovery factor of 0.1 in the revised SAR. As new information becomes available, the Service may reevaluate our recovery factor in future revisions.

Comment 6: Table 1 should reflect the most recent data available. In addition, the specific references to the Makah Tribe should be removed and all Tribal information be referred to as “treaty tribal fisheries.”

Response: The SAR covers the time period of 2011-2015/2016, which includes data available at the time the SAR was revised. As indicated in response to Comment 1, the process for review and revision of a SAR can take a considerable amount of time even before making it available for public comment. If the Service were to update the SAR to include data outside the time period provided in the draft revised SAR, the changes would be significant enough to require republication of a new draft revised SAR and, thus, the process would begin again. This could perpetually delay finalization of the SAR. Instead, the next revision of the SAR will include the more recent data.

Per section 117(a)(4) of the MMPA, the Service is required to describe the commercial fisheries that interact with the stock. The Northern Washington Marine Set Gillnet Fishery is a commercial fishery that reported sea otter takes during the time period included in the SAR and, therefore, must be included in Table 1. We have changed reference to the fishery being a “Makah fishery” to a “Tribal fishery” and have removed line 1 referencing Areas 4/4A from the table as there was no active fishery in these areas during the time period of this SAR.

Comment 7: Speculation about the possibility that sea otters could be trapped in crab fishing pots should be removed from the SAR. There is no direct evidence of mortality in Washington, and any mortalities would have been documented in social media. Circumstantial evidence indicates that, if any mortality is occurring, it is very minor and is not impacting the population.

Response: As discussed in the SAR, the data we relied upon was not based on experimental efforts. There is direct evidence of sea otters in California and Alaska being trapped and drowned in crab pot gear that is identical to gear used within the range of the sea otter in Washington, and we cannot be sure that all otters that become trapped and subsequently die will be reported via social media. The assumption that the population would not be growing at its current rate if it was experiencing mortality in the crab fishery is not necessarily accurate. While it appears that the population is growing at 20 percent in the southern portion of the range, the population as a whole is growing at 9 percent. A significant number of pups continues to be documented in the northern portion of the range, and it is more likely that the growth in the south is being supplemented by births in the northern portion. Finally, both the PSRG and Commission have recommended that we include the information regarding the unknowns in the SAR.

Comment 8: The section on “Harvest by Northwest treaty Indian Tribes” does not belong in the SAR and should be removed as it does not follow NMFS guidelines.

Response: As stated in our response to Comment 5, the NMFS guidelines have not been adopted and are not binding on the Service. Section 117 of the MMPA provides the essential elements that should be addressed in a SAR; however, the Service is not precluded from including other items as it sees fit. As this stock is subject to potential harvest by Tribes that the Service does not consider exempt under MMPA, the Service believes it is necessary to include this statement in our document.

Comment 9: The mortality rate information in the SAR does not reflect the best available science and is inconsistent with the SAR guidelines developed by NMFS. In particular, the SAR does not provide a conclusion on whether the total fishery mortality and serious injury rate is approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate.

Response: Section 117(a)(3) requires that the Service provide an estimate of all human-caused mortality and serious injury. While our data are limited due to lack of observer coverage and uncertainties, we have based our estimate on the best data available, including beach-cast carcasses that represent other sources of human-caused mortality. We clearly indicate that the minimum level of all human caused mortality and serious injury is at least one sea otter per year and may be higher. Although the known human-caused mortality and serious injury is less than PBR, we are unable to definitively state that the total mortality and serious injury of sea otters due to human-caused mortalities and serious injuries is insignificant and approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate because of the lack of observer data for commercial fisheries that may interact with sea otters.

The authority for this action is the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. )

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are soliciting comments on the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the NPS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the NPS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the NPS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: The National Park Service (NPS) Organic Act of 1916 (Organic Act) (54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq. ) gives the NPS broad authority to regulate the use of the park areas under its jurisdiction. Consistent with the Organic Act, as well as the Constitution's Establishment Clause which mandates government neutrality and allows the placement of holiday secular and religious displays, the National Christmas Tree Music Program's holiday musical entertainment may include both holiday secular and religious music. To ensure that any proposed music selection is consistent with the Establishment Clause, and presented in a prudent and objective manner as a traditional part of the culture and heritage of this annual holiday event, it must be approved in advance by the NPS.

The NPS National Christmas Tree Music Program at President's Park is intended to provide musical entertainment for park visitors during December on the Ellipse, where in celebration of the holiday season, visitors can observe the National Christmas Tree, visit assorted yuletide displays, and attend musical presentations. Each year, park officials accept applications from musical groups who wish to participate in the annual National Christmas Tree Program. The NPS utilizes Form 10-942, “National Christmas Tree Music Program Application” to accept applications from the public for participation in the program. Park officials utilize the following information from applicants in order to select, plan, schedule, and contact performers for the National Christmas Tree Program:

• Contact name, phone number, and email.

• Group name and location (city, state).

• Preferred performance dates and times.

• Music selections/song list.

• Equipment needs.

• Number of performers.

• Type of group (choir, etc.).

• Acknowledgement of the musical entertainment policy.

Title of Collection: National Park Service President's Park National Christmas Tree Music Program Application.

OMB Control Number: 1024-0277.

Form Number: NPS Form 10-942, “National Christmas Tree Music Program Application”.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Local, national, and international bands, choirs, or dance groups.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 75 (2 individuals and 73 private sector).

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 75 (2 individuals and 73 private sector).

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 19.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

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

The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before March 30, 2019. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

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

Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:

The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before April 6, 2019. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

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

Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers: