Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that additional import duties may be imposed on imports of products subject to tarification as a result of the Uruguay Round, if certain conditions are met. The agreement permits additional duties to be charged if the price of an individual shipment of imported products falls below the average price for similar goods imported during the years 1986-88 by a specified percentage. It also permits additional duties when the volume of imports of that product exceeds the sum of (1) a base trigger level multiplied by the average of the last three years of available import data and (2) the change in yearly consumption in the most recent year for which data are available (provided that the final trigger level is not less than 105 percent of the three-year import average). The base trigger level is set at 105, 110, or 125 percent of the three-year import average, depending on the percentage of domestic consumption that is represented by imports. These additional duties may not be imposed on quantities for which minimum or current access commitments were made during the Uruguay Round negotiations, and only one type of safeguard, price or quantity, may be applied at any given time to an article.

Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires that the President cause to be published in the Federal Register information regarding the price and quantity safeguards, including the quantity trigger levels, which must be updated annually based upon import levels during the most recent 3 years. The President delegated this duty to the Secretary of Agriculture in Presidential Proclamation No. 6763, dated December 23, 1994, 60 FR 1007 (Jan. 4, 1995). The Secretary of Agriculture further delegated this duty, which lies with the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service (7 CFR 2. 601 (a)(42)). The Annex to this notice contains the updated quantity trigger levels, consistent with the provisions of Article 5.

Additional information on the products subject to safeguards and the additional duties which may apply can be found in subchapter IV of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2019) and in the Secretary of Agriculture's Notice of Uruguay Round Agricultural Safeguard Trigger Levels, published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 427 (Jan. 4, 1995).

Notice: As provided in Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, consistent with Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the safeguard quantity trigger levels previously notified are superseded by the levels indicated in the Annex to this notice. The definitions of these products were provided in the Notice of Safeguard Action published in the Federal Register , at 60 FR 427 (Jan. 4, 1995).

The Lincoln National Forest is preparing an EIS to revise the existing Forest Plan. The EIS process is meant to inform the Forest Supervisor so he can decide which alternative best maintains and restores National Forest System terrestrial and aquatic resources while providing ecosystem services and multiple uses, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act.

The revised Forest Plan will describe the strategic intent of managing the Forest for the next 10 to 15 years and will address the identified needs for change to the existing land management plans. The revised Forest Plan will provide management direction in the form of desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability of lands. It will identify delineation of new management areas across the Forest; identify the timber sale program quantity; make recommendations to Congress for Wilderness designation; and list rivers and streams eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The revised forest plan will also provide a description of the plan area's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape, identify watersheds that are a priority for maintenance or restoration, include a monitoring program, and contain information reflecting expected possible actions over the life of the plan.

It is also important to identify the types of decisions that will not be made within the revised Forest Plan. The revised Forest Plan will represent decisions that are strategic in nature, but will not make site-specific project decisions and will not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on the Forest Service's internal operations. The authorization of project level activities will be based on the guidance/direction contained in the revised plan, but will occur through subsequent project specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and decision-making.

The revised Forest Plan will provide broad, strategic guidance designed to supplement, not replace, overarching laws and regulations. Though strategic guidance will be provided, no decisions will be made regarding the management of individual roads or trails, such as those that might be associated with a Travel Management plan under 36 CFR part 212. Some issues ( e.g., hunting regulations), although important, are beyond the authority or control of the National Forest System and will not be considered. No decision regarding oil and gas leasing availability will be made, though standards will be brought forward or developed that would serve as mitigations should an availability decision be necessary in the future.

According to the National Forest Management Act, Forest Plans are to be revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. The purpose and need for revising the current Forest Plan is (1) the Forest Plan is over 33 years old, (2) since the Forest Plan was approved in 1986, there have been changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions, new policies and priorities, and new information based on monitoring and scientific research, and (3) to address the preliminary identified needs for change to the existing Forest Plan, which is summarized below. Extensive public and employee involvement, along with science-based evaluations, have helped to identify the preliminary needs for change to the existing Forest Plan.

What follows is a summary of the preliminary identified needs for change. A more fully developed description of the preliminary needs for change, which has been organized into several resource and management topic sections, is available for review on the plan revision website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lincoln/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRD3814307 .

The Lincoln National Forest has identified 21 focus areas that need to be considered and addressed through the plan revision process in order to provide sustainable resources, goods, and services. Overall, there is a need for plan direction that is strategic and identifies desired conditions with objectives for how resources should be managed; eliminates redundancies with existing laws, regulations and policy; removes requirements to prepare additional resource plans; and that incorporates the best available scientific information into all plan components. The following are the 21 focus areas that will be the focus of the need to change during plan revision.

• There is a need for monitoring plans that track progress toward desired conditions and allows for responsive adaptive management with available resources.

• There is a need for monitoring questions and associated indicators that look at the status of resources at appropriate scales.

• There is a need to include management approaches that will strengthen existing relationships, promote new relationships, and incorporate strategies that prioritize partnerships.

• There is a need for management approaches that promote seeking outside assistance in addition to working with partners and volunteers to manage resources and monitor activities.

• There is a need to develop plan components that emphasize landscape-scale ecosystem restoration and resiliency through adaptive management strategies to changing environmental conditions and stressors.

• There is a need to include plan components that focus on addressing the impacts of nonnative invasive species on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

• There is a need for plan components, including desired conditions and objectives, that recognize fire-adapted ecosystems, the role of fire on the landscape (including wilderness), and its use as a management tool, including planned and unplanned ignitions.

• There is need for plan direction that allows managers the flexibility to manage naturally ignited fires to meet resource objectives based on weather and site-specific conditions (for example, fuel conditions, topography, safety concerns, and values). These actions may include using prescribed fire, improving wildlife and range habitat, encouraging aspen regeneration, and improving watershed and overall forest health.

• There is a need to develop desired conditions (at multiple scales) for vegetation structure and composition to promote a characteristic diversity of seral states and species composition as well as meet management considerations for wildlife such as northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl. This includes a suite of desired conditions for patch size, ecological status (composition), ground cover, coarse woody debris, and snags that characterize different ecological response units.

• There is a need to develop management objectives to meet desired conditions and monitoring criteria to measure effectiveness of management toward meeting desired conditions.

• There is a need for plan components that identify appropriate riparian characteristics ( e.g., biodiversity, connectivity, water availability) that promote functionality and resiliency while taking into account multiple stressors.

• There is a need to develop desired conditions for riparian areas including vegetation structure, ecological status (composition), ground cover, coarse woody debris and snags that characterize different riparian Ecological Response Units.

• There is a need for plan components that minimize ecological impacts of multiple uses in riparian areas.

• There is a need to develop more effective riparian plan monitoring criteria in order to better assess riparian conditions and trends.

• There is a need for plan components that promote the maintenance and restoration of soil condition and function ( e.g., hydrology, stability, and nutrient cycling) by limiting the amount of exposed bare soil and by restoring and maintaining sufficient vegetative cover, including downed woody material.

• There is a need to include plan components to maintain or restore the integrity of aquatic ecosystems and watersheds.

• There is a need for plan components that improve hydrological function and condition of water-dependent system by maintaining and restoring upland and riparian vegetative cover and reducing erosion and sedimentation from disturbed sites ( e.g., reclaim head cuts) where feasible.

• There is a need to develop plan components to ensure stream channels and floodplains are dynamic and resilient to disturbance.

• There is a need to develop more effective aquatic biotic monitoring items in order to better assess biological condition and trends.

• There is a need for plan components that support ecological conditions that contribute to the recovery and conservation of federally listed species (threatened and endangered), maintaining stable to increasing populations of the species of conservation concern, and maintaining common and abundant species.

• There is a need for plan components that will support documentation and establishment of baseline conditions for terrestrial and aquatic habitat linkages and connectivity for species migration and movement across the landscape.

• There is a need to include plan components that consider potential climate impacts or stressors ( e.g., increases in storm events, uncharacteristic wildfire, drought, flooding, and other extreme weather) to ecosystems and natural resources.

• There is a need to describe desired conditions for carbon storage and emissions, particularly as they relate to historic and current vegetation structure, including the potential for emissions from biomass removal, and prescribed and wild fires.

• There is a need to describe desired conditions and objectives for air quality, incorporated by reference from applicable Federal and State Regulations ( i.e. Clean Air Act) without duplicating or conflicting with those regulations.

• There is a need for plan components that recognize the Lincoln National Forest's role in contributing to local economies ( e.g., timber, grazing, and other multiple-use activities and products, etc.).

• There is a need for plan components that build stronger relationships with states, state and federal agencies, cities and counties, tribal governments, and the public, including, but not limited to, recreational and forest user groups, environmental groups, local communities, youth, vendors, and other users with cultural and historic ties to the forest for the management of resources such as water, timber and other forest products.

• There is a need to add plan components for rangeland management that maintain or restore ecological integrity and productivity of rangelands.

• There is a need for plan components to ensure the sustainability and availability of forest products such as timber, firewood, and other special forest products for economic uses.

• There is a need for updating and developing plan components that provide for the management of sustainable water supply for multiple uses.

• There is a need for plan components to meet desired ecological conditions that allow a wide range of management practices to promote forest health, resiliency, and sustainability.

• There is a need to develop plan components that support ecological conditions of the various habitat types that contribute to the conservation of native plant and animal species for hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing.

• There is a need for plan components to evaluate, stabilize, preserve, interpret, and protect historic and sensitive properties ( e.g. archeological sites, historic structures, and traditional properties).

• There is a need for plan components to ensure the sustainability and availability of forest products such as timber, firewood, medicinal and ceremonial plants, edible plants and other special forest products for economic and cultural uses.

• There is a need for plan components to address changing trends in services, activities, and types of facilities desired by the public, while balancing those trends with other resource management such as soils and vegetation.

• There is a need for plan components to address illegal use and compliance to prevent resource damage.

• There is a need for management approaches to better address those areas of public concern with law enforcement to address user conflicts and resource damage.

• There is a need for plan components to reduce user conflicts ( e.g. recreational shooting and hikers, equestrians, hikers, and bicyclists, and motorized and non-motorized users).

• There is a need for plan components to better integrate scenery management within all forest management ( e.g. restoration, habitat diversity, timber management) to further positive outcomes for all resources.

• There is a need to re-evaluate designated and proposed special areas ( i.e., research natural areas, botanical areas, etc.), excluding Congressionally-designated areas as considerable time has passed and conditions may have changed.

• There is a need to conduct wilderness evaluations for the revised plan while taking into account existing uses of the areas being evaluated/recommended.

• There is a need for plan components to address the long-term sustainability of infrastructure ( e.g., trails, administrative and recreation facilities, range improvements, roads, etc.), maintenance, design, and improvement.

• There is a need to develop plan components to manage special uses for the purpose of resource protection and public needs.

• There is a need to develop plan components related to the Forest Service land uses and adjustment program to provide access, resolve boundary inconsistency, create connectivity for wildlife, and facilitate management.

• There is a need for plan components that encourage the acquisition of public access and protection of existing public access.

• There is a need for plan components related to military uses of the Forest.

• There is a need for plan components that address transmission corridors, non-renewable and renewable energy generation, including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, in order to protect natural resources, heritage and sacred sites, traditional tribal activities, caves and scenery.

• There is a need for plan components regarding the use of common variety salable mineral materials, such as commercial contracts, personal use, and free use permits, while protecting natural resources, heritage and sacred sites, traditional tribal activities, and scenery.

• There is need for plan components regarding locatable minerals such as commercial leasing, while protecting natural resources, heritage and sacred sites, traditional tribal activities, and scenery.

The proposed action is to revise the Forest Plan to address the above identified needs for change to the existing Forest Plan. Alternatives to the proposed action will be developed to address the significant issues that will be identified through scoping. In response to the above needs for change, a Preliminary Draft Forest Plan has been developed. This more fully developed description of the proposed action is available for review on the Lincoln plan revision website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lincoln/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRD3814307 .

Please review and provide any feedback you may have on both the needs for change identified above and on the Preliminary Draft Forest Plan found on the above website.

Travis Moseley, Forest Supervisor, Lincoln National Forest

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. Written comments received in response to this notice will be analyzed to complete the identification of the needs for change to the existing plan, further develop the proposed action (Preliminary Draft Forest Plan), and identify potential significant issues. Significant issues will, in turn, form the basis for developing alternatives to the proposed action.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments are best provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Comments received in response to this notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Lincoln National Forest with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.

For information on when public meetings will be scheduled for refining the proposed action and identifying possible alternatives to the proposed action, refer to the Forest's website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lincoln/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRD3814307 .

The decision to approve the revised Forest Plan for the Lincoln National Forest will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). According to 36 CFR 219.53(a), those who may file an objection are individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to plan revision during the opportunities provided for public comment during the planning process.

Preparation of the revised Forest Plan for the Lincoln National Forest began with the publication of a Notice of Assessment Initiation in the Federal Register on June 25, 2015 (80 FR 36500) and was initiated under the planning procedures contained in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219 (2012)).

The Needs for Change documentation, the Preliminary Draft Forest Plan, the Assessment Report (Volumes 1 & 2), summaries of the public meetings and public meeting materials, and public comments are posted on the Forest's website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lincoln/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRD3814307 . As necessary or appropriate, the material available on this site will be further adjusted as part of the planning process using the provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule.

El Yunque National Forest covers approximately 29,000 acres in the northeastern part of Puerto Rico. The Revised Land Management Plan, which was developed pursuant to the 2012 Forest Planning Rule (36 CFR 219), will replace the Land Management Plan approved in 1997. This new, Revised Land Management Plan establishes a strong commitment to provide social opportunities and economic benefits to forest visitors and local communities in eastern Puerto Rico and an all-lands approach to conserving high-priority forest ecosystems. The plan components were developed using best available scientific information and the consideration of fiscal capability.

A draft ROD, Revised Land Management Plan, and FEIS were released in August 2018, and were subject to a pre-decisional objection period. One objection was received containing one issue, and the Reviewing Officer's response to the objection has been signed by the Regional Forester for the Southern Region. The instructions from the Reviewing Officer were incorporated into the ROD. The final ROD to approve the Revised Land Management Plan for El Yunque National Forest has now been signed by the Responsible Official, and is available at the website described above.

The responsible official for the revision of the land management plan for El Yunque National Forest is Sharon Wallace, Forest Supervisor, El Yunque National Forest, HC 01 Box 13490, Rio Grande, PR 00745.

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

Title of Collection: Annual Performance Report for the Gaining Early Awareness for Undergraduate Programs.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0777.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 127.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,290.

Abstract: The Annual Performance Report for Partnership and State Projects for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) is a required report that grant recipients must submit annually. The purpose of this information collection is for accountability. The data is used to report on progress in meeting the performance objectives of GEAR UP, program implementation, and student outcomes. The data collected includes budget data on Federal funds and match contributions, demographic data, and data regarding services provided to students.

Purpose of Program: The Braille Training program offers financial assistance to projects that will provide training in the use of braille for personnel providing vocational rehabilitation services or educational services to youth and adults who are blind, develop braille training materials, develop methods used to teach braille, and develop activities used to promote the knowledge and use of braille and nonvisual access technology for youth and adults who are blind. The absolute and invitational priorities align with the Secretary's supplemental priorities to encourage applicants to meet the unique needs of students and children with disabilities by ensuring coursework, books, or other materials are accessible to children or students who are blind; promoting science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) education by ensuring braille instructors are able to teach mathematical and scientific braille notations; working with schools, municipal libraries, or other partners to expand access to digital learning resources to a greater number of children or students who are blind; and promoting literacy through the use of braille to meet the employment and independent living needs of adults. Further, the priorities support States in their work to raise expectations and improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities, in this case individuals who are blind, by demonstrating a commitment to high expectations for each individual with a disability and by engaging with individuals who are blind, their families, and other stakeholders through meaningful and effective collaboration. Projects must be operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and the Federal civil rights laws.

Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), this priority is from section 303(d) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 773(d)).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2019, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Braille Training Program.

Under this priority, we provide grants for the establishment or continuation of projects that provide—

(1) Development of braille training materials;

(2) In-service or pre-service training in the use of braille, the importance of braille literacy, and methods of teaching braille to youth and adults who are blind; and

(3) Activities to promote knowledge and use of braille and nonvisual access technology for blind youth and adults through a program of training, demonstration, and evaluation conducted with leadership of experienced blind individuals, including the use of comprehensive, state-of-the-art technology.

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

These priorities are:

Invitational Priority 1—Braille Instruction to Transition-age Students and Youth:

Applications that demonstrate that the personnel obtaining braille instruction from the grantee will subsequently provide braille instruction to transition-age students and youth who are blind (typically ages 14 through 24). This priority is designed to meet the unique needs of students and children with disabilities by ensuring coursework, books, or other materials are accessible to children or students who are blind and to ensure that transition-age students and youth who are blind have the braille literacy skills to read the coursework, books, and materials.

Invitational Priority 2—Braille Training in the STEM Subjects:

Applications that address braille training in the STEM subjects, including mathematical notations. This priority is designed to promote STEM education by ensuring braille instructors are able to teach mathematical and scientific braille notations so that, ultimately, individuals who are blind have the braille literacy skills to read the specialized braille notations in order to enroll in STEM education.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $345,000.

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

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $115,000.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $115,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 3.

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

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education.

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

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with 2 CFR part 200.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019, and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

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

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

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210, and are as follows:

(a) Need for project and significance (10 points).

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

(2) In determining the need for the proposed project and the significance of the project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.

(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in teaching and student achievement.

(iii) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies.

(b) Quality of project design (30 points).

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

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

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

(ii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and procedures for documenting project activities and results.

(iii) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.

(c) Quality of project services (30 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

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

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.

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

(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services.

(d) Quality of project personnel, adequacy of resources, and quality of management plan (30 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project, the adequacy of resources, and the quality of the management plan.

(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.

(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

(iii) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.

(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

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

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

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

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Performance Measures: The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) directs Federal departments and agencies to improve the effectiveness of programs by engaging in strategic planning, setting outcome-related goals for programs, and measuring program results against those goals.

The goal of the Braille Training program is to provide financial assistance to projects that will provide training in the use of braille for personnel providing vocational rehabilitation services or educational services to youth and adults who are blind. A grantee under this program must submit information to allow measurement of project outcomes and performance consistent with its approved application, including any data needed to comply with GPRA (34 CFR 373.21). For the Braille Training program, a grantee must collect information on the number of personnel who attend the program, the number of personnel who complete the program, and whether these personnel obtain positions where they provide braille instruction to blind youth and adults following completion of the program. Grantees are required to report annually to the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) on these data.

Other information, as requested by RSA, may be required from grantees in order to verify substantial progress and to report to Congress and key stakeholders how well the program meets the stated objectives. Grantees are strongly encouraged to seek technical guidance as needed from RSA staff to ensure that they are meeting the objectives, goals, targets, and projected outcomes specified in their approved application. Program measures include the development of braille training materials, the methods used to teach braille, and the activities used to promote the knowledge and use of braille and nonvisual access technology for blind youth and adults. Annual project progress toward meeting project goals must be posted on the grantee or project website or university website.

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

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

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

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

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

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is distinct from the next.

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

OMB Control No.: 1902-0215.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Type of Respondent: Centralized service companies.

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

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

Abstract: GreenChill is a voluntary partnership program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that encourages supermarket companies to adopt cost effective technologies and practices that reduce refrigerant emissions and improve operational efficiency. The GreenChill Program works with the supermarket industry to lower remove barriers inhibiting the implementation of technologies and practices that reduce refrigerant emissions. The Program effectively promotes the adoption of emission reduction practices and technologies by engaging GreenChill partners to set an annual refrigerant emission reduction goal and develop a Refrigerant Management Plan reflecting the company's implementation objectives. Implementation of the partners' Refrigeration Management Plan to reduce refrigerant emissions enhances the protection of the environment and may save Partners money and improve operational efficiency. The GreenChill Program offers the opportunity for any individual store to be GreenChill certified at the silver-, gold- or platinum-level when it demonstrates that the amount of refrigerant used is below a specified limit, based on the store's MBTU/hour cooling load, and that the refrigerant emitted from the store in the prior 12 months is below a specified percentage depending on each GreenChill store certification level. Information submitted for the certification of individual stores is compared to these set criteria for each certification level. The certification of a store provides the opportunity for broad recognition within the supermarket industry and with the store's customers. All information submitted to EPA is treated in accordance with the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, that include provisions on protecting confidential business information (CBI).

Form Numbers: 5900-213, 5900-214.

Respondents/affected entities: Supermarkets, NAICS code: 445110.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

Estimated number of respondents: 232 (per year).

Frequency of response: Annual, and when desired.

Total estimated burden: 2,608 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $110,940 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: Due to the inclusion of voluntary submissions by individual supermarkets to become GreenChill certified, and recognizing these submissions are increasing annually, the total number of hours increases by 920 per year compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. In addition, the number of companies submitting information voluntarily under the Corporate Emission Reduction Program (the Partnership) is reduced due to industry consolidation, acquisitions, and bankruptcy, as well as a reduction in the number of companies joining the partnership each year. The costs associated with labor categories reflect generally higher salaries across Respondents and the Agency.

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

Abstract: This ICR renewal is for the collection developed to support the final rule, Accidental Release Prevention Requirements; Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7); Distribution of Off-Site Consequence Analysis Information, published on August 4, 2000 (65 FR 48108), defines the Federal Government's responsibilities with respect to the dissemination of offsite consequence analyses (OCA) information to the public. OCA information is received by the EPA within risk management plans (RMPs) collected in service to the Agency's mandate to promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to provide for the prevention and detection of accidental releases and for responses to such releases under CAA section 112(r)(7).

In accordance with the final rule, the government established 55 reading rooms at federal facilities geographically distributed across the United States and its territories. At these reading rooms, members of the public are able to read OCA information for stationary sources (up to 10 per month), for the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) in whose jurisdiction they live or work, and for any other stationary sources with vulnerability zones extending into their LEPC's jurisdiction. Individuals anywhere may use the Vulnerable Zone Indicator System (VZIS) to find out whether a specified address is within the vulnerable zone of one or more stationary sources.

The final rule also authorizes and encourages state and local government officials to have access to OCA information relevant to their jurisdiction, both for their own official use and to appropriately disseminate to the local public population.

This ICR is intended to renew EPA's approval to carry out the recordkeeping and reporting requirements crated by the final rule as it defines the practices that state and local officials need to follow in order to share the data they have and the specific procedures that different categories of individuals need to follow in order to request information, certify their identity, and receive OCA data.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: State and local agencies and the public.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit (40 CFR 1400).

Estimated number of respondents: 315 (total).

Frequency of response: As necessary.

Total estimated burden: 367 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $16,252 (per year), includes $23 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: This ICR renewal includes a significant decrease in the estimated burden compared to the previous ICR renewal. The burden reduction is attributable to the reduced number of reading room visits by the public, the reduced number of letters of request for OCA from state and local governments and LEPCs, and a reduced number of public meetings assumed to be held by LEPCs resulting from the lower of letters of request submitted by LEPCs. To a large extent, the reductions are the result of the respondents increasingly obtaining the OCA data through electronic methods, for example, through rtk.net, RMP*Info and RMP Data Download.

In the Federal Register of April 10, 2019 (84 FR 14365) (FRL-9991-20), EPA published information pertaining to submissions in January 2019 under TSCA Section 5, including notice of receipt of a Premanufacture notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) or Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), including an amended notice or test information; an exemption application (Biotech exemption); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or concluded; a notice of commencement (NOC) of manufacture (including import) for new chemical substances; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review. Subsequent to that publication, a stakeholder noticed that the information in Table II of Unit III. appeared to be identical to the information provided for December 2018 (see 84 FR 14368, April 10, 2019) (FRL-9990-59). EPA is hereby publishing the corrected information for January 2019 and providing an opportunity for public comments on this new information.

In Unit I.A., the first sentence incorrectly identified the period covered by the notice as “from 01/01/2019 to 12/31/2019,” rather than just the month of January. Instead, it should have identified the period covered by the notice as “from 01/01/2019 to 01/31/2019.”

In addition, the information in Table II of Unit III., which appears on page 14367, is corrected to read as follows:

As explained in the original notice, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

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

Abstract: The Emission Guidelines (EG) (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce) for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators were proposed on February 27, 1995; promulgated on September 15, 1997; and revised on both October 6, 2009 and April 4, 2011. The Federal Plan Requirements for these regulations (40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH) were proposed on July 6, 1999; promulgated on August 15, 2000; and revised on May 13, 2013. Subpart Ce requires either states or tribes to develop plans to implement the EG. If approvable state or tribal plans were not developed, the EPA was required to develop a Federal plan (Subpart HHH) to implement the Emission Guidelines for such states and tribes. The Federal plan is an interim measure to ensure that emissions standards are implemented until states assume their role as the preferred implementers of the EG. The 2013 rule finalized amendments to the HMIWI federal plan to implement the amended EG adopted on October 6, 2009, for those states that did not have an approved revised/new state plan in place within 2 years after promulgation of the EG. The regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH apply to each existing individual hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) that either commenced construction prior to December 2, 2008 or commenced modification prior to April 6, 2010. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH.

In general, all Emission Guidelines require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to the Emission Guidelines.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: The regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH apply to each existing individual hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) that commenced construction prior to December 2, 2008 or commenced modification prior to April 6, 2010.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH).

Estimated number of respondents: 58 existing respondents, consisting of 31 privately-owned, 5 Federally-owned, and no State/locally-owned HMIWI facilities, plus 22 States requiring State Plan Inventories (total).

Frequency of response: Semiannually and annually.

Total estimated burden: 34,600 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $4,620,000 (per year), which includes $479,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years. There is no change in the labor hour figures in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. The number of sources subject to these regulations has remained constant. There is an increase in the number of responses; however, this increase is not due to any program changes. We have revised the number of responses to correctly account for the `report of annual inspection' for state and federal respondents. The previous ICR only counted these reports for small rural HWIMIs, but the regulations require all HWIMIs to submit this report. The burden did not change, as these costs were already correctly accounted for in Table 1. The labor costs have increased due to an update in labor rates. This ICR reflects the on-going burden and costs for the 58 existing respondents.

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

Abstract: This Information Collection Request covers recordkeeping and reporting activities for the hazardous waste manifest paper and electronic system, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (Pub. L. 112-195). EPA's authority to require use of a manifest system stems primarily from RCRA 3002(a)(5) (also RCRA Sections 3003(a)(3) and 3004). Regulations are found in 40 CFR part 262 (registrant organizations and generators), part 263 (transporters), and parts 264 and 265 (TSDFs). The manifest lists the wastes that are being shipped and the treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) to which the wastes are bound. Generators, transporters, and TSDFs handling hazardous waste are required to complete the data requirements for manifests and other reports primarily to: (1) Track each shipment of hazardous waste from the generator to a designated facility; (2) provide information requirements sufficient to allow the use of a manifest in lieu of a Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping paper or bill of lading, thereby reducing the duplication of paperwork to the regulated community; (3) provide information to transporters and waste management facility workers on the hazardous nature of the waste; (4) inform emergency response teams of the waste's hazard in the event of an accident, spill, or leak; and (5) ensure that shipments of hazardous waste are managed properly and delivered to their designated facilities. The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act provided EPA authority to establish the national electronic hazardous waste manifest system to track hazardous waste shipments electronically. The Act also provided EPA authority to adopt regulations that (1) allow it to accept electronic-manifests originated in the e-Manifest system as the legal equivalent to paper manifests; (2) require manifest users to submit paper copies of the manifest to the system for data processing; (3) collect manifests in the e-Manifest system for hazardous waste subject to federal or state law; and (4) set up user fees to offset the costs of developing and operating the e-Manifest system.

Pursuant to the Act, EPA modified the manifest regulations on February 7, 2014 (The e-Manifest “One Year Rule”), to authorize use of electronic manifests (or e-Manifests) for tracking offsite shipments of hazardous waste from a generator's site to the site of the receipt and disposition of the hazardous waste. On January 3, 2018, EPA finalized the e-Manifest User Fee Final Rule which established the fee methodology that EPA uses to determine the user fees applicable to the electronic and paper manifests submitted to the national system. EPA launched the e-Manifest system on June 30, 2018. TSDF and other receiving facilities must submit manifests, both paper and electronic, to EPA. In addition to fees for RCRA wastes, EPA is charging TSDFs and other facilities receiving state-only regulated wastes a fee for each manifest submitted to the system. Regulations regarding copy submission requirements for interstate shipments and the applicability of e-Manifest system and fees to facilities receiving state-only regulated wastes are found in 40 CFR part 260 (Hazardous Waste Management System). Regulations regarding imposition of user fees on receiving facilities for their manifest submissions, with references to key fee methodology, fee dispute, and fee sanction requirements are found in Parts 264 and 265.

Form Numbers: Form 8700-22 and 8700-22A.

Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit.

Respondent's obligation to respond: mandatory (RCRA 3002(a)(5)).

Estimated number of respondents: 215,677.

Frequency of response: Each Shipment.

Total estimated burden: 2,502,500 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $129,951,112 (per year), includes $25,768,668 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is decrease of 136,710 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB, resulting from EPA's updates to the annual number of paper and electronic manifests offered into transportation. EPA ascertained data on the actual number of manifests as compiled by the e-Manifest system. In addition, there was a decrease of $12,951,112 in O&M costs from the currently approved ICR, resulting from EPA's adjustment to the user fees paid by destination facilities.

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

Abstract: This ICR provides covers the information collection requirements associated with specific unit standards applicable to owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes as defined by 40 CFR part 261. It includes a detailed description of the data items and respondent activities associated with each requirement and with each hazardous waste management unit at a facility. The specific units and processes included in this ICR are: Tank systems, surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment, landfills, Incinerators, thermal treatment, chemical, physical, and biological treatment, miscellaneous (subpart X), drip pads, process vents, equipment leaks, containment buildings, and recovery/recycling.

With each information collection covered in this ICR, the EPA is aiding the goal of complying with its statutory mandate under RCRA to develop standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, to protect human health and the environment. Without the information collection, the agency cannot assure that the facilities are designed and operated properly.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are in the private sector and State, Local, or Tribal governments.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 261, 264, 265, and 266).

Estimated number of respondents: 2,018.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 356,305 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $11,197,174 (per year), includes $1,452,841 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 297,792 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to a decrease in the number of tanks and containers.

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

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Aluminum Production (40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR) apply to secondary aluminum production facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) either commencing construction, or reconstruction, after the date of proposal. This includes facilities that operate aluminum scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces, group 2 furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross only furnaces, rotary dross coolers, and secondary aluminum processing units (SAPUs). The SAPUs include group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers. The regulations also apply to secondary aluminum production facilities that are area sources of HAP only with respect to emissions of dioxins/furans (D/F) from thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces, sweat furnaces, and SAPUs. New facilities include those that commenced construction, or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR.

The 2015 rule amendments included a requirement to report performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); provisions allowing owners and operators to change furnace classifications; requirements to account for unmeasured emissions during compliance testing for group 1 furnaces that do not have add-on control devices; alternative compliance options for the operating and monitoring requirements for sweat furnaces; compliance provisions for hydrogen fluoride; provisions addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); and other corrections and clarifications to the applicability, definitions, operating, monitoring and performance testing requirements. The 2016 rule amendments amended the 2015 rule to clarify requirements for initial performance tests and submittal of malfunction reports, provide an additional option for group 1 furnaces to account for unmeasured emissions during compliance testing, clarify what constitutes a change in furnace operating mode, and updates the Web addresses for the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) and Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Secondary aluminum production facilities.

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

Estimated number of respondents: 161 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 12,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $5,520,000 (per year), which includes $4,110,000 in either annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is also an adjustment decrease in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. The decrease is not due to any program changes. The change is due to correction of a mathematical error identified in the burden associated with the time required for facilities to refamiliarize with the regulatory requirements each year. The previous ICR stated that it would take each respondent one hour to read and understand the reporting requirements, but inadvertently included additional hours; the current ICR has been corrected to reflect one hour for this activity. The overall result is a slight decrease in burden hours.

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

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Electric Utility Generating Units (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT) were proposed on June 2, 2014, and promulgated on October 23, 2015 (80 FR 64510). These regulations apply to newly constructed, modified or reconstructed facilities with electric utility generating units (EGUs) including any steam generating unit, IGCC, or stationary combustion turbine that commenced construction after January 8, 2014 or commenced reconstruction after June 18, 2014. To be considered an EGU the unit must be: (1) Capable of combusting more than 250 MMBtu/h heat input of fossil fuel; and (2) serve a generator capable of supplying more than 25 MW net to a utility distribution system ( i.e., for sale to the grid). New facilities include those that commenced construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. This NSPS imposes a minimal information collection burden on affected sources beyond what sources would already be subject to under the authorities of CAA parts 75 (Acid Rain Program CEM requirements) and 98 (Mandatory GHG Reporting, applicable to EGUs that capture CO 2 ). Apart from certain reporting costs to comply with the emission standards under the rule, there are no additional information collection costs, as the information required by the rule is already collected and reported by other regulatory programs. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NSPS.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT).

Estimated number of respondents: 32 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially and quarterly.

Total estimated burden: 883 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $101,000 (per year), which includes $0 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. The change in the burden and cost estimates occurred because these standards have been in effect for more than three years. The previous ICR reflected those burdens and costs associated with the initial activities for subject facilities. This ICR, by in large, reflects the on-going burden and costs for existing facilities. This ICR also assumes that all existing respondents will spend up to 8 hours annually for review of the rule, and will continue to submit quarterly reports. There are no capital or operation and maintenance costs associated with these standards.

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

Abstract: Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires the EPA to operate a federal operating permits program in areas not subject to an approved state program. The EPA regulations setting forth the requirements for the federal (EPA) operating permit program are at 40 CFR part 71. The part 71 program is designed to be implemented primarily by the EPA in all areas where state and local agencies do not have jurisdiction, such as Indian country and offshore, beyond states' seaward boundaries. The EPA may also delegate authority to implement the part 71 program on its behalf to a state, local or tribal agency, if the agency requests delegation and makes certain showings regarding its authority and ability to implement the program. One such delegate agency for the part 71 program exists at present.

In order to receive an operating permit for a major or other source subject to the permitting program, the applicant must conduct the necessary research, perform the appropriate analyses, and prepare the permit application with documentation to demonstrate that its facility meets all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Specific activities and requirements are listed and described in the Supporting Statement for the part 71 ICR.

Under part 71, the permitting authority (the EPA or a delegate agency) reviews permit applications, provides for public review of proposed permits, issues permits based on consideration of all technical factors and public input, and reviews information submittals required of sources during the term of the permit. Under part 71, the EPA reviews certain actions and performs oversight of any delegate agency, consistent with the terms of a delegation agreement. Consequently, information prepared and submitted by sources is essential for sources to receive permits, and for federal and tribal permitting agencies to adequately review the permit applications and issue the permits, oversee implementation of the permits, and properly administer and manage the program.

Information that is collected is handled according to EPA's policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR part 2). See also section 114(c) of the Act.

Form Numbers: 5900-01, 5900-02, 5900-03, 5900-04, 5900-05, 5900-06, 5900-79, 5900-80, 5900-81, 5900-82, 5900-83, 5900-84, 5900-85 and 5900-86.

Respondents/affected entities: Industrial plants (sources) and tribal permitting authorities.

Respondent's obligation to respond: mandatory ( see 40 CFR part 71).

Estimated number of respondents: 93 (total); 92 industry sources and one tribal delegate permitting authority (the EPA serves as a permitting authority but is not a respondent).

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 23,707 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $1,657,776 (per year). There are no annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,230 hours per year for the estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to updated estimates of the number of sources and permits subject to the part 71 program, rather than any change in federal mandates.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) 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. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

OMB Control Number: 3060-0466.

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

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

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

Estimated Time per Response: 0.166-1 hour.

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

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

Total Annual Burden: 25,925 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

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

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

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

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

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

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

OMB Control No.: 3060-0799.

Title: FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services.

Form No.: FCC Form 602.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,115 respondents and 4,115 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours-1.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of this information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The statutory authority for this collection of this information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 5,217 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $762,300.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality. On a case by case basis, the Commission may be required to withhold from disclosure certain information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property, including traditional religious sites.

Needs and Uses: The FCC Form 602 is necessary to obtain the identity of the filer and to elicit information required by Section 1.2112 of the Commission's rules regarding: (1) Persons or entities holding a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest or any general partners in a general partnership holding a direct or indirect ownership interest in the applicant (“Disclosable Interest Holders”); and (2) All FCC-regulated entities in which the filer or any of its Disclosable Interest Holders owns a 10 percent or greater interest. The data collected on the FCC Form 602 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that entities filing with the Commission use an FRN. The FCC Form 602 was designed for, and must be filed electronically by, all licensees that hold licenses in auctionable services.

The FCC Form 602 is comprised of the Main Form containing information regarding the filer and the Schedule A is used to collect ownership data pertaining to the Disclosable Interest Holder(s). Each Disclosable Interest Holder will have a separate Schedule A.

Thus, a filer will submit its FCC Form 602 with multiple copies of Schedule A, as necessary, to list each Disclosable Interest Holder and associated information.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) 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. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

OMB Control No.: 3060-0678.

Title: Part 25 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Stations and Space Stations.

Form No: FCC Form 312, FCC Form 312-EZ, FCC Form 312-R and Schedules A, B and S.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities and Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 6,512 respondents; 6,561 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-80 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, one time, and annual reporting requirements; third-party disclosure requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The Commission has statutory authority for the information collection requirements under 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721.

Total Annual Burden: 45,036 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $17,105,204.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality pertaining to the information collection requirements in this collection.

Needs and Uses: On September 27, 2018, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-138, in IB Docket No. 17-95, titled “Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Use of Earth Stations in Motion Communicating with Geostationary Orbit Space Stations in Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed Satellite Service” (ESIM GSO FSS Report and Order and FNPRM). In this Report and Order, the Commission simplifies its rules to facilitate the continued deployment of Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) and reduce the regulatory burdens on ESIMs. Specifically, the Commission reorganized and consolidated sections in Part 25 of the Commission's rules addressing ESIMs. The Commission also expanded the scope of operations of ESIMs to communicate in additional frequency bands with geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) satellites operating in the fixed-satellite service (FSS). These actions will promote innovative and flexible use of satellite technology and provide new opportunities for a variety of uses. This information collection will provide the Commission and the public with necessary information about the operations of this growing area of satellite operations. This information collection represents a decrease in the overall paperwork burdens for operators of earth stations in motion, serving the public interest by streamlining the collection of information and allow the Commission to authorize routine licensing of ESIM operations in the Ka-band while protecting the interests of FSS operators.

Specifically, FCC 18-138 contains new or modified information collection requirements listed below:

(1) Earth Stations on Vessel (ESV), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Station (VMES) and Earth Station Aboard Aircraft (ESAA) requirements previously incorporated in 25.221, 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227 have been streamlined and are in the new ESIMs section 25.228.

(2) Minor discrepancies between the previous rules in 25.221, 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227 were harmonized in the new section 25.228.

(3) The antenna pointing accuracy requirement contained in the individual ESV, VMES, and ESAA rules in Sections 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 were eliminated.

(4) Cross references to the previous rules in 25.221, 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227 were eliminated from footnotes to the Table of Allocations, 47 CFR 2.106 and all other rule sections in Part 25.

(5) The off-axis equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) density provisions of Section 25.138 were merged into Section 25.218, thus extending the applicability of Section 25.218 to conventional Ka-band GSO FSS earth stations. This applies a single set of limits across all types of FSS earth station, including those on mobile platforms, and increases the number of applicants who are considered “two-degree-spacing compliant,” and the operators of their target space stations are not required to coordinate the operation of these earth stations with operators of nearby space stations.

(6) Sections 25.130 and 25.131 were merged into Section 25.115, eliminating duplication of rules and making use of the FCC Form 312 EZ permissive, not mandatory.

(7) The data logging requirements that were in paragraphs (a)(5) of Sections 25.221 and 25.222 for C- and Ku-band ESV operators and in paragraphs (a)(6) of Sections 25.226 and 25.227 for Ku-band VMES and ESAA operators were eliminated.

(8) The option to use the alternative licensing compliance demonstration of demonstrating that an earth station antenna gain pattern comports with the off-axis gain limits in Section 25.209, and that the antenna input power density comports with limits in Section 25.212, was extended to ESIM applications.

(9) The certification for a C-band ESV system in Section 25.221(b)(3)(v) regarding compliance with the power limits in Section 25.204(h) is eliminated as no longer necessary.

(10) Sections 25.115(l)-(n)(3)(i) requires all applicants to: “provide a certification that the ESIM system is capable of detecting and automatically ceasing emissions when an individual ESIM transmitter exceeds the relevant off-axis EIRP spectral density limits specified in § 25.218, or the limits provided to the target satellite operator for operation under § 25.220” in lieu of a demonstration.

This collection is used by the Commission's staff in carrying out its statutory duties to regulate satellite communications in the public interest, as generally provided under 47 U.S.C.154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721. This collection is also used by staff in carrying out United States treaty obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom Agreement. The information collected is used for the practical and necessary purposes of assessing the legal, technical, and other qualifications of applicants; determining compliance by applicants, licensees, and other grantees with Commission rules and the terms and conditions of their grants; and concluding whether, and under what conditions, grant of an authorization will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

As technology advances and new spectrum is allocated for satellite use, applicants for satellite service will continue to submit the information required in 47 CFR part 25 of the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether to permit respondents to provide telecommunication services in the United States. Therefore, the Commission would be unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the obligations imposed on parties to the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0975.

Title: Sections 68.105 and 1.4000, Promotion of Competitive Networks in *11092 Local Telecommunications Markets Multiple Tenant Environments (MTEs).

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and State, local, or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 6,570 respondents; 232,183 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hour-10 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond : Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104.

Total Annual Burden: 166,185 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: There are no impacts under the Privacy Act.

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

Needs and Uses: This information facilitates efficient interaction between premises owners and local exchange carriers (LECs) regarding the placement of the demarcation point, which marks the end of wiring under control of the LEC and the beginning of wiring under the control of the premises owner or subscriber. The demarcation point is a critical point of interconnection where competitive LECs can gain access to the inside wiring of the building to provide service to customers in the building. This collection also helps ensure that customer-end antennas used for telecommunications service comply with the Commission's limits on radiofrequency exposure and provides the Commission with information on the state of the market. In short, this collection helps foster competition in local telecommunications markets by ensuring that competing telecommunications providers can provide services to customers in multiple tenant environments.

I. Background

Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended (Title XI), 1 established the ASC. 2 The purpose of Title XI is “to provide that Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related transactions will be protected by requiring that real estate appraisals utilized in connection with federally related transactions are performed in writing, in accordance with uniform standards, by individuals whose competency has been demonstrated and whose professional conduct will be subject to effective supervision.”  3 Title XI requires the use of State licensed or certified appraisers in federally related transactions. 4 Section 1119(b) of Title XI, 12 U.S.C. 3348(b), authorizes the ASC to waive, on a temporary basis and with approval of the FFIEC, any certification or licensing requirement relative to certifying or licensing individuals to perform appraisals under Title XI in a State or geographic political subdivisions of a State upon a written determination that there is a scarcity of certified or licensed appraisers to perform appraisals in connection with federally related transactions leading to significant delays in the performance of such appraisals. The ASC has issued procedures  5 governing the processing of temporary waiver requests. Consistent with 12 CFR 1102.4, the ASC is publishing this notice in the Federal Register requesting comment on the request for a proposed temporary waiver. Interested persons have 30 calendar days from publication of the Federal Register notice to submit written data, views, and arguments. Within 15 days of the close of the 30-day comment period, the ASC, by order, will grant or deny a waiver, in whole or in part, and upon specified terms or conditions, including provisions for waiver termination. If the ASC approves any or all of the request, it is subject to approval by the FFIEC. The ASC's order granting or denying the waiver shall respond to comments received and shall provide reasons for the ASC's finding. The order shall be published promptly in the Federal Register , though in the case of an order granting a waiver, only after approval by the FFIEC.

On August 1, 2018, a letter requesting consideration of a temporary waiver was submitted to the ASC by Governor Doug Burgum, State of North Dakota, the North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions, and the North Dakota Bankers Association (collectively, the Requester). On September 7, 2018, ASC staff replied by letter to the Requester, in which ASC staff described the information required to file a completed waiver request pursuant to 12 CFR 1102.2 and 1102.3. The Requester submitted additional information in a letter dated April 10, 2019, in response to the ASC's September 7, 2018 letter. On April 15, 2019, the ASC convened a Special Meeting and determined to publish a notice for comment on the request for temporary waiver in the Federal Register . The request seeks a waiver of appraiser credentialing requirements for appraisals for federally related transactions under $500,000 for 1-to-4 family residential real estate transactions and under $1,000,000 for agricultural and commercial real estate transactions throughout the State of North Dakota for a period of not less than five years.

Pursuant to 12 CFR 1102.4, the ASC is publishing a notice respecting the received request to give interested persons 30 days to comment, including submission of written data, views and arguments.

You may view the received request by any of the following methods:

• Viewing Received Request Electronically: Go to https://www.asc.gov . In the “What's New” box on the home page, a link is provided to view the received request and supporting documentation.

• Viewing Received Request Personally: You may personally inspect the received request and supporting documentation at the ASC office, 1325 G Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005. To make an appointment, please call Lori Schuster at (202) 595-7578.

The ASC seeks comment on all aspects of the received request, including submission of written data, views and arguments. In addition, the ASC requests comment on the following:

Question 1. The ASC requests comment on whether there is a scarcity of certified or licensed appraisers available to perform appraisals for each of the following types of federally related transactions in North Dakota, or in any geographical political subdivision of North Dakota, including supporting data:

i. 1-to-4 family residential transactions above $250,000 and below $500,000; or

ii. agricultural and commercial real estate transactions above $500,000 and below $1 million.

Question 2. The ASC requests comment on whether there are significant delays in the performance of appraisals in North Dakota, or in any geographical political subdivision of North Dakota, including supporting data such as the average length of time between the date an appraisal is ordered and the delivery date, for federally related transactions that are:

i. 1-to-4 family residential transactions above $250,000 and below $500,000; or

ii. agricultural and commercial real estate transactions above $500,000 and below $1 million.

Question 3. The ASC requests comment, including supporting data, on factors that may be leading to significant delay in the performance of appraisals in connection with federally related transactions in North Dakota, and specifically whether scarcity of appraisers is leading to such significant delay, for:

i. Residential appraisal reports; or

ii. agricultural and commercial appraisal reports.

Question 4. The ASC requests comment, including supporting rationale, on appropriate scope, terms, or conditions of any temporary waiver, should it find that such a waiver is warranted, including whether the requested 5-year duration of a waiver would be appropriate, types of federally related transactions that any waiver should cover, dollar limits for any transactions covered by a waiver, or whether the waiver should be limited to any particular area or geography.

A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available on an as needed basis, to conduct scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.

Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The SEP meeting referenced above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for AHRQ-HS-19-003, “AHRQ Health Services Research Project: Partners Enabling Diagnostic Excellence (R01),” is to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available on an as needed basis, to conduct scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.

Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The SEP meeting referenced above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for AHRQ-HS-19-002, “Using Data Analytics to Support Primary Care and Community Interventions to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Management and Population Health (R18),” are to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

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

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS) (0920-1128, Expiration 10/31/2020)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2013, there were nearly 44,000 drug overdose deaths, including nearly 36,000 unintentional drug overdose deaths, in the United States. More people are now dying of drug overdose than automobile crashes in the US. A major driver of the problem are overdoses related to opioids, both opioid pain relievers (OPRs) and illicit forms such as heroin. In order to address this public health problem, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has made addressing the opioid abuse problem a high priority.

In order to support targeting of drug overdose prevention efforts, detect new trends in fatal unintentional drug overdoses, and assess the progress of HHS's initiative to reduce opioid abuse and overdoses, the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS) generates public health surveillance information at the national, state, and local levels that is more detailed, useful, and timely than is currently available.

This collection will detect state and local community changes in unintentional and undetermined intent drug-related overdose mortality faster and provide in-depth state and local ( e.g., county) information on risk factors for fatal drug overdose deaths that can inform the selection and targeting of interventions in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. CDC requests OMB approval for three years for this revision to make the following changes: (1) Expand data collection from the 50 jurisdictions currently approved to include 52 jurisdictions ( i.e., all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia), (2) expand data collection from its current focus on opioid overdose deaths to a broader focus on drug overdose deaths, (3) account for increasing data collection burden related to large increases in drug overdose deaths, (4) increase the timeliness of data reporting to a 6-month time lag, and (5) update the web-based system to improve performance, functionality, and accessibility as well as add data elements to the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS) module to capture more detailed information. This information will help develop, inform, and assess the progress of drug overdose prevention strategies at both the state and national levels. Improve identification and response to changes in fatal unintentional and undetermined intent drug-related overdose trends at the local, state, and national level. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

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

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (OMB No. 0920-0469, Exp. 6/30/2019)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2015, the most recent year for which complete information is available, almost 596,000 people died of cancer and more than 1.6 million were diagnosed with cancer. It is estimated that 15.8 million Americans are currently alive with a history of cancer. In the U.S., state/territory-based cancer registries are the only method for systematically collecting and reporting population based information about cancer incidence and outcomes such as survival. These data are used to measure the changing incidence and burden of each cancer; identify populations at increased or increasing risk; target preventive measures; and measure the success or failure of cancer control efforts in the U.S.

In 1992, Congress passed the Cancer Registries Amendment Act which established the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). The NPCR provides support for state/territory-based cancer registries that collect, manage and analyze data about cancer cases. The state/territory-based cancer registries report information to CDC through the National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR CSS), (OMB Control No. 0920-0469). CDC plans to request OMB approval to continue collecting this information for three years. Data definitions will be updated to reflect changes in national standards for cancer diagnosis and coding. The number of respondents has been updated to reflect the increased number of states/territories supported by CDC, but the burden per respondent will not change.

The NPCR CSS allows CDC to collect, aggregate, evaluate, and disseminate cancer incidence data at the national level. The NPCR CSS is the primary source of information for United States Cancer Statistics ( USCS ), which CDC has published annually since 2002. The latest USCS report published in 2018 provided cancer statistics for 100% of the United States population from all cancer registries in the United States. Prior to the publication of USCS, cancer incidence data at the national level were available for only 14% of the population of the United States.

The NPCR CSS also allows CDC to monitor cancer trends over time, describe geographic variation in cancer incidence throughout the country, and provide incidence data on racial/ethnic populations and rare cancers. These activities and analyses further support CDC's planning and evaluation efforts for state and national cancer control and prevention. In addition, datasets can be made available for secondary analysis.

Respondents are NPCR-supported central cancer registries (CCR) in 46 U.S. states, three territories, and the District of Columbia. Fifty CCRs submit data elements specified for the Standard NPCR CSS Report. Each CCR is asked to transmit two data files to CDC per year. The first NPCR CSS Standard file, submitted in January, is a preliminary report consisting of one year of data for the most recent year of available data. CDC evaluates the preliminary data for completeness and quality and provides a report back to the CCR. The second NPCR CSS Standard file, submitted by November, contains cumulative cancer incidence data from the first diagnosis year for which the cancer registry collected data with the assistance of NPCR funds ( e.g., 1995) through 12 months past the close of the most recent diagnosis year ( e.g., 2016). The cumulative file is used for analysis and reporting.

The burden for each file transmission is estimated at two hours per response. Because cancer incidence data are already collected and aggregated at the state level the additional burden of reporting the information to CDC is small. All information is transmitted to CDC electronically. Participation is required as a condition of the cooperative agreement with CDC. The total estimated annual burden hours is 200. There are no costs to respondents except their time.

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

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

WISEWOMAN National Program Evaluation—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The CDC has supported the WISEWOMAN (Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation) program since 1995. The WISEWOMAN program is designed to serve low-income women ages 40-64 who have elevated risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and have no health insurance, or are underinsured for medical and preventive care services. Through the WISEWOMAN program, women have access to screening services for selected CVD risk factors such as elevated blood cholesterol, hypertension, and abnormal blood glucose levels; referrals to heathy behavior support programs; and referrals to medical care. WISEWOMAN participants must be co-enrolled in the CDC-sponsored National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP).

The WISEWOMAN program is administered through cooperative agreements with state, territorial, or tribal health departments. Each WISEWOMAN recipient submits to CDC an annual progress report that describes program objectives and activities, and semi-annual data reports (known as minimum data elements, or MDE) on the screening, assessment, and healthy behavior support services offered to women who participate in the program. Participant-level MDE are de-identified prior to transmission to CDC.

In 2018, CDC released the fifth funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for the WISEWOMAN program (DP18-1816), which resulted in five-year cooperative agreements with 24 state, territorial, and tribal health departments, including 6 new and 18 continuing awardees from the previous NOFO. Key program elements were retained ( e.g., provision of screening services, promotion of healthy lifestyle behaviors, and linkage to healthy behavior support services and community based resources), but a number of changes were incorporated into the program at that time. The current FOA reflects increased emphasis on three strategies to reduce CVD risk and support hypertension control and management, including: (1) Tracking and monitoring clinical measures, (2) implementing team-based care, and (3) linking community resources and clinical services to support care coordination, self-management, and lifestyle change.

CDC seeks to conduct a one-time, multi-component evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the program on individual-, organizational-, and community-level outcomes. The in-depth assessment is designed to complement the routine progress and MDE information already being collected from WISEWOMAN program recipients. The new data collection will focus on obtaining qualitative and quantitative information at the organizational and community levels about process and procedures implemented, and barriers, facilitators, and other contextual factors that affect program implementation and participant outcomes. Data collection activities will include a Program Survey with all WISEWOMAN awardee programs, administered in the second and fourth program years, and a one-time site visit to each recipient spread across the three-year data collection effort. During site visits, semi-structured interviews will be conducted with WISEWOMAN staff members and staff at partner organizations, such as clinical providers and community-based resource providers, who are positioned to provide a variety of perspectives on program implementation.

OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.

Contents

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

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Medicare Beneficiary Experiences with Care Survey System; Use: The MBECS system is designed to conduct 1-2 surveys per year on priority groups of interest, thereby allowing CMS OMH to respond quickly to the data needs of stakeholders with interests in these underrepresented groups. Data collected through the MBECS system will be used to better understand—and thus serve the needs of—Medicare beneficiaries in minority populations. The core questionnaire will collect information on communication with medical professionals, coordination of health care, experiences getting needed health care, experiences with personal doctors and specialists, and key demographics. Data will be compared to benchmarks from the FFS CAHPS, MA CAHPS, and NAM CAHPS surveys. The population-specific questionnaire module will collect information about issues most relevant for particular minority groups; population-specific modules will be described in individual information collection requests. These data will be compared to benchmarks from the relevant CAHPS source surveys when available.

Collection of these data from people who have been identified through CMS administrative data and administrative flags as part of specific minority populations will also serve as a critical validation step of this method for identifying difficult-to-study populations, thus making it easier to study beneficiaries in these groups in the future. Form Number: CMS-10701 (OMB control number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 10,000; Total Annual Responses: 10,000; Total Annual Hours: 3,333. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Luis Perez at 410-786-8557.)

In the Federal Register of Friday, May 10, 2019 (84 FR 20633), in FR Doc. 2019-09692, the following correction is made:

On page 20633, in the first column, in the headings of the document, “[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-1798]” is corrected to read “[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1456].”

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

LUPRON (leuprolide acetate) injection, 1 mg/0.2 mL, is the subject of NDA 019010, held by Abbvie Endocrine, Inc., and initially approved on April 9, 1985. LUPRON is indicated for palliative treatment of advanced prostatic cancer. LUPRON (leuprolide acetate) injection, 1 mg/0.2 mL, is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.

Hetero Labs Limited submitted a citizen petition dated December 20, 2018 (Docket No. FDA-2018-P-4851), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether LUPRON (leuprolide acetate) injection, 1 mg/0.2 mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that LUPRON (leuprolide acetate) injection, 1 mg/0.2 mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that LUPRON (leuprolide acetate) injection, 1 mg/0.2 mL, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of LUPRON (leuprolide acetate) injection, 1 mg/0.2 mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list LUPRON (leuprolide acetate) injection, 1 mg/0.2 mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional ANDAs for this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

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

Section 502(x) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 352(x)), added by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 109-462), requires the label of a nonprescription drug product marketed without an approved application in the United States to include a domestic address or domestic telephone number through which a manufacturer, packer, and distributor may receive a report of a serious adverse event associated with the product. The guidance document entitled “Labeling of Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act: Questions and Answers” explains how FDA interprets this requirement. The guidance discusses the meaning of “domestic address” for purposes of the labeling requirements of section 502(x) of the FD&C Act, FDA's recommendation for the use of an introductory statement before the domestic address or phone number that is required to appear on the product label under section 502(x) of the FD&C Act, and FDA's intent regarding enforcing the labeling requirements of section 502(x) of the FD&C Act.

In the Federal Register of February 11, 2019 (84 FR 3192), we published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers, packers, and distributors whose name (under section 502(b)(1) of the FD&C Act) appears on the label of a nonprescription drug product marketed in the United States without an approved application.

As indicated in table 1 of this document, we estimate that 300 manufacturers will revise approximately 900 labels to add a full domestic address or a domestic telephone number, and should they choose to adopt the guidance's recommendation, to add a statement identifying the purpose of the domestic address or telephone number. We believe that designing the label change should not take longer than 4 hours per label. Automated printing of the labels should only require a few seconds per label.

We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

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

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31) offers tobacco product manufacturers several pathways to obtain an order from FDA to authorize the marketing of a new tobacco product before it may be introduced or delivered into interstate commerce. To provide assistance with these pathways to market products, FDA will meet with tobacco product manufacturers, importers, researchers, and investigators (or their representatives) when appropriate as described in Guidance on Meetings with Industry and Investigators on the Research and Development of Tobacco Products. This guidance is intended to assist persons who seek meetings with FDA relating to their research to inform the regulation of tobacco products, or to support the development or marketing of tobacco products. The original guidance issued in 2012 was revised for updating and clarity in July 2016.

In the guidance, the Agency discusses, among other things:

• What information FDA recommends persons include in a meeting request;

• How and when to submit a request; and

• What information FDA recommends persons submit prior to a meeting.

This guidance describes two collections of information: (1) The submission of a meeting request containing certain information and (2) the submission of an information package in advance of the meeting. The purpose of this proposed information collection is to allow FDA to conduct meetings with tobacco manufacturers, importers, researchers, and investigators in an effective and efficient manner. FDA issued this guidance and the revisions consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulations (21 CFR 10.115).

Meeting Requests: The guidance sets forth FDA's recommendations for materials to be included in a request for a meeting with FDA to discuss the research and development of tobacco products. In the guidance, FDA recommends that the following information be included in the meeting request:

1. Product name and FDA-assigned Submission Tracking Number (if applicable);

2. Product category ( e.g., cigarettes, smokeless tobacco) (if applicable);

3. Product use (indicate for consumer use or for further manufacturing);

4. Contact information for the authorized point of contact for the company requesting the meeting;

5. The topic of the meeting being requested ( e.g., a new tobacco product application, an application for permission to market a modified risk tobacco product, or investigational use of a new tobacco product);

6. A brief statement of the purpose of the meeting, which could include a discussion of the types of studies or data to be discussed at the meeting, the general nature of the primary questions to be asked, and where the meeting fits in the overall product development plans;

7. A preliminary list of the specific objectives/outcomes expected from the meeting;

8. A preliminary proposed agenda, including an estimate of the time needed and a designated speaker for each agenda item;

9. A preliminary list of specific questions, grouped by discipline ( e.g., chemistry, clinical, nonclinical);

10. A list of all individuals who will attend the meeting on behalf of the tobacco product manufacturer, importer, researcher, or investigator, including titles and responsibilities;

11. The date on which the meeting information package will be received by FDA; and

12. Suggested format of the meeting ( e.g., conference call, in-person meeting at FDA offices, video conference, or written response) and suggested dates and times for the meeting. Meetings are usually scheduled for 1 hour.

This information will be used by the Agency to: (1) Determine the utility of the meeting, (2) identify Agency staff necessary to discuss proposed agenda items, and (3) schedule the meeting.

Meeting Information Packages: An individual submitting a meeting information package to FDA in advance of a meeting should provide summary information relevant to the product and supplementary information pertaining to any issue raised by the individual or FDA to be discussed at the meeting. As stated in the guidance, FDA recommends that meeting information packages generally include updates of information that was submitted with the meeting request and, as applicable:

1. Product composition and design data summary;

2. Manufacturing and process control data summary;

3. Nonclinical data summary;

4. Clinical data summary;

5. Behavioral and product use data summary;

6. User and nonuser perception data summary; and

7. Investigational plans for studies and surveillance of the tobacco product, including a summary of proposed study protocols containing the following information (as applicable):

a. Study objective(s);

b. Study hypotheses;

c. Study design;

d. Study population (inclusion/exclusion criteria, comparison group(s));

e. Human subject protection information, including Institutional Review Board information;

f. Primary and secondary endpoints (definition and success criteria);

g. Sample size calculation;

h. Data collection procedures;

i. Duration of follow up and baseline and follow up assessments, and

j. Data analysis plan(s).

The purpose of the information package is to provide Agency staff the opportunity to adequately prepare for the meeting, including the review of relevant data concerning the product. In the Agency's experience, reviewing such information is critical to achieving a productive meeting. If the information package was previously submitted in the meeting request, it should be revised, as applicable, so that the information reflects the most current and accurate information available.

In the Federal Register of September 12, 2018 (83 FR 46174), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. Three comments were received; however, none were PRA related.

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

FDA's estimate of the number of respondents for meeting requests in table 1 is based on the number of meeting requests received and projected over the next 3 years. FDA estimates that 83 preapplication meetings will be requested.

The hours per response for combining and sending meeting request letters are estimated at 10 hours each, and the total burden hours for meeting requests are expected to be 830 hours. Based on FDA's experience, the Agency expects it will take respondents this amount of time to prepare, gather, copy, and submit brief statements about the product and a description of the purpose and details of the meeting.

FDA estimates that 83 respondents will compile meeting information packages and submit to FDA at 18 hours per response. Based on FDA's experience, the Agency expects that it will take respondents, collectively, 1,494 hours (83 respondents × 18 hours) to gather, copy, and submit brief statements about the product, a description of the details of the anticipated meeting, and data and information that generally would already have been generated for the planned research and/or product development.

The total number of burden hours for this collection of information is estimated to be 2,324 hours (830 hours to prepare and submit meeting requests and 1,494 hours to prepare and submit information packages).

Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase of 16 respondents and 448 hours. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of industry meetings as the premarket tobacco application compliance deadlines will come due in the next 3 years.

I. Background and Authority

The ISMICC was established on March 15, 2017, in accordance with section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, to report to the Secretary, Congress, and any other relevant federal department or agency on advances in serious mental illness (SMI) and serious emotional disturbance (SED), research related to the prevention of, diagnosis of, intervention in, and treatment and recovery of SMIs, SEDs, and advances in access to services and support for adults with SMI or children with SED. In addition, the ISMICC will evaluate the effect federal programs related to serious mental illness have on public health, including public health outcomes such as (A) rates of suicide, suicide attempts, incidence and prevalence of SMIs, SEDs, and substance use disorders, overdose, overdose deaths, emergency hospitalizations, emergency room boarding, preventable emergency room visits, interaction with the criminal justice system, homelessness, and unemployment; (B) increased rates of employment and enrollment in educational and vocational programs; (C) quality of mental and substance use disorders treatment services; or (D) any other criteria as may be determined by the Secretary. Finally, the ISMICC will make specific recommendations for actions that agencies can take to better coordinate the administration of mental health services for adults with SMI or children with SED. Not later than 1 (one) year after the date of enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act, and 5 (five) years after such date of enactment, the ISMICC shall submit a report to Congress and any other relevant federal department or agency.

This ISMICC consists of federal members listed below or their designees, and non-federal public members.

Federal Membership: Members include, The Secretary of Health and Human Services; The Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use; The Attorney General; The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs; The Secretary of the Department of Defense; The Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; The Secretary of the Department of Education; The Secretary of the Department of Labor; The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Non-Federal Membership: Members include, 14 non-federal public members appointed by the Secretary, representing psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, peer support specialists, and other providers, patients, family of patients, law enforcement, the judiciary, and leading research, advocacy, or service organizations. The ISMICC is required to meet at least twice per year.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS. One of the principal mission responsibilities of DHS is border security. CBP is the DHS component with primary responsibility for border security. In 2003, Congress created CBP by combining elements of the former INS, including the United States Border Patrol (USBP), and the former U.S. Customs Service, and made it a component agency of DHS. CBP has a priority mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the United States. It is also charged with enforcing customs, immigration, agriculture and other laws at the nation's borders while facilitating legitimate trade and travel through the Ports of Entry (POEs). As part of its border security mission, CBP is charged with deterring and preventing cross-border violations both at and between the POEs, including illegal immigration and illegal trafficking of human beings, narcotics, weapons, and other contraband.

Based in Fort Bliss, Texas, Joint Task Force North (JTF-N) is a joint service command comprised of active-duty and reserve component soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, coast guardsmen, DoD civilian employees, and contracted support personnel. JTF-N is the DoD organization tasked to support our nation's federal law enforcement agencies in the identification and interdiction of suspected transnational criminal organizations' activities conducted within and along the approaches to the continental United States.

In 1994, the INS, then a part of the Department of Justice, and JTF-6, a joint command within DoD, jointly prepared a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (the 1994 PEIS). The 1994 PEIS was intended to address the cumulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable projects undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous law enforcement agencies within the four southwestern states. JTF-6 was, at the time, a recently formed military command that provided assistance and support to various counter drug law enforcement agencies along the southwest border.

In 2001, the INS and JTF-6 prepared a Supplemental PEIS (SPEIS). Instead of addressing the support activities JTF-6 would provide to numerous law enforcement agencies across the southwest border, the 2001 SPEIS focused on the support activities JTF-6 would specifically provide to USBP. The intent and purpose of the 2001 SPEIS was to assess and analyze the potential impacts of the JTF-6 activities “in support of INS/USBP.” The Record of Decision for this SPEIS was signed in 2002 by the INS and JTF-6. For both EISs in question, the INS was the lead agency and JTF-6 was a cooperating agency.

The 1994 PEIS and the 2001 SPEIS were created by entities that no longer exist. For this and other reasons, CBP and JTF-N no longer rely on the 1994 PEIS or the 2001 SPEIS to achieve NEPA compliance for their actions and activities on the southwest border. 1

Rather, both CBP and JTF-N achieve NEPA compliance for their actions and activities on the southwest border through site-specific or project-specific NEPA analyses. CBP and JTF-N believe their decision-makers are well-served by site-specific or project-specific NEPA analyses. Unlike a sprawling programmatic NEPA analysis, a site-specific or project-specific NEPA analysis gives decision-makers concrete and tangible information regarding the potential impacts of a proposed action. In addition, because every site-specific or project-specific analysis includes an analysis of cumulative impacts, they also present decision-makers with a larger frame of reference in which to understand those impacts.

Based on the experience of CBP and JTF-N, and the nature of the 1994 PEIS and 2001 SPEIS, CBP and JTF-N have withdrawn both the 1994 PEIS and the 2001 SPEIS and their respective Records of Decision. Both of these documents contain potentially valuable information. The withdrawal of the 1994 PEIS and the 2001 SPEIS and their respective Records of Decision does not in any way impinge on the ability of those preparing NEPA analyses in the future to use that information by citing the independent source(s) of the information, provided the continued accuracy of the information is validated.

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 Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service 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 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. ) prohibits the unauthorized take of migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, we control the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20. On January 1, 1991, we banned lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots in the United States.

Regulations at 50 CFR 20.134 outline the application and approval process for new types of nontoxic shot. When considering approval of a candidate material as nontoxic, we must ensure that it is not hazardous in the environment and that secondary exposure (ingestion of spent shot or its components) is not a hazard to migratory birds. To make that decision, we require each applicant to provide information about the solubility and toxicity of the candidate material. Additionally, for law enforcement purposes, a noninvasive field detection device must be available to distinguish candidate shot from lead shot. This information constitutes the bulk of an application for approval of nontoxic shot. The Director uses the data in the application to decide whether to approve a material as nontoxic.

Title of Collection: Approval Procedures for Nontoxic Shot and Shot Coatings (50 CFR 20.134).

OMB Control Number: 1018-0067.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Businesses that produce and/or market approved nontoxic shot types or nontoxic shot coatings.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 1.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 3,200 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,200 hours.

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

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $26,630 ($1,630 application processing fee and $25,000 for solubility testing).

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. ).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The requested permits would allow the applicants to conduct activities intended to promote recovery of species that are listed as endangered under the ESA.

With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.

A recovery or interstate commerce permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.

Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

If we decide to issue a permit to the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register .

We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

The lands surveyed are:

A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be received in the BLM Montana State Office no later than the scheduled date of the proposed official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of the protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is received.

If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved, including appeals.

If a notice of protest is received after the scheduled date of official filing and the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a), the notice of protest will be untimely, may not be considered, and may be dismissed.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

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

Overview of this information collection:

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection.

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: Certification of Qualifying State Relief From Disabilities Program.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: ATF Form 3210.12.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Primary: State, Local or Tribal Government.

Other: None.

Abstract: This form is used by a State to certify to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), that it has established a qualifying mental health relief from firearms disabilities program. This was based on certain minimum criteria established by the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007, Public Law 110-180, Section 105, which was enacted January 8, 2008 (NIAA). This certification is required for States to be eligible for certain grants authorized by the NIAA.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 50 respondents will utilize the form, and it will take each respondent approximately 15 minutes to complete the form.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 13 hours, which is equal to 50 (# of respondents) * 1 (# of responses per respondent) * .25 (15 minutes).

If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

Established in 1964, Job Corps is a national program administered by ETA within DOL. Through its network of 123 centers in 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, Job Corps seeks to create career pathways and provide access to meaningful employment opportunities. Job Corps serves at-risk young people, ages 16 to 24, seeking to overcome barriers to employment. These barriers can include poverty, homelessness, or aging out of the foster care system. The program provides the academic, career technical, and employability skills these young people need to enter the workforce, enroll in post-secondary education, or enlist in the military. The Job Corps program is the nation's largest federally-funded, primarily residential skills instruction program.

Various entities, including large and small businesses, manage and operate 98 of the Job Corps centers through contractual agreements with DOL. These contracts are awarded pursuant to Federal procurement rules. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through the U.S. Forest Service (FS), operates an additional 24 Civilian Conservation Centers (CCC) through an interagency agreement with DOL. CCCs are located predominantly in rural, and sometimes remote, locations. As with other Job Corps centers, these facilities provide skills training for disadvantaged young people to aid their entry into the American workforce, but with additional focus on conserving the United States' natural resources and providing assistance during natural disasters.

As part of the Department's ongoing efforts to ensure that Job Corps' resources are used to deliver the best possible results for students, it may determine that a different approach will allow Job Corps to serve its students effectively.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), directs DOL to “establish written criteria that the Secretary shall use to determine when a Job Corps center supported under this part is to be closed and how to carry out such closure[.]” 29 U.S.C. 3211(c). Consequently, DOL previously published criteria for making this determination:

1. A methodology for selecting a center for closure based on its chronic low performance, first described in an August 2014 Federal Register Notice (FRN) (79 FR 51198), and updated in a March 2016 FRN (81 FR 12529);

2. An agreement between the Secretaries of Labor and Agriculture to close a CCC, as described in the March 2016 FRN; or

3. An evaluation of the effort required to provide a high-quality education and training program at the center, as described in the March 2016 FRN.

Through this Notice, the Department is announcing a fourth criterion—program reform and streamlining operations. The Department is engaged in an effort to reform and strengthen the overall management and operation of the Job Corps program, including USDA's recently announced decision to withdraw from the role of operating Job Corps centers. The deactivation of a center or group of centers may advance these efforts by focusing program resources on higher performing centers and improving student access to these centers, increasing cost efficiency, and enhancing the geographic match between student demand for the program and center availability. While the Department will continue to use the existing criteria to close centers when appropriate, the Department may propose a center for deactivation or repurposing when doing so furthers the Department's broad reform and streamlining efforts. In applying this criterion, the Department will not consider the Additional Considerations first discussed in the August 2014 notice and amended in a September 2017 FRN (82 FR 44842). These considerations do not appropriately reflect the importance of operational and structural management, financial management, cost efficiency, and long-term program priorities when pursuing broad agency program reform and streamlining of operations.

DOL may make its closure determination based on any one of the four criteria, and it may apply a single criterion independent of the others. Thus, while a center may qualify under more than one criterion, DOL may choose to rely on only one criterion when making its determination. The written criteria were previously established; therefore, DOL is not seeking comments on them in response to this Notice. The Department is also not seeking comment on the new, fourth criterion.

Prior to making a decision under any one of the first three criteria, DOL also applies the Additional Considerations first discussed in the August 2014 notice and amended in a September 2017 FRN (82 FR 44842).

On May 24, 2019, DOL received a letter from USDA expressing its intent to terminate its role in operating Job Corps CCCs to allow the Forest Service to prioritize its core natural resource mission to improve the condition and resilience of the nation's forests. Moreover, the letter established an expectation that by September 30, 2019, each FS Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center will be transitioned out, or on an established plan to transition out, of the Job Corps program.

As part of the CCC phase-out activities, DOL plans to continue Job Corps center operations at all CCC locations except nine. The nine centers proposed for deactivation are Anaconda, Blackwell, Cass, Flatwoods, Fort Simcoe, Frenchburg, Oconaluftee, Pine Knot, and Timber Lake. While the existing second criterion identified above provides for closures based on the mutual agreement of the Secretaries of Labor and Agriculture, it does not pertain to the Department's broader interest in program reform and how that can be executed through center deactivations, repurposing, consolidations/mergers, and other measures.

The proposed deactivation of the nine CCCs is pursuant to the program reform and streamlining criterion. In light of the USDA's decision, the Department considered several factors to determine how to move forward, including how to provide the highest quality services to students; how to leverage efficiencies to serve more students; and how to maximize the capacity of higher performing centers, including those formerly operated by the USDA.

Based on that review, the Department determined that deactivating these nine centers would advance broad program reform and streamlining of operations, while also serving more students. Some of the centers suffer from a variety of problems, including operating under-capacity, not achieving long-term student outcomes, and operating in an inefficient manner. Others are located in close proximity to other higher-performing centers where increasing the student capacity of the nearby center would better serve students. Deactivating these centers would give Job Corps participants access to higher quality services, allow the program to serve more students, streamline and make effective use of existing facilities, reduce student transportation costs, and eliminate the need for costly facility construction and rehabilitation activities. Accordingly, the Department proposes to deactivate the nine CCCs identified above.

Because it is using the fourth criterion, DOL is not applying the Additional Considerations as amended in the September 2017 FRN. However, DOL contemplated the Additional Considerations and concluded that, if applied, they would not preclude the proposed deactivation of the identified CCCs.

DOL requests public comments on its proposal to deactivate the Anaconda CCC in Anaconda, Montana; Blackwell CCC in Laona, Wisconsin; Cass CCC in Ozark, Arkansas; Flatwoods CCC in Coeburn, Virginia; Fort Simcoe CCC in White Swan, Washington; Frenchburg CCC in Frenchburg, Kentucky; Oconaluftee CCC in Cherokee, North Carolina; Pine Knot CCC in Pine Knot, Kentucky; and Timber Lake CCC in Estacada, Oregon.

The process will follow the requirements of section 159(j) of the WIOA, which include the following:

• Announcing the proposed decision concerning a particular center in advance to the public through publication in the Federal Register or other appropriate means;

• Establishing a reasonable comment period, not to exceed 30 days, for interested individuals to submit written comments to the Secretary; and

• Notifying the Member of Congress who represents the district in which the center is located within a reasonable period in advance of any final decision concerning the status of the center.

This Notice serves as the public announcement of the proposals associated with the following CCCs: Anaconda, Blackwell, Cass, Flatwoods, Frenchburg, Fort Simcoe, Oconaluftee, Pine Knot, and Timber Lake. DOL is providing a 30-day period—the maximum amount of time allowed for comment under WIOA sec. 159(j)—for interested individuals to submit written comments on the proposed decision. DOL will announce its final decision following the conclusion of the comment period.

This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Labor Certification Program information collection. This information collection has been classified as a revision because the DOL is proposing modifications to: Align information collection requirements with its current regulatory framework better; provide greater clarity to employers on regulatory requirements; standardize and streamline information collection to reduce employer time and burden preparing applications; and promote greater efficiency and transparency in the ETA's review and issuance of labor certification decisions under the H-2A visa program. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) and DOL's regulations authorize this information collection. See INA Sections 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 214(c), and 218 (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(c), and 1188) and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5) and 20 CFR 655, subpart B.

The H-2A visa program enables employers to bring nonimmigrant foreign workers to the United States to perform agricultural work of a seasonal or temporary nature as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a). Before an employer can file a petition with DHS to import temporary workers as H-2A nonimmigrants, the INA and DHS regulations require an employer first to obtain a determination from DOL, certifying whether a qualified U.S. worker is available to fill the job opportunity described in the employer's petition for a temporary agricultural worker and whether a foreign worker's employment in the job opportunity will adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. See 8 U.S.C. 1188, INA section 218; 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5)(i), (ii) and (iv)(B). DOL's regulations establish the processes by which an employer must obtain a temporary labor certification from DOL and the rights and obligations of workers and employers. See 20 CFR part 655, subpart B.

This ICR includes the collection of information related to the temporary labor certification process and agricultural clearance order process in the H-2A program. The information contained in the application Form ETA-9142A, H-2A Application for Temporary Employment Certification, and the job order Form ETA-790/790A, H-2A Agricultural Clearance Order, serve as the basis for the Secretary of Labor's determination that qualified U.S. workers are not available to perform the services or labor needed by the employer and that the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers will not be adversely affected by the employment of H-2A workers. Employers use Appendix A of the Form ETA-9142A to attest that they will comply with all of the terms, conditions, and obligations of the H-2A program.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1205-0466. The current approval is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2019; however, DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. New requirements would only take effect upon OMB approval. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2018 (83 FR 53911).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1205-0466. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

Agency: DOL-ETA.

Title of Collection: H-2A Temporary Agricultural Labor Certification Program.

OMB Control Number: 1205-0466.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Private Sector (businesses or other for-profit institutions); Federal Government; and State, Local and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,783.

Annual Frequency: On Occasion.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 273,537.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 52,385 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $2,521,940.

This site contains a questionnaire to become a crew/experiment subject for Flight Analog Project (FAP) missions such as Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA), Scientific International Research in a Unique Station (SIRIUS) and other analog studies. The questionnaire is used to screen potential applicants for initial qualifications. In addition, the website describes the FAP facilities and experiments conducted to inform and promote interest in the FAP missions.

Public website, Web Form.

Title: FAP Crew Application.

OMB Number: 2700-xxxx.

Type of Review: New.

Affected Public: General Public.

Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: 1.

AverageNumber of Respondents per Activity: 100.

Annual Responses: 100.

Frequency of Responses: 1.

Average Minutes per Response: 15 minutes.

Burden Hours: 25.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

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

The membership of the National Science Foundation's Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is as follows:

This announcement of the membership of the National Science Foundation's Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is made in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

The National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science released its “National Strategic Overview for Quantum Information Science” (hereafter “Strategic Overview”) in September 2018. This document calls upon agencies to develop plans to address six identified key policy areas to enable continued American leadership in quantum information science. On December 21, 2018, the National Quantum Initiative Act was signed into law to further the Nation's efforts in quantum information science. Now the NSTC Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science seeks public input to inform the Subcommittee as the Government develops the means to address the specific policy recommendations included in the “Strategic Overview” and the overall goals of the National Quantum Initiative Act. Responders are asked to answer one or more of the following questions, consistent with the prior published RFI:

1. What specific actions could the U.S. Government take that would contribute best to implementing the policy recommendations in the Strategic Overview? What challenges, not listed in section 3, should also be taken into account in implementation of the Strategic Overview recommendations?

2. What are the scientific and technological challenges that, with substantial resources and focus over the next ten years, will transform the QIS research and development landscape?

3. Regarding industrial engagement, what roles can the U.S. Government play in enabling the innovation ecosystem around QIS-related technologies? Are there critical barriers for industrial innovation in this space? How can these barriers be addressed? What role can the U.S. Government play in mitigating early or premature investment risks?

4. How can the U.S. Government engage with academia and other workforce development programs and stakeholders to appropriately train and maintain researchers in QIS while expanding the size and scope of the `quantum-smart' workforce?

5. What existing infrastructure should be leveraged, and what new infrastructure could be considered, to foster future breakthroughs in QIS research and development?

6. What other activities/partnerships could the U.S. Government use to engage with stakeholders to ensure America's prosperity and economic growth through QIS research and development?

7. How can the United States continue to attract and retain the best domestic and international talent and expertise in QIS?

8. How can the United States ensure that U.S. researchers in QIS have access to cutting-edge international technologies, research facilities, and knowledge?

Reference: National Strategic Overview for Quantum Information Science, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/National-Strategic-Overview-for-Quantum-Information-Science.pdf .

Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the NSTC Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science on May 24, 2019.

The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe, and make available to the public, information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

The purpose of issuing the final RG 1.187, Revision 1, concurrent with issuing DG-1356 for comment is to provide clarity for, and coordination of, NRC activities on guidance for implementing section 50.59 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).

Revision 1 of RG 1.187 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1334. RG 1.187, Revision 1, endorses, with clarifications, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 96-07, “Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations,” which provides licensees with a method that the staff considers acceptable for use in complying with the Commission's regulations on the process by which licensees, under certain conditions, may make changes to their facilities and procedures as described in the final safety analysis report (FSAR), and conduct tests or experiments not described in the FSAR, without prior NRC approval.

Concurrent with issuing Revision 1 of RG 1.187, the NRC is issuing DG-1356 for public comment under NRC docket number NRC-2019-0086. DG-1356 proposes additional guidance on digital instrumentation and control modifications. Specifically, DG-1356 endorses with exceptions and clarifications, NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 0, “Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 to Digital Modifications.” If finalized, DG-1356 would become RG 1.187, Revision 2.

The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-1334 in the Federal Register on December 23, 2016 (81 FR 94275) for a 60-day public comment period. The public comment period closed on February 21, 2017. Public comments on DG-1334 and the staff responses to the public comments are available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18123A363.

The NRC is issuing RG 1.187, Revision 1, to implement lessons-learned from the NRC Report “Review of Lessons Learned from the San Onofre Steam Generator Tube Degradation Event,” dated March 6, 2015. (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML15062A125).

Specifically, RG 1.187, Revision 1, clarifies statements in Section 4.3.8 of NEI 96-07, Revision 1, regarding the definition in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) of “departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as updated).” Revision 1 also clarifies statements in Section 4.3.5 of NEI 96-07, Revision 1, regarding the meaning in 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(v) of “an accident of a different type than any previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated).” This revision of RG 1.187 explains how licensees should apply these NEI guidelines to ensure they are meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.

The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

The DG, titled, “Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, `Changes, Tests, and Experiments,' ” temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1356, is proposed Revision 2 of RG 1.187. DG-1356 provides guidance on complying with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 when performing a digital instrumentation and controls (digital I&C) modification. Specifically, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 0, “Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 to Digital Modifications,” was submitted to the NRC on November 30, 2018. As discussed in Section C of RG 1.187, DG-1356 endorses NEI 96-07 and finds that it provides an acceptable approach for the application of 10 CFR 50.59 guidance when conducting digital I&C modifications, with certain exceptions and clarifications.

DG-1356 is being issued for public comment to facilitate the Commission's direction in the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)—SECY-16-0070, “Staff Requirements—SECY-16-0070—Integrated Strategy to Modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Digital Instrumentation and Control Regulatory Infrastructure” (ADAMS Accession No. ML16299A157). The NRC staff has engaged the public, NEI, and industry representatives to improve the guidance for applying 10 CFR 50.59 to digital I&C-related design modifications as part of a broader effort to modernize the regulatory infrastructure for digital I&C.

RG 1.187, Revision 1, is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.187 clarifies statements in Section 4.3.8 and 4.3.5 of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 96-07, Revision 1, “Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation” (ML003771157), which the NRC first endorsed in RG 1.187, Rev 0 (ML003759710). Issuance of RG 1.187, Revision 1, does not constitute backfitting under § 50.109 and is not otherwise inconsistent with issue finality under 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this RG, NRC staff does not intend or approve any imposition or backfitting of the guidance in this RG. If, in the future, the NRC seeks to impose a position in Revision 1 of RG 1.187 in a manner that does not provide issue finality as described in an applicable issue finality provision, then the NRC must address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.

Draft regulatory guide DG-1356, if finalized as Regulatory Guide 1.187, Revision 2, would endorse NEI 96-07, Appendix D, with conditions and clarifications. NEI 96-07, Appendix D, and the NRC staff's conditions and clarifications, provide guidance on the application of the 10 CFR 50.59 change process to digital I&C modifications. The draft regulatory guide, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this RG, NRC staff does not intend or approve any imposition or backfitting of the guidance in this RG. If, in the future, the NRC seeks to impose a position in Revision 2 of RG 1.187 in a manner that does not provide issue finality as described in an applicable issue finality provision, then the NRC must address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.

The text of the exemption is attached.

The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim) is a single-unit facility located in the town of Plymouth, Plymouth County, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is situated on the western coast of Cape Cod Bay, on approximately 1,600 acres of land. The Pilgrim facility employs a General Electric boiling-water reactor nuclear steam supply system licensed to generate 2,028 megawatts-thermal. The boiling-water reactor and supporting facilities are owned and operated by the Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee). Entergy is the holder of the Pilgrim Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.

By letter dated November 10, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15328A053), Entergy submitted a notification to the NRC indicating that it would permanently shut down Pilgrim no later than June 1, 2019. Once Entergy certifies that it has permanently defueled the Pilgrim reactor vessel and placed the fuel in the spent fuel pool (SFP), accordingly, pursuant to § 50.82(a)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the Pilgrim renewed facility operating license will no longer authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel. However, the licensee is still authorized to possess and store irradiated nuclear fuel. Irradiated fuel is currently being stored onsite in an SFP and in independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) dry casks. The irradiated fuel will be stored in the ISFSI until it is shipped off site. With the reactor emptied of fuel, the reactor, reactor coolant system, and secondary system will no longer be in operation and will have no function related to the safe storage and management of irradiated fuel.

By letter dated February 8, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19044A374), Entergy submitted a partial exemption request for NRC approval from the record retention requirements of: (1) 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, “Quality Assurance Records,” which requires certain records (e.g., results of inspections, tests, and materials analyses) be maintained consistent with applicable regulatory requirements; (2) 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), which requires that records of changes in the facility must be maintained until termination of a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR part 50; and (3) 10 CFR 50.71(c), which requires certain records to be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification, or until termination of the license if not otherwise specified.

The licensee requested the partial exemptions because it wants to eliminate: (1) records associated with structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and activities that were applicable to the nuclear unit, which are no longer required by the 10 CFR part 50 licensing basis (i.e., removed from the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and/or technical specifications by appropriate change mechanisms; and (2) records associated with the storage of spent nuclear fuel in the SFP once all fuel has been removed from the SFP and the Pilgrim license no longer allows storage of fuel in the SFP. The licensee cites record retention partial exemptions granted to Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111260277), Millstone Power Station, Unit 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070110567), Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML15344A243), San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15355A055), and Kewaunee Power Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML17069A394) as examples of the NRC granting similar requests.

Records associated with residual radiological activity and with programmatic controls necessary to support decommissioning, such as security and quality assurance, are not affected by the partial exemption request because they will be retained as decommissioning records, as required by 10 CFR part 50, until the termination of the Pilgrim license. In addition, the licensee did not request an exemption associated with any other recordkeeping requirements for the storage of spent fuel at its ISFSI under 10 CFR part 50 or the general license requirements of 10 CFR part 72. No exemption was requested from the decommissioning records retention requirements of 10 CFR 50.75, or any other requirements of 10 CFR part 50 applicable to decommissioning and dismantlement.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. However, the Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2).

Many of the Pilgrim reactor facility SSCs are planned to be abandoned in place pending dismantlement. Abandoned SSCs are no longer operable or maintained. Following permanent removal of fuel from the SFP, those SSCs required to support safe storage of spent fuel in the SFP will also be abandoned. In its February 8, 2019, partial exemption request, the licensee stated that the basis for eliminating records associated with reactor facility SSCs and activities is that these SSCs have been (or will be) removed from service per regulatory change processes, dismantled or demolished, and no longer have any function regulated by the NRC.

The licensee recognizes that some records related to the nuclear unit will continue to be under NRC regulation primarily due to residual radioactivity. The radiological and other necessary programmatic controls (such as security, quality assurance, etc.) for the facility and the implementation of controls for the defueled condition and the decommissioning activities are and will continue to be appropriately addressed through the license and current plant documents such as the UFSAR and technical specifications. Except for future changes made through the applicable change process defined in the regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 50.48(f), 10 CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 50.90, 10 CFR 50.54(a), 10 CFR 50.54(p), 10 CFR 50.54(q), etc.), these programmatic elements and their associated records are unaffected by the requested partial exemption.

Records necessary for SFP SSCs and activities will continue to be retained through the period that the SFP is needed for safe storage of irradiated fuel. Analogous to other plant records, once the SFP is permanently emptied of fuel, there will be no need for retaining SFP related records.

Entergy's general justification for eliminating records associated with Pilgrim SSCs that have been or will be removed from service under the NRC license, dismantled, or demolished, is that these SSCs will not in the future serve any Pilgrim functions regulated by the NRC. Entergy's decommissioning plans for Pilgrim is described in the Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) dated November 16, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18320A034). The licensee's decommissioning process involves evaluating SSCs with respect to the current facility safety analysis; progressively removing them from the licensing basis where necessary through appropriate change mechanisms (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59 or via NRC-approved technical specification changes, as applicable); revising the defueled safety analysis report and/or UFSAR as necessary; and then proceeding with an orderly dismantlement.

Entergy intends to retain the records required by its license as the facility's decommissioning transitions. However, equipment abandonment will obviate the regulatory and business needs for maintenance of most records. As the SSCs are removed from the licensing basis, Entergy asserts that the need for their records is, on a practical basis, eliminated. Therefore, Entergy is requesting partial exemptions from the associated records retention requirements for SSCs and historical activities that are no longer relevant. Entergy is not requesting exemptions from any recordkeeping requirements for storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI under 10 CFR part 50 or the general license requirements of 10 CFR part 72.

As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from 10 CFR part 50 requirements if it makes certain findings. As described here and in the sections below, the NRC has determined that special circumstances exist to grant the partial exemptions. In addition, granting the licensee's proposed partial exemptions will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, other laws, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the granting of the partial exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) is authorized by law.

As SSCs are prepared for SAFSTOR and eventual decommissioning and dismantlement, they will be removed from NRC licensing basis documents through appropriate change mechanisms, such as through the 10 CFR 50.59 process or through a license amendment request approved by the NRC. These change processes involve either a determination by the licensee or an approval from the NRC that the affected SSCs no longer serve any safety purpose regulated by the NRC. Therefore, the removal of the SSC would not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. In turn, elimination of records associated with these removed SSCs would not cause any additional impact to public health and safety.

The granting of the partial exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for the records described is administrative in nature and will have no impact on any remaining decommissioning activities or on radiological effluents. The granting of the partial exemption request will only advance the schedule for disposition of the specified records. Because these records contain information about SSCs associated with reactor operation and contain no information needed to maintain the facility in a safe condition when the facility is permanently defueled and the SSCs are dismantled, the elimination of these records on an advanced timetable will have no reasonable possibility of presenting any undue risk to the public health and safety.

The elimination of the recordkeeping requirements does not involve information or activities that could potentially impact the common defense and security of the United States. Upon dismantlement of the affected SSCs, the records have no functional purpose relative to maintaining the safe operation of the SSCs, maintaining conditions that would affect the ongoing health and safety of workers or the public, or informing decisions related to nuclear security.

Rather, the partial exemptions requested are administrative in nature and would only advance the current schedule for disposition of the specified records. Therefore, the partial exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for the types of records described is consistent with the common defense and security.

Paragraph 50.12(a)(2) states, in part: “The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever—. . . (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; [and] (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted . . . .”

Criterion XVII of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, states in part: “Sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality.”

Paragraph 50.59(d)(3) states in part: “The records of changes in the facility must be maintained until the termination of an operating license issued under this part . . . .”

Paragraph 50.71(c), states in part: “Records that are required by the regulations in this part or Part 52 of this chapter, by license condition, or by technical specifications must be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification. If a retention period is not otherwise specified, these records must be retained until the Commission terminates the facility license . . . .”

In the Statement of Considerations for the final rulemaking, “Retention Periods for Records” (53 FR 19240; May 27, 1988), in response to public comments received during the rulemaking process, the NRC stated that records must be retained “for NRC to ensure compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment and for the NRC to accomplish its mission to protect the public health and safety.” In the Statement of Considerations, the Commission also explained that requiring licensees to maintain adequate records assists the NRC “in judging compliance and noncompliance, to act on possible noncompliance, and to examine facts as necessary following any incident.”

These regulations apply to licensees in decommissioning. During the decommissioning process, safety-related SSCs are retired or disabled and subsequently removed from NRC licensing basis documents by appropriate change mechanisms. Appropriate removal of an SSC from the licensing basis requires either a determination by the licensee or an approval from the NRC that the SSC no longer has the potential to cause an accident, event, or other problem which would adversely impact public health and safety.

The records subject to removal under this partial exemption request are associated with SSCs that had been important to safety during power operation or operation of the SFP, but are no longer capable of causing an event, incident, or condition that would adversely impact public health and safety, as evidenced by their appropriate removal from the licensing basis documents. If the SSCs no longer have the potential to cause these scenarios, then it is reasonable to conclude that the records associated with these SSCs would not reasonably be necessary to assist the NRC in determining compliance and noncompliance, taking action on possible noncompliance, and examining facts following an incident. Therefore, their retention would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule.

In addition, once removed from the licensing basis documents (e.g., UFSAR or technical specification), SSCs are no longer governed by the NRC's regulations, and therefore are not subject to compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment. As such, retention of records associated with SSCs that are or will no longer part of the facility serves no safety or regulatory purpose, nor does it serve the underlying purpose of the rule of maintaining compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment in order to accomplish the NRC's mission. Accordingly, special circumstances are present which the NRC may consider, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), to grant the requested partial exemptions.

Records which continue to serve the underlying purpose of the rule, that is, to maintain compliance and to protect public health and safety in support of the NRC's mission, will continue to be retained pursuant to the regulations in 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. Retained records that are not subject to the proposed partial exemption include those associated with programmatic controls, such as those pertaining to residual radioactivity, security, and quality assurance, as well as records associated with the ISFSI and spent fuel assemblies.

The retention of records required by 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) provides assurance that records associated with SSCs will be captured, indexed, and stored in an environmentally suitable and retrievable condition. Given the volume of records associated with the SSCs, compliance with the records retention rule results in a considerable cost to the licensee. Retention of the volume of records associated with the SSCs during the operational phase is appropriate to serve the underlying purpose of determining compliance and noncompliance, taking action on possible noncompliance, and examining facts following an incident, as discussed.

However, the cost effect of retaining operational phase records beyond the operations phase until the termination of the license was not fully considered or understood when the records retention rule was put in place. For example, existing records storage facilities are eliminated as decommissioning progresses. Retaining records associated with SSCs and activities that no longer serve a safety or regulatory purpose would therefore result in an unnecessary financial and administrative burden. As such, compliance with the rule would result in an undue cost in excess of that contemplated when the rule was adopted. Accordingly, special circumstances are present which the NRC may consider, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), to grant the partial exemption request.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and (c)(25), the granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation in Chapter I of 10 CFR meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion provided that: (1) There is no significant hazards consideration; (2) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (3) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (4) there is no significant construction impact; (5) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (6) the requirements from which an exemption is sought are among those identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi).

The partial exemption request is administrative in nature. The partial exemption request has no effect on SSCs and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform its design function. The partial exemption request would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC. The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased, since most previously analyzed accidents will no longer be able to occur and the probability and consequences of the remaining fuel handling accident are unaffected by the partial exemption request. Therefore, the partial exemption request does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The partial exemption request does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment associated with the partial exemption request. Similarly, the partial exemption request will not physically change any SSCs involved in the mitigation of any accidents. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the partial exemption request does not create the possibility of a new accident as a result of new failure modes associated with any equipment or personnel failures. No changes are being made to parameters within which the plant is normally operated, or in the setpoints which initiate protective or mitigative actions, and no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the partial exemption request does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The partial exemption request does not alter the design basis or any safety limits for the plant. The partial exemption request does not impact station operation or any plant SSC that is relied upon for accident mitigation. Therefore, the partial exemption request does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

For these reasons, the NRC has determined that approval of the partial exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration because granting the licensee's partial exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) at the decommissioning Pilgrim does not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety (10 CFR 50.92(c)). Likewise, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure.

The exempted regulations are not associated with construction, so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulations do not concern the source term (i.e., potential amount of radiation involved an accident) or accident mitigation; therefore, there is no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. Allowing the licensee partial exemption from the record retention requirements for which the exemption is sought involves recordkeeping requirements, as well as reporting requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature.

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this partial exemption request.

The NRC has determined that the granting of the partial exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The destruction of the identified records will not impact remaining decommissioning activities; plant operations, configuration, and/or radiological effluents; operational and/or installed SSCs that are quality-related or important to safety; or nuclear security. The NRC staff determined that the destruction of the identified records is administrative in nature and does not involve information or activities that could potentially impact the common defense and security of the United States.

The purpose for the recordkeeping regulations is to assist the NRC in carrying out its mission to protect the public health and safety by ensuring that the licensing and design basis of the facility is understood, documented, preserved and retrievable in such a way that will aid the NRC in determining compliance and noncompliance, taking action on possible noncompliance, and examining facts following an incident. Since the Pilgrim SSCs that were safety-related or important to safety have been or will be removed from the licensing basis and removed from the plant, the NRC has determined that the records identified in the partial exemption request will no longer be required to achieve the underlying purpose of the records retention rule.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the partial exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Entergy a partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for Pilgrim only to the extent necessary to allow the licensee to advance the schedule to remove records associated with SSCs that have been or will be removed from NRC licensing basis documents by appropriate change mechanisms (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59 or via NRC-approved license amendment request, as applicable).

This partial exemption is effective upon submittal of the licensee's certification of permanent fuel removal, under § 50.82(a)(1).

In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the Federal Register at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ . OPM also publishes an annual notice of the consolidated listing of all Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities, current as of June 30, in the Federal Register .

No Schedule B Authorities to report during November 2018.

The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during November 2018.

The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during November 2018.

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

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

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

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

1. Docket No(s).: CP2019-159; Filing Title: Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 1E Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: May 23, 2019; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: June 3, 2019.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 22, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 76 to Competitive Product List . Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-142, CP2019-157.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 21, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 101 to Competitive Product List . Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-141, CP2019-156.