Title: Tuberculosis.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0146.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the dissemination within the United States of animal diseases and pests, and for conducting programs to detect, control, and eradicate pests and diseases of livestock. As part of this mission, APHIS participates in a national cooperative State/Federal tuberculosis eradication program to eliminate bovine tuberculosis in cattle, bison, and captive cervids from the United States. This program is conducted under various States' authorities supplemented by Federal authorities regulating the interstate movement of affected animals.

The tuberculosis regulations contained in 9 CFR part 77 provide for several levels of State tuberculosis risk classifications, the creation of tuberculosis risk status zones within the same State, and the testing of regulated animals before they are permitted to move interstate. The requirements for establishing zones and testing regulated animals enhance the effectiveness of APHIS' tuberculosis eradication program by decreasing the likelihood that infected animals will be moved interstate or internationally, thus preventing the spread of tuberculosis. The requirements also provide mechanisms to help APHIS' Veterinary Services trace, locate, and eradicate regulated animals when outbreaks occur.

These regulations include information collection activities such as memoranda of understanding for zone recognition; epidemiological reviews; permits for movement of restricted animals; certificates for animals moved interstate; retention of movement certificates; tuberculosis management plans; accredited herd plans; approved herd plans; test records and results; affected herd data and herd testing results; wildlife risk surveys; monthly reports of tuberculosis eradication; reports of tuberculosis lesions; specimen submissions and collections; submissions by States of requests to APHIS for State or zone status; submissions by States of an annual report to APHIS for renewal of State or zone status; commuter herd agreements; depopulation and repopulation agreements; extension requests; tuberculosis infected herd field reports; investigations for evidence of tuberculosis; appraisals and indemnity claims; records of proceeds from animals sold to slaughter; owner participation in new tuberculosis tests; recordkeeping for approved feedlots; and application of shipping labels. These activities enhance the APHIS' ability to allow U.S. animal producers to manage bovine and captive cervid tuberculosis and compete in the world market of animal and animal product trade.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.31 hours per response.

Respondents: State animal health officials, producers and owners (including feedlot owners), accredited veterinarians, professional appraisers, and laboratory technicians.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 4,914.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 18.

Estimated annual number of responses: 89,325.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 27,830 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

On March 26, 2019, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof from the People's Republic of China. 1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than August 13, 2019.

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

On July 10, 2019, the petitioner  2 submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation. 3 The petitioner stated that it requests postponement to allow Commerce time to sufficiently review all questionnaires responses and request clarification and additional information as necessary. 4

For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days ( i.e., 190 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated). As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determination no later than October 2, 2019. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

Background

On July 9, 2019, Commerce published the final results of the first administrative review of the AD order on hot-rolled steel from Korea. 1 On July 1, 2019, both ArcelorMittal USA LLC (the petitioner) and POSCO timely filed ministerial error allegations. 2 On July 8, 2019, POSCO and the petitioner filed comments rebutting each other's ministerial error allegations. 3

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on March 18, 2019. 1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is acetone from Spain. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 3

In accordance with the comments discussed below, Commerce is adding a five percent “threshold” to the scope description. In accordance with the threshold, a product is excluded from the scope of this investigation if the total acetone component of the product (regardless of the source or sources) comprises less than five percent of the product on a dry weight basis. Additionally, Commerce has added an illustrative list of subheadings under Chapter 38 of the HTSUS that may include subject acetone. Finally, Commerce has made other non-substantive revisions to the language of the scope in order to improve clarity.

See the revised scope in Appendix I to this notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences for CEPSA Quimica, S.A. (CEPSA). For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

On March 25, 2019, Industrias Quimicas del Oxido de Etileno, S.A. (IQOXE), one of the two Spanish producers/exporters named in the petition, 4 timely filed a statement reporting that it had “no exports, shipments, or sales” of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. 5 Subsequently, to confirm the accuracy of IQOXE's statements, Commerce queried U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for entries of subject merchandise by IQOXE during the POI. 6 On April 19, Commerce confirmed in a memorandum that IQOXE made no shipments of acetone during the POI. 7 Furthermore, there is no evidence on the record indicating that IQOXE is affiliated with CEPSA or any producers/exports of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, Commerce preliminarily determines that IQOXE had no sales of subject merchandise during the POI, and therefore we preliminarily determine not to further examine IQOXE as part of this investigation. As such, any entries of subject merchandise exported by IQOXE will be subject to the all-others rate. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all-other producers or exporters.

Commerce has preliminarily determined the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the individually examined respondent ( i.e., CEPSA) entirely under section 776 of the Act. Consequently, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, Commerce's normal practice under these circumstances has been to calculate the all-others rate as a simple average of the alleged dumping margins from the petition. 8 For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated dumping margin determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated dumping margin.

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied AFA to the individually examined company ( i.e., CEPSA) in this investigation, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the highest margin alleged in the petition, there are no calculations to disclose.

Because the examined respondent in this investigation did not provide information requested by Commerce, and Commerce preliminarily determines the examined respondent has been uncooperative, we will not conduct verification.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. 9 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. 10 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

On July 9, 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (the petitioner). 1 The Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

Background

The petitioners in this investigation are GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). The mandatory respondent in this investigation is Newtrend Food Ingredient (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Newtrend Thailand).

The events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination   1 on October 31, 2018 and postponed the final determination until March 15, 2019 are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2

Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018 through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019. 3 Commerce revised the deadline for the final determination in this investigation to April 24, 2019.

On March 19, 2019, the petitioners submitted new factual information (NFI) on the record of this investigation, which included the notice of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) commencement of a formal investigation and imposition of interim measures ( CBP Interim Measures ) under Title IV, Section 421 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (also referred to as the Enforce and Protect Act or EAPA). 4 Commerce accepted the NFI and provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment. On April 24, 2019, Commerce postponed until further notice the issuance of the final determination in this investigation, in order to further investigate this matter. 5 We subsequently issued to Newtrend Thailand additional requests for sales and cost information relevant to this matter. Newtrend Thailand timely responded to these requests for information, and Commerce subsequently conducted verification of the additional information submitted.

We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination and on events that occurred since the publication of that determination. A detailed summary of the events that occurred in this investigation since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The product covered by this investigation is glycine from Thailand. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I of this notice.

We invited parties to comment on Commerce's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 Commerce reviewed the briefs submitted by interested parties, considered the arguments therein, and made no changes to the scope of the investigation. For further discussion, see Commerce's Scope Comments Final Decision Memorandum. 7

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), from November to December 2018 and during June 2019, Commerce conducted verifications of Newtrend Thailand's sales and cost information. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Newtrend Thailand. 8

Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties and our verification findings, we find that facts available with an adverse inference is warranted for Newtrend Thailand in the final determination in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For further discussion, see “Use of Adverse Facts Available” section below and the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Newtrend Thailand, the sole mandatory respondent, failed to provide critical information in determining its cost of production of glycine during the POI, rendering its reported costs unreliable and unusable for purposes of calculating an accurate estimated weighted-average dumping margin. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, we find that the application of facts available with an adverse inference is warranted with respect to Newtrend Thailand in the final determination. In applying total adverse facts available (AFA), Commerce has determined that Newtrend Thailand's estimated weighted-average dumping margin is 227.17 percent, which is the highest dumping margin alleged in the Petition, as supplemented on April 9, 2018, and will apply this margin to its exports of glycine to the United States. 9 For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that Commerce estimate the weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins of those companies individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available pursuant to section 776 of the Act. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that when, as here, each of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters or producers individually examined are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the rate for all other exporters or producers. In such a situation, Commerce's practice has been to determine the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters as the simple average of the dumping margins alleged in the Petition, 10 which we have done for this final determination. 11

In accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we preliminarily determined that critical circumstances did not exist with respect to imports of glycine because that subject merchandise was not being, or was not likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. 12 However, in this final determination, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) and 19 CFR 351.206, we find that critical circumstances exist with respect to subject merchandise produced or exported by Newtrend Thailand, but do not exist with respect to all other producers or exporters. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, in this investigation, Commerce applied AFA to the sole respondent, Newtrend Thailand, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, the applied AFA rate is based solely on the Petition, and the all-others rate is a simple average of the Petition rates. 13 Therefore, there are no margin calculations to disclose.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of glycine from Thailand, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice. Section 735(c)(4)(C) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered.

For entries made by Newtrend Thailand, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(C) of the Act, because we find that critical circumstances exist, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of glycine from Thailand which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice. For entries made by companies covered by the all-others rate, because we find that critical circumstances do not exist, we will not give CBP such instructions.

Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for Newtrend Thailand will be equal to the (estimated) weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific (estimated) weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be equal to the all-others (estimated) weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination.

Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. In the concurrent CVD investigation of glycine from Thailand, however, Commerce did not make an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies. Therefore, Commerce has not offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margins by countervailable export subsidies.

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

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of glycine from Thailand no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section.

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

This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

Background

On May 29, 2014, Commerce published its antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products from Japan in the Federal Register . 1 On April 1, 2019, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products from Japan, 2 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 3 Commerce received a notice of intent to participate from Thomas Steel Strip Corporation (Thomas), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 4 Thomas claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of diffusion-annealed nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products.

Commerce received a substantive response from Thomas  5 within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive response from any other domestic or interested parties in this proceeding, nor was a hearing requested.

On May 24, 2019, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties. 6 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this antidumping duty order.

The diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products included in this order are flat-rolled, cold-reduced steel products, regardless of chemistry; whether or not in coils; either plated or coated with nickel or nickel-based alloys and subsequently annealed ( i.e., “diffusion-annealed”); whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other metallic or nonmetallic substances; and less than or equal to 2.0 mm in nominal thickness. For purposes of this order, “nickel-based alloys” include all nickel alloys with other metals in which nickel accounts for at least 80 percent of the alloy by volume.

Imports of merchandise included in the scope of this order are classified primarily under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7212.50.0000 and 7210.90.6000, but may also be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7210.70.6090, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7225.99.0090, or 7226.99.0180. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 7

All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum are the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if this order were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce building. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix to this notice. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted-average margins up to 77.70 percent.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review in the Federal Register on December 21, 2018. 1 For the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018, through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019. 3 The revised deadline for the final results was May 30, 2019. On May 24, 2019, we extended this deadline to July 29, 2019. 4

The product covered by the Order is wood flooring from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the parties' briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice. 6 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, Commerce made certain revisions to the rates assigned to Sino-Maple, the China-wide entity, and the non-examined, separate rate respondents. The Issues and Decision Memorandum contains descriptions of these revisions.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce determined that certain companies did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Although we received no information to contradict our preliminary determination with respect to those companies, based on information received since the Preliminary Results, we determine that two additional companies, Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd. and Dalian Guhua Wooden Product Co. Ltd., did not have shipments during the POR. 7 Therefore, for these companies (listed in Appendix II), we will issue appropriate instructions that are consistent with our “automatic assessment” clarification. 8

In the Preliminary Results, we determined that Jiangsu Senmao, Sino-Maple, and several additional companies who were not selected for individual review demonstrated their eligibility for separate rates, and we continue to do so in these final results. In addition, we determine that Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. is eligible for a separate rate. 9

The statute and our regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be assigned to respondents not selected for individual examination when we limit our examination of companies subject to the administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, we look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents not individually examined in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available} (FA).” Accordingly, Commerce's usual practice in determining the rate for separate-rate respondents not selected for individual examination, has been to average the weighted-average dumping margins for the selected companies, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA. 10 However, when the weighted-average dumping margins established for all individually investigated respondents are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act permits Commerce to “use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.”

Furthermore, Congress, in the SAA, stated that when “the dumping margins for all of the exporters and producers that are individually investigated are determined entirely on the basis of the facts available or are zero or de minimis . . . {t}he expected method in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and the de minimis margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available.”  11 For the final results of this review, we continue to determine the estimated dumping margin for each of the individually examined respondents to be zero or based entirely on AFA. Thus, we assigned to all eligible non-selected respondents the simple average of the separate rates assigned to Jiangsu Senmao and Sino-Maple. 12

For the companies subject to this review, including the China-wide entity and companies which established their eligibility for a separate rate, Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

For Jiangsu Senmao, which has a weighted-average dumping margin of zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by the company individually examined during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate. As the China-wide entity and Sino-Maple's estimated dumping margins continue to be based on AFA, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 85.13 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were produced and/or exported by those entities.

For the respondents which were not selected for individual examination in this review and which qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to 42.57 percent, the simple average of the separate rates we assigned to Jiangsu Senmao and Sino-Maple.

Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, for the companies which Commerce determined had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries made under those exporters' case numbers ( i.e., at the exporters' rates) will be liquidated at the China-wide rate. 13

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For companies that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in these final results (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the China-wide entity; and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of these final results, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on March 18, 2019. 1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is acetone from Singapore. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, 3 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 4 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 5

In accordance with the comments discussed below, Commerce is adding a five percent “threshold” to the scope description. In accordance with the threshold, a product is excluded from the scope of this investigation if the total acetone component of the product (regardless of the source or sources) comprises less than five percent of the product on a dry weight basis. Additionally, Commerce has added an illustrative list of subheadings under Chapter 38 of the HTSUS that may include subject acetone. Finally, Commerce has made other non-substantive revisions to the language of the scope in order to improve clarity. See the revised scope in Appendix I to this notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences for Mitsui Phenols Singapore Pte. Ltd. (Mitsui). For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters.

Commerce has preliminarily determined the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the individually examined respondent ( i.e., Mitsui) under section 776 of the Act. Consequently, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, Commerce's normal practice under these circumstances has been to calculate the all-others rate as a simple average of the alleged dumping margins from the petition. 6 For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated dumping margin.

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied AFA to the individually examined company ( i.e., Mitsui) in this investigation, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the petition, there are no calculations to disclose.

Because the examined respondent in this investigation did not provide information requested by Commerce, and Commerce preliminarily determines the examined respondent to have been uncooperative, we will not conduct verification.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. 7 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. 8 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

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

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

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

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

Background

The petitioners in this investigation are GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). In addition to the Royal Thai Government (RTG), the mandatory respondent in this investigation is Newtrend Food Ingredient (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Newtrend Thailand).

The events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination   1 are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2

Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018 through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019. 3 Commerce revised the deadline for the final determination in this investigation to April 24, 2019.

On March 18, 2019, the petitioners submitted new factual information (NFI) on the record of this investigation, which included the notice of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) commencement of a formal investigation and imposition of interim measures ( CBP Interim Measures ) under Title IV, Section 421 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (also referred to as the Enforce and Protect Act or EAPA). 4 Commerce accepted the NFI and provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment. On April 24, 2019, Commerce postponed until further notice the issuance of the final determination in this investigation, in order to further investigate this matter. 5 We subsequently issued to Newtrend Thailand additional requests for sales and cost information relevant to this matter. Newtrend Thailand timely responded to these requests for information, and Commerce subsequently conducted verification of the additional information submitted.

We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination and on events that occurred since the publication of that determination. A detailed summary of the events that occurred in this investigation since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The product covered by this investigation is glycine from Thailand. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I of this notice.

We invited parties to comment on Commerce's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 Commerce reviewed the briefs submitted by interested parties, considered the arguments therein, and made no changes to the scope of the investigation. For further discussion, see Commerce's Scope Comments Final Decision Memorandum. 7

The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum also discusses the comments we received since the Preliminary Determination and Post-Preliminary Determination  8 regarding the subsidy rates calculated for the mandatory respondent and all other producers/exporters. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 9 For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during November 2018 and June 2019, Commerce conducted verifications of the information reported by the RTG and Newtrend Thailand. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting records and original source documents provided by Newtrend Thailand. 10

Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, our verification findings, and the minor corrections presented at verification, we made no changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of the issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In the Preliminary Determination, Commerce explained that a finding of critical circumstances is only relevant if, due to an affirmative preliminary or affirmative final determination, there is a suspension of liquidation. 11 However, Commerce preliminarily determined that Newtrend Thailand did not receive any subsidies. Thus, Commerce issued a negative Preliminary Determination, did not suspend liquidation, and preliminarily found that critical circumstances did not exist. 12

For this final determination, we find that Newtrend Thailand received a de minimis net subsidy rate and, thus, we have issued a negative final determination. Accordingly, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist.

In accordance with section 705(c)(l)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for Newtrend Thailand, the sole producer/exporter of the subject merchandise under investigation. Commerce determines the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate to be:

Commerce has not calculated an all-others rate because it has not reached an affirmative final determination. In the Preliminary Determination, the total net countervailable subsidy rate for Newtrend Thailand was zero and, therefore, we did not suspend liquidation. With respect to the final determination, because the rate for Newtrend Thailand is de minimis, we are not directing CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of glycine from Thailand.

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

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its determination. As our final determination is negative, this proceeding is terminated.

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

This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

Major topics include, but are not limited to Salmon related topics: Salmon Methodology Review, Salmon Rebuilding Plans—final action for Coho and the report on the Sacramento River fall Chinook harvest model development, Southern Resident Killer Whale Endangered Species Act consultation, risk analysis review, and review of the annual salmon management cycle. Pacific halibut related topics include: 2A Catch Sharing Plan preliminary changes for 2020, and commercial directed halibut fishery regulations for 2020.

The groups may also address one or more of the Council's scheduled administrative matters, legislative matters, habitat issues, ecosystem topics, groundfish topics and future workload planning. Public comments during the webinar will be received from attendees at the discretion of the STT and MEW Chairs.

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

The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2411) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

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

The items of discussion at the Assessment Milestone 3 webinar are as follows:

• Review base model alternatives and recommend a base model approach and configuration.

• Recommend sensitivities and uncertainty evaluations.

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

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

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

The items of discussion during the Assessment 1 Webinar are as follows:

1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the data workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

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

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 business days prior to each webinar.

Major topics include, but are not limited to Salmon related topics: Salmon Methodology Review, Salmon Rebuilding Plans—final action for Coho and the report on the Sacramento River fall Chinook harvest model development, Southern Resident Killer Whale Endangered Species Act consultation: Risk analysis review, and review of the annual salmon management cycle. Pacific halibut related topics include: 2A Catch Sharing Plan preliminary changes for 2020, and commercial directed halibut fishery regulations for 2020.

The group may also address one or more of the Council's scheduled administrative matters, legislative matters, habitat issues, ecosystem topics, groundfish topics, and future workload planning. Public comments during the webinar will be received from attendees at the discretion of the SAS Chair.

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

The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2411) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

Section 113 prohibits any person from conducting any research, exploration, salvage, or other activity that would physically alter or disturb the wreck or wreck site of the RMS Titanic unless authorized by the Secretary of Commerce per the provisions of the International Agreement. As directed by Congress in Section 6 of the 1986 RMS Titanic Maritime Memorial Act (16 U.S.C. 450rr et seq. ), the United States negotiated the International Agreement with the United Kingdom, France, and Canada. Section 5(a) of the 1986 Act directed NOAA to enter into consultations with the United Kingdom, France, Canada and others to encourage international protection of the RMS Titanic and to develop international guidelines for research on, exploration of, and, if appropriate, salvage of RMS Titanic.

The NOAA Guidelines for Research, Exploration and Salvage of RMS Titanic (hereinafter the “NOAA Guidelines”) became final on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18905), after public notice and comment (65 FR 35326), and are consistent with the Rules Concerning Activities Aimed at the RMS Titanic and/or its Artifacts, which are annexed to the International Agreement (hereinafter the “Annex Rules”). Among other things, the NOAA Guidelines and the Annex Rules address project design, funding, duration, objectives, methodology and techniques, professional qualifications, preliminary work, documentation, artifact conservation, safety, reporting, curation of project collection(s), and dissemination.

The NOAA Guidelines and the Annex Rules are based on widely accepted international and domestic professional archaeological standards, including the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), International Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage, the rules annexed to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, and the National Park Service's Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines.

Any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction proposing to conduct any research, exploration, salvage, or other activity at the wreck or wreck site of RMS Titanic will need to demonstrate to the NOAA Administrator that the proposed project will comply with Section 113, which incorporates by reference the International Agreement. This information will enable the NOAA Administrator to determine whether the activity may physically alter or disturb the wreck or wreck site of RMS Titanic such that an authorization is required and, if so, whether the NOAA Administrator can issue an authorization. To facilitate the NOAA Administrator's review, NOAA recommends that any person proposing to conduct any research, exploration, salvage, or other activity at the wreck or wreck site of RMS Titanic submit to NOAA, at least 120 calendar days prior to the proposed project date, information sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed project will comply with the Annex Rules of the International Agreement and to obtain any necessary authorization, if applicable. NOAA also encourages requestors to review the NOAA Guidelines as well as the International Maritime Organization Circular MEPC.1/Circ.779 (Pollution Prevention Measures in the Area Surrounding the Wreckage of RMS Titanic ).

The Secretary of Commerce reserved authority under Section 113 to make all decisions arising under Article 5 of the International Agreement when a Party to the Agreement opposes an authorization under consideration by the United States. Article 5 of the International Agreement provides, among other things, that each Party to the Agreement shall provide copies of and its preliminary views on requests for authorizations to the other Parties for comment. The Party considering the authorization must provide a 90-day comment period to the other Parties following transmission of the request for authorization to the other Parties.

The International Agreement will enter into force when at least two countries ratify it. The United Kingdom ratified the International Agreement on November 6, 2003. The United States signed the Agreement on June 18, 2004, subject to acceptance following the enactment of implementing legislation. As of the date of this notice, the Agreement has not yet entered into force.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“the Court”) has constructive in rem jurisdiction over RMS Titanic and has granted exclusive salvage rights to RMS Titanic, Incorporated (“RMST”). NOAA intends to notify the Court of any project that may require a Section 113 authorization and will encourage any person requesting authorization to coordinate directly with the Court and any salvor-in-possession of RMS Titanic. Any person proposing a project involving the salvage of Titanic wreck or wreck site, as determined by the Court, must also obtain approval by the Court in addition to any authorization required by Section 113. NOAA also intends to provide the Court with a copy of any authorization the NOAA Administrator issues pursuant to Section 113.

NOAA handles requests for agency records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. ) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a et seq. ) in a manner consistent with these laws and the Department of Commerce regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information. 15 CFR part 4. FOIA Exemption (b)(4) applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. If any person requesting a Section 113 authorization submits such information to NOAA, he or she should clearly label it “Contains Confidential Information,” consider submitting such information as a separate attachment, and request that NOAA treat it as confidential. NOAA will not disclose such information if it qualifies for exemption from disclosure under FOIA. See 15 CFR 4.9. NOAA will also seek to protect personally identifiable information affecting an individual's privacy consistent with FOIA Exemption (b)(6).

Agenda

The committee will be briefed on relevant actions and projects, including offshore wind, EFH consultation work, and habitat science efforts, providing feedback as appropriate. The Committee will also work towards the development of policy statements related to habitat and fisheries impacts of non-fishing activities and will discuss habitat-related work priorities for 2020. The Committee may draft comments on Exempted Fishing Permit applications related to the Great South Channel Habitat Management Area, if requested. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

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

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

Agenda

The EBFM Committee and PDT will meet jointly to present and discuss an initial draft of an example Fishery Ecosystem Plan (eFEP) for Georges Bank. The intent of the eFEP is to explain the concept and potential application of EBFM for Georges Bank fisheries, for use during a Management Strategy Evaluation process. A revised draft document will also be presented at the September Council meeting. Other business may be discussed as necessary.

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

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

In the Federal Register of July 29, 2019, in FR Doc. 84-36591, on page 36591, in the third column, correct the “Docket No.” caption to read:

a. Federal Awarding Agency: Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense.

b. Funding Opportunity Title: Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Compatible Use Plans.

c. Announcement Type: Federal Funding Opportunity.

d. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number & Title: 12.610: Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Compatible Use Plans.

e. Key Dates: Proposals will be considered on a continuing basis. OEA will evaluate all proposals, and provide a response to the respondent within 30 business days of its receipt of a final and complete proposal.

Proposals will be considered on a continuing basis, subject to the availability of appropriations, commencing on the date of publication of this notice.

OEA is a DoD Field Activity authorized under 10 U.S.C. 2391 to provide assistance to state or local governments, and entities of state and local governments, including regional governmental organizations, to plan and carry out activities required by the encroachment of a civilian community on a military installation if the Secretary determines that the encroachment of the civilian community is likely to impair the continued operational utility of the military installation.

OEA's Compatible Use Program provides technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to plan and carry out civilian actions necessary to alleviate and/or prevent incompatible civilian development and other civilian activities that are likely to impair the continued operational utility of a DoD installation or facility. The program enables states and communities to assist local installations to optimize their mission—support lethality, and enhance the readiness and military value of their local installations. This program promotes: Compatible civilian development and activities in support of the local mission at the installation; preserves and protects the public health, safety, and general welfare; enhances the security of installation missions: Protects and preserves military readiness and quality of life; and enhances civilian, and military communications, and collaboration as the Department seeks to carry out the National Defense Strategy.

OEA is accepting proposals for grant assistance to develop compatible use strategies and/or plans to promote civilian development compatible with continued operational utility of a DoD installation, range, special use air space, military operations area, and/or military training routes from: States, counties, and municipalities; other political subdivisions of a state; special purpose units of a state or local government; other instrumentalities of a state or local government; and tribal nations. In addressing encroachment, grantees may at the same time develop initiatives to enhance the security and resiliency of a military installation.

Eligible activities may include, but are not limited to: “Compatible Use Plans” to comprehensively understand concerns and opportunities, and to develop a responsive strategy and action plan; preparation of land use ordinances; analysis and dissemination of information; timely consultation and cooperation among DoD, state and local governments, and other stakeholders; coordinated interagency and intergovernmental assistance; technical and financial studies; clearinghouses or websites to exchange information among federal, state, and local efforts; resolution of regulatory issues impeding the support of compatibility measures; drafting of state legislation; feasibility studies; integration of the Department's Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse procedures with local/state reviews; development of follow-on open space/easement opportunities for the Department's Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) Program; and other innovative approaches.

These potentially eligible activities may be undertaken to respond to current, future, or potential areas or incidences of encroachment upon installations and ranges, including: Energy project siting; incompatible development in aircraft runway clear and accident potential zones; light pollution; urban growth; noise; electromagnetic spectrum interference; protection from a threat of unmanned aerial and underwater vehicles; vertical obstructions; incompatible use of land, air, and water resources; cyber vulnerabilities; and, the management of endangered species.

Proposals will be evaluated by OEA staff against the eligibility criteria provided in Section IIc of this notice and the selection criteria provided in Section IIe of this notice. The evaluation process may include coordination as deemed appropriate by OEA with representatives from the Military Departments, Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse, and other relevant Office of Secretary of Defense and DoD entities, and other Federal agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration, and Department of Energy. OEA will notify the respondent within thirty (30) days of proposal receipt, or as soon as practical, whether their proposal is successful. The successful respondent will then be invited to submit an application. Additional details about the review and selection process are provided in Section IIe of this notice. The final award will be determined by OEA based upon a review of a final grant application, and will be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Awards under this Federal Funding Opportunity will be issued in the form of a grant agreement. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 6304, a grant is defined as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a state, a local government, or other recipient when:

(1) The principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the state or local government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; and

(2) Substantial involvement is not expected between the executive agency and the state, local government, or other recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated in the agreement.

Awards resulting from this Federal Funding Opportunity are based on eligibility and the responsiveness of proposals to military and local community interests and needs. “Military installation” includes a military facility owned and operated by any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Virgin Islands, even though the facility is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, if the Secretary of Defense determines that the military facility is subject to significant use for training by the armed forces. It includes ranges, special use air space, military operation areas, and military training routes.

States, counties, municipalities, other political subdivisions of a state; special purpose units of a state or local government; other instrumentalities of a state or local government; and tribal nations are eligible if:

(a) OEA determines there is existing or potential encroachment of a civilian origin on the local military mission; and

(b) This encroachment of civilian origin is likely to impair the continued operational utility of a military installation.

Respondents are strongly advised to review the Program Information provided under Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number 12.610 (Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Compatible Use and Joint Land Use Studies).

Cost sharing is required. A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the project's total proposed funding must be from non-Federal sources.

Funding will be awarded to only one governmental entity, on behalf of a region, per installation. Therefore, proposals on the behalf of a multi-jurisdictional region should demonstrate a significant level of cooperation. Additionally, the local military installation should concur with the applicant's approach in addressing the encroachment threat and should work with and support the local effort.

In addition to this Federal Funding Opportunity process, OEA will continue to request annual Compatible Use nominations from the Military Departments.

Proposals may be submitted electronically via email to: oea.ncr.OEA.mbx.ffo-submit@mail.mil with a courtesy copy to david.r.kennedy.civ@mail.mil. Include “Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Compatible Use Plans” on the subject line of the message and request delivery/read confirmation to ensure receipt.

Proposals may also be mailed or hand-delivered to: Director, Office of Economic Adjustment, 231 Crystal Drive, Suite 520, Arlington, VA 22202-3711.

Proposals will be accepted as received on a continuing basis commencing on the date of this publication in the Federal Register and processed when deemed to be a final, complete proposal. Each proposal shall consist of no more than ten (10) single-sided pages exclusive of cover sheet, transmittal letter, and/or addendum, typed in a minimum 11-point common typeface, with no less than 1″ margins, exclusive of appendices, attachments, and cover sheet and/or transmittal letter, and must include the following information:

Each proposal submitted should include a cover or transmittal letter and accompanying text that shall consist of no more than ten (10) pages (single-sided) which must include:

(a) Point of Contact: Name, title, phone number, email address, and organization address of the respondent's primary point of contact;

(b) Actual/Potential Encroachment: A description of potential encroachment concerns within the area of DoD's test, training and military operations;

(c) Project Description: A description of the proposed project, specifically:

• How the project can promote compatible development, including how the project could prevent adverse impacts to DoD's test, training and military operations;

• How the plan area and DoD's test, training, and military operations are defined;

• How the project will capitalize on existing strengths ( e.g., infrastructure, institutions, capital, etc.) within the affected area; and

• How the project would be integrated with any existing/ongoing efforts that may impact the project.

(d) Project Participants: A description of the partner jurisdictions, agencies, organizations, key stakeholders, and their roles and responsibilities to carry out the proposed project. Letters of support may be included as attachments and will not count against the ten-page limit; a letter of support from each affected military installation commander should be included;

(e) Local military involvement and support: A description of the anticipated role of the installation(s) in the plan and concurrence with the proposal;

(f) Grant Funds and Other Sources of Funds: A summary of local needs, including the need for Federal funding; an overview of all State and local funding sources, including the funds requested under this notice; financial commitments for other Federal and non-Federal funds needed to undertake the project to include acknowledgment to provide not less than 10% of the funding from non-Federal sources; a description of any other Federal funding for which the respondent has applied, or intends to apply to support this effort; and, a statement detailing how the proposal is not duplicative of other available Federal funding;

(g) Project Schedule: A sufficiently detailed project schedule, including milestones;

(h) Performance Metrics: A description of metrics to be tracked and evaluated over the course of the project to gauge performance of the project;

(i) Grants Management: Evidence of the intended recipient's ability and authority to manage grant funds; and

(j) Submission Authorization: Documentation that the Submitting Official is authorized by the respondent jurisdiction(s) and the respondent jurisdiction is an eligible entity to submit a proposal and subsequently apply for assistance. If there are multiple jurisdictions involved, an addendum can include letters of support.

To the extent practicable, OEA encourages respondents to provide data and evidence of all project merits in a form that is publicly available and verifiable. OEA reserves the right to ask any respondent to supplement the information in its proposal, but expects the proposal to be complete upon submission.

Each respondent is required to: (a) Provide a valid Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number; (b) be registered in SAM before submitting its application; and (c) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. OEA may not make a Federal award to a respondent until the respondent has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements and, if a respondent has not fully complied with the requirements by the time OEA is ready to issue a Federal award, OEA may determine that the respondent is not qualified to receive a Federal award.

Proposals will be considered on a continuing basis, subject to available appropriations, commencing on the date of publication of this notice. The end date for this program has not yet been determined. OEA will evaluate all proposals and provide a response to each respondent via email within 30 business days of OEA's receipt of a final, complete grant proposal.

The following are unallowable activities under this grant program:

• Construction;

• Demolition;

• Land Acquisition;

• The substitution or undertaking of any activity that would otherwise be undertaken by the Military Departments with MILCON or Defense-wide appropriated funding;

• Proposed activities for grants that duplicate nor replicate activities otherwise eligible for or funded through other Federal programs;

• International travel; and

• Lobbying of any sort.

OEA reserves the right to decline to fund pre-Federal award costs. Final awards may include pre-Federal award costs at the discretion of OEA; however, this must be specifically requested in the respondent's final application.

Electronically submitted materials should be sent in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

Upon validating respondent eligibility and the potential for how civilian development may impair the operational utility of the installation, including test and training ranges and associated military airspace, OEA will consider each of the following equally-balanced factors as a basis to invite formal grant applications:

(a) An appropriate and clear project design to address the need, problem, or issue identified;

(b) Evidence of an effective approach to ensure the project supports the continued operational utility of DoD's test, training, and military operations;

(c) The innovative quality of the proposed approach; and

(d) A reasonable, allowable, and allocable proposed budget with a non-Federal match commitment and schedule for completion of the work program specified.

All proposals will be reviewed on their individual merit by a panel of OEA staff, all of whom are Federal employees. OEA may coordinate with the appropriate Military Department, and other appropriate DoD organizational entities, as appropriate in OEA's discretion, to obtain concurrence on the proposal. OEA will notify the respondent, to the extent practical, within thirty (30) days after receipt of a proposal whether their proposal was successful. The successful respondent will then be instructed to submit an application through OEA's grants management system. OEA will assign a Project Manager to advise and assist successful respondents in the preparation of the application. Grant applications will be reviewed for their completeness and accuracy and a grant award notification will be issued, to the extent practical, within seven (7) business days from receipt of a complete application.

Unsuccessful respondents will be notified that their proposal was not selected for further action and funding, and may request a debriefing on their submitted proposal. When applicable, OEA may include information about other applicable Federal grant programs in this communication. Requests for debriefing must be submitted in writing within 3 calendar days of notification of an unsuccessful proposal.

OEA is committed to conducting a transparent financial assistance award process and publicizing information about funding decisions. Respondents are advised that their respective applications and information related to their review and evaluation may be shared publicly. Any proprietary information must be identified as such in the proposal and application. In the event of a grant award, information about project progress and related results may also be made publicly available.

In the event a grant is ultimately awarded, the successful respondent (Grantee) will receive a notice of award in the form of a Grant Agreement, signed by the Director, OEA (Grantor), on behalf of DoD. The Grant Agreement will be transmitted electronically or, if necessary, by U.S. Mail.

Any grant awarded under this program will be governed by the provisions of the OMB circulars and regulations applicable to financial assistance and DoD's implementing regulations in place at the time of the award. A Grantee receiving funds under this opportunity and any consultant or pass-thru entity operating under the terms of a grant shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws applicable to its activities. Federal regulations that will apply to an OEA grant include administrative requirements and provisions governing allowable costs as stated in:

(a) 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards;”

(b) 2 CFR part 1103, “Interim Grants and Cooperative Agreements Implementation of Guidance” in 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, And Audit Requirements for Federal Awards;”

(c) 2 CFR part 25, “Universal Identifier and System for Award Management;”

(d) 2 CFR part 170, “Reporting Sub-award and Executive Compensation Information;”

(e) 2 CFR part 180, OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement), as implemented by DoD in 2 CFR part 1125, Department of Defense Non-procurement Debarment and Suspension; and

(f) 32 CFR part 28, “New Restrictions on Lobbying”.

OEA requires periodic performance reports, an interim financial report for each 12 months a grant is active, and one final performance report for any grant. The performance reports will contain information on the following:

(a) Comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for the period;

(b) Reasons for slippage if established objectives were not met;

(c) Additional pertinent information when appropriate;

(d) A comparison of actual and projected quarterly expenditures in the grant; and

(e) The amount of Federal cash on hand at the beginning and end of the reporting period.

The final performance report must contain a summary of activities for the entire grant period. All required deliverables should be submitted with the final performance report.

The final SF 425, “Federal Financial Report,” must be submitted to OEA within 90 days after the end of the grant.

Any grant funds actually advanced and not needed for grant purposes shall be returned immediately to OEA. Upon award, OEA will provide include a schedule for reporting periods and report due dates in the Grant Agreement.

For further information, to answer questions, or for help with problems, contact: David Kennedy, Compatible Use, Office of Economic Adjustment, 2231 Crystal Drive, Suite 520, Arlington, VA 22202-3711. Office: (703) 697-2136. Email: david.r.kennedy.civ@mail.mil.

The OEA homepage address is: http://www.oea.gov.

Selection of an organization under this Federal Funding Opportunity does not constitute approval of a grant for the proposed project as submitted. Before any funds are awarded, OEA may enter into negotiations about such items as program components, staffing and funding levels, and administrative systems in place to support implementation of the award. The amount of available funding may require the final award amount to be less than that originally proposed by the respondent. If the negotiations do not result in a mutually acceptable submission, OEA reserves the right to terminate the negotiations and decline to fund a resulting application. OEA further reserves the right not to fund any proposal received under this Federal Funding Opportunity.

In the event OEA approves an amount that is less than the amount proposed, the respondent will be required to modify its grant application to conform to the reduced amount before execution of the grant agreement. OEA reserves the right to reduce or withdraw the award if acceptable modifications are not submitted by the respondent within 15 working days from the date the request for modification is made. Any modifications must be within the scope of the original application and approved by both the respondent and OEA. OEA reserves the right to cancel any award for non-performance.

Amendment or renewal of an award to increase funding or to extend the period of performance is at the discretion of OEA.

There are three (3) Mississippi River locks located in Minneapolis, MN. One of the three locks (Upper Saint Anthony Falls) was closed to navigation on June 10, 2015. The two Mississippi River locks still in operation in Minneapolis, MN, (Lower St. Anthony Falls, and Lock and Dam 1, currently operate 10 hours per day/7 days per week during the navigation season.

Section 2010 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA) directed the Secretary of the Army to close the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam located on the Mississippi River at river mile 853.9 no later than one (1) year after the enactment date of WRRDA 2014. To comply with WRRDA, the Corps closed Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock to navigation on June 10, 2015.

With the closing of Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock, a reduction in lockages at the remaining two Minneapolis locks has been observed. The proposed change in level of service complies with the guidance from the Corps IMTS Board of Directors.

The legal authority for the regulation governing the use, administration, and navigation of the Twin Cities locks is Section 4 of the River and Harbor Act of August 18, 1894 (28 Stat. 362), as amended, which is codified at 33 U.S.C. Section 1. This statute requires the Secretary of the Army to “prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States” as the Secretary determines may be required by public necessity. Reference 33 CFR 207.300.

The meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Board on Coastal Engineering Research provides broad policy guidance and reviews plans for the conduct of research and the development of research projects in consonance with the needs of the coastal engineering field and the objectives of the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers.

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Board on Coastal Engineering Research was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on August 13-15, 2019, of the Board on Coastal Engineering Research. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the DoD, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

Purpose of the Meeting: The theme of the meeting is “Sediment Transport and Regional Sediment Management.” The purpose of the meeting is to identify Corps coastal research priorities related to present and future Regional Sediment Management challenges and opportunities within the context of large-scale regional studies on the Great Lakes and Nation-wide.

Agenda: On Tuesday morning, August 13, 2019, panel presentations will address Regional Sediment Processes & Management on the Great Lakes. Presentations will include: Regional Coastal Processes & Geologic Setting in the Great Lakes; Great Lakes Sediment Management Challenges; Overview of the RSM Program and Great Lakes Studies; and Great Lakes Coastal Resilience Study. The day will end with a presentation on; St. Clair River Sediment Budget: The convergence of coastal and river processes.

On Wednesday morning, August 14, 2019, the Board will reconvene to discuss Existing Sediment Transport Knowledge & Impacts. A presentation on Framing the Issues: Regional Sediment Management & Sediment Transport will be given. The meeting will then proceed to the second panel discussion entitled “Sediment Transport Challenges and Solutions” presentation will include: Fundamental Sediment Transport Processes: The Operational Value of Research; National Dredging Operations: Priority Needs for Delivering the Program; Sustainable Management of Dredged Material and Placement Areas; Beneficial Use Successes, Challenges and Lessons Learned; and RSM and EWN Regulatory & Stakeholders Successes and Challenges.

The Wednesday afternoon session continues with the State of Knowledge and Research Direction's panel. Presentations include: Academic Perspective: Sediment Process Capabilities, Gaps, and Way Forward; Sediment Transport Measurements (Estuarine, Coasts, & Dredging): Future needs in this research area; Sediment Transport Modeling (Estuarine, Coasts, & Dredging): Future needs in this research area; Sediment Management Advancements through R&D and the U.S. Coastal Research Program; and Long-term Plan to Advance Sediment Processes Knowledge for RSM.

The Board will meet in Executive Session to discuss ongoing initiatives and future actions on Thursday morning, August 15, 2019.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public. Because seating capacity is limited, advance registration is required. For registration requirements please see below.

Oral participation by the public is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 14, 2019. The Crowne Plaza Downtown Hotel is fully handicap accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, please contact Dr. Julie Dean Rosati, the Board's DFO, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Registration: It is encouraged for individuals who wish to attend the meeting of the Board to register with the DFO by email, the preferred method of contact, no later than July 30, 2019, using the electronic mail contact information found in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The communication should include the registrant's full name, title, affiliation or employer, email address, and daytime phone number. If applicable, include written comments or statements with the registration email.

Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.015(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the FACA, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Board's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Dr. Julie Dean Rosati, DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. The DFO will review all submitted written comments or statements and provide them to members of the Board for their consideration. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Board. The DFO will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the Board Chairperson and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Board before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting.

Verbal Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Board is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Board during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least five business days in advance to the Board's DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The DFO will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Board Chair, determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 30-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment, and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than five minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

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: HEAL Program: Physician's Certification of Borrower's Total and Permanent Disability.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0124.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 78.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20.

Abstract: This is a request for an extension of OMB approval of information collection requirements associated with the form for the Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program, Physician's Certification of Borrower's Total and Permanent Disability currently approved under OMB No. 1845-0124. The form is HEAL Form 539. A borrower and the borrower's physician must complete this form. The borrower then submits the form and additional information to the lending institution (or current holder of the loan) who in turn forwards the form and additional information to the Secretary for consideration of discharge of the borrower's HEAL loans. The form provides a uniform format for borrowers and lenders to use when submitting a disability claim.

Part of the mission of DOE is to advance the energy, environmental, and nuclear security of the United States and promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission. DOE's 2014-2018 Strategic Plan states that DOE will “support a more economically competitive, environmentally responsible, secure and resilient U.S. energy infrastructure.” Specifically, “DOE will continue to explore advanced concepts in nuclear energy that may lead to new types of reactors with further safety improvements and reduced environmental and nonproliferation concerns.”

Many commercial organizations and universities are pursuing advanced nuclear energy fuels, materials, and reactor designs that complement the efforts of DOE and its laboratories in achieving DOE's goal of advancing nuclear energy. These designs include thermal and fast-spectrum  1 reactors targeting improved fuel resource utilization and waste management and utilizing materials other than water for cooling. Their development requires an adequate infrastructure for experimentation, testing, design evolution, and component qualification. Existing irradiation test capabilities are aging, and some are over 50 years old. The existing capabilities are focused on testing of materials, fuels, and components in the thermal neutron spectrum and do not have the ability to support the needs for fast reactors. Only limited fast-neutron-spectrum-testing capabilities, with restricted availability, exist outside the United States.

Recognizing that the United States does not have a dedicated fast-neutron-spectrum testing capability, DOE performed a mission needs assessment to assess current testing capabilities (domestic and foreign) against the required testing capabilities to support the development of advanced nuclear technologies. This needs assessment was consistent with the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017, or NEICA, (Pub. L. 115-248) to assess the mission need for, and cost of, a versatile reactor-based fast-neutron source with a high neutron flux, irradiation flexibility, multiple experimental environment ( e.g., coolant) capabilities, and volume for many concurrent users. This assessment identified a gap between required testing needs and existing capabilities. That is, there currently is an inability to effectively test advanced nuclear fuels and materials in a fast-neutron spectrum irradiation environment at high neutron fluxes. Specifically, the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC) report, Assessment of Missions and Requirements for a New U.S. Test Reactor, confirmed that there was a need in the U.S. for fast-neutron testing capabilities, but that there is no facility that is readily available domestically or internationally. The NEAC study confirmed the conclusions of an earlier study, Advanced Demonstration and Test Reactor Options Study. That study established the strategic objective that DOE “provide an irradiation test reactor to support development and qualification of fuels, materials, and other important components/items ( e.g., control rods, instrumentation) of both thermal and fast neutron-based advanced reactor systems.” To meet its obligation to support advanced reactor technology development, DOE needs to develop the capability for large-scale testing, accelerated testing, and qualification of advanced nuclear fuels, materials, instrumentation, and sensors. This testing capability is essential for the United States to modernize its nuclear energy infrastructure and for developing transformational nuclear energy technologies that re-establish the U.S. as a world leader in nuclear technology commercialization.

The key recommendation of the NEAC report was that “DOE-NE proceed immediately with pre-conceptual design planning activities to support a new test reactor” to fill the domestic need for a fast-neutron test capability. The considerations for such a capability include:

• An intense, neutron-irradiation environment with prototypic spectrum to determine irradiation tolerance and chemical compatibility with other reactor materials, particularly the coolant.

• Testing that provides a fundamental understanding of materials performance, validation of models for more rapid future development, and engineering-scale validation of materials performance in support of licensing efforts.

• A versatile testing capability to address diverse technology options and, sustained and adaptable testing environments.

• Focused irradiations, either long- or short-term, with heavily instrumented experimental devices, and the possibility to do in-situ measurements and quick extraction of samples.

• An accelerated schedule to regain and sustain U.S. technology leadership and to enable the competiveness of U.S-based industry entities in the advanced reactor markets. This can be achieved through use of mature technologies for the reactor design ( e.g., sodium coolant in a pool-type, metallic-alloy-fueled fast reactor) while enabling innovative experimentation.

A summary of preliminary requirements that meet these considerations include:

• Provide a high peak neutron flux (neutron energy greater than 0.1 MeV) with a prototypic fast-reactor-neutron-energy spectrum; the target flux is 4 × 10 15 neutrons per square centimeter per second (neutrons/cm 2 -sec) or greater.

• Provide high neutron dose rate for materials testing [quantified as displacements per atom]; the target is 30 displacements per atom per year or greater.

• Provide an irradiation length that is appropriate for fast reactor fuel testing; the target is 0.6 to 1 meter.

• Provide a large irradiation volume within the core region; the target is 7 liters.

• Provide innovative testing capabilities through flexibility in testing configuration and testing environment (coolants) in closed loops.

• Provide the ability to test advanced sensors and instrumentation for the core and test positions.

• Expedite experiment life cycle by enabling easy access to support facilities for experiments fabrication and post-irradiation examination.

• Provide life-cycle management (spent nuclear fuel storage pending ultimate disposal) for the reactor driver fuel (fuel needed to run the reactor) while minimizing cost and schedule impacts.

• Make the facility available for testing as soon as possible by using proven technologies with a high technology readiness level.

Having identified the need for the VTR, NEICA directs DOE “to the maximum extent practicable, complete construction of, and approve the start of operations for, the user facility by not later than December 31, 2025.”

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry announced the launch of the Versatile Test Reactor Project on February 28, 2019 as a part of modernizing the nuclear research and development (R&D) user facility infrastructure in the United States.

An initial evaluation of alternatives during the pre-conceptual design planning activity recommends the development of a well-instrumented sodium-cooled, fast-neutron-spectrum test reactor in the 300 megawatt-thermal power level range. This design would provide a flexible, reconfigurable testing environment for known and anticipated testing. It is the most practical and cost-effective strategy to meet the mission need and address constraints and considerations identified above. The evaluation of alternatives is consistent with the conclusions of the test reactor options study and the NEAC recommendation.

DOE expects that the VTR, coupled with the existing supporting R&D infrastructure, would provide the basic and applied physics, materials science, nuclear fuels, and advanced sensor communities with a unique research capability. This capability would enable a comprehensive understanding of the multi-scale and multi-physics performance of nuclear fuels and structural materials to support the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy systems. To this end, DOE is collaborating with universities, commercial industry, and national laboratories to identify needed experimental capabilities.

The purpose of this DOE action is to provide a domestic versatile reactor-based fast-neutron source and associated facilities that meet identified user needs ( e.g., providing a high neutron flux of at least 4 × 10 15 neutrons/cm 2 -sec and related testing capabilities). Associated facilities include those for the preparation of driver fuel and test/experimental fuels and materials and those for the ensuing examination of the test/experimental fuels and materials; existing facilities would be used to the extent possible. The United States has not had a viable domestic fast-neutron-spectrum testing capability for over two decades. DOE needs to develop this capability to establish the United States' testing capability for next-generation nuclear reactors—many of which require a fast-neutron spectrum for operation—thus enabling the United States to regain technology leadership for the next generation nuclear fuels, material, and reactors. The lack of a versatile fast-neutron-spectrum testing capability is a significant national strategic risk affecting the ability of DOE to fulfill its mission to advance the energy, environmental, and nuclear security of the United States and promote scientific and technological innovation. This testing capability is essential for the United States to modernize its nuclear energy industry. Further, DOE needs to develop this capability on an accelerated schedule to avoid further delay in the United States' ability to develop and deploy advanced nuclear energy technologies. If this capability is not available to U.S. innovators as soon as possible, the ongoing shift of nuclear technology dominance to other international states ( e.g., China, the Russian Federation) will accelerate, to the detriment of the U.S. nuclear industrial sector.

The Proposed Action is for DOE to construct and operate the VTR at a suitable DOE site. DOE would utilize existing or expanded, collocated, post-irradiation examination capabilities as necessary to accomplish the mission. DOE would use or expand existing facility capabilities to fabricate VTR driver fuel and test items and to manage radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel.

The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-248) directed DOE, to the maximum extent practicable, to approve the start of operations for the user facility by not later than December 31, 2025. DOE recognized that a near-term deadline would require the technology selected for the user facility to be a mature technology, one not requiring significant testing or experimental efforts to qualify the technology needed to provide the capability.

The generation of a high flux of high-energy or fast neutrons requires a departure from the light-water-moderated technology of current U.S. power reactors and use of other reactor moderating and cooling technologies. The most mature technology that could provide the high-energy neutron flux is a sodium-cooled reactor, for which experience with a pool-type configuration and qualification of metallic alloy fuels affords the desired level of technology maturity and safety approach. Sodium-cooled reactor technology has been successfully used in Idaho at the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR)-II, in Washington at the Fast Flux Test Facility, and in Michigan at the Fermi 1 Nuclear Generating Station.

The current VTR concept would make use of the proven, existing technologies incorporated in the small, modular GE Hitachi Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) design. The PRISM design  2 meets the need to use a sodium-cooled, pool-type reactor of proven (mature) technology. The VTR would be a smaller (approximately 300 megawatt thermal) version of the GE Hitachi PRISM power reactor. The reactor, primary heat removal system, and safety systems would be similar to those of the PRISM design. VTR, like PRISM, would use metallic alloy fuels. The conceptual design for the first fuel core of the VTR proposes to utilize a uranium-plutonium-zirconium alloy fuel. Such an alloy fuel was tested previously in the EBR-II reactor. Later reactor fuel could consist of other mixtures and varying enrichments of uranium and plutonium and could use other alloying metals in place of zirconium.

The VTR core design, however, would differ from the PRISM core in order to accommodate several positions for test and experimental assemblies. Additional experiments could be placed in locations normally occupied by driver fuel in the PRISM reactor. The VTR is not a power reactor; there would be no PRISM power block for the generation of electricity. Heat generated by the VTR would be dissipated through air-cooled heat exchangers; no water would be used in reactor cooling systems.

The VTR would provide the capability to test fuels, materials, instrumentation, and sensors for a variety of existing and advanced reactor designs, including sodium-cooled reactors, lead/lead-bismuth eutectic-cooled reactors, gas-cooled reactors, and molten salt reactors. Test vehicles for coolants other than sodium would consist of closed loops containing the test material enclosed in cartridges that isolate the experiments from the primary coolant, allowing performance of tests on different coolant types. Due to the high flux possible in the VTR, accelerated testing for reactor materials would be possible. These experiments would extend the state-of-the art knowledge of reactor technology. Tests and experiments could also be developed that would improve safeguards technologies. In addition to fast reactor test and experimentation, the VTR could be used for research on long-term fuel cycles, fusion reactor materials, and neutrino science/detector development.

The VTR would not be used as a breeder reactor. All of the driver fuel removed from the reactor core would be stored to allow radioactive decay to reduce dose rates, and then conditioned for disposal; no nuclear materials would be removed from the fuel for the purpose of reuse.

Concurrent with the irradiation capabilities provided by the VTR, the mission need requires the capabilities to examine the test samples irradiated in the reactor to determine the effects of a high flux of high-energy or fast neutrons. Typically, the test samples would be encapsulated in cartridges such that the material being tested is fully contained. The highly radioactive test sample capsule would be removed from the reactor after a period of irradiation, ranging from days to years, depending on the nature of the test requirements, and transferred to a fully shielded facility where the test item could be analyzed and evaluated remotely. The examination facilities are “hot-cell” facilities, which include concrete walls several feet thick, multi-layered, leaded-glass windows several feet thick, and remote manipulators that allow operators to perform a range of tasks remotely without incurring substantial radiation dose from the test samples within the hot cell; in some cases, an inert atmosphere is required to prevent test sample degradation. DOE intends that the hot-cell facilities where the test items are examined and analyzed after removal from the reactor would be in close proximity to the VTR to minimize on- or offsite transportation of the highly radioactive samples.

Key nuclear infrastructure components required to support the VTR and post-irradiation examination include:

Nuclear materials for the VTR driver fuel could come from several locations including from within the DOE complex, commercial facilities, or possibly foreign sources. The nuclear materials and zirconium would be alloyed and formed into ingots from which the fuel would be fabricated. The alloy ingots could be produced at one of the locations providing the nuclear materials or the materials could be shipped to a location within the DOE complex for creating the alloy. DOE anticipates fabricating driver fuel from the ingots at the Savanah River site or the Idaho National Laboratory.

DOE would collaborate with a range of university, commercial industry, and national laboratory partners for experiment development. Fabrication of the test and experimental modules could occur at DOE facilities or at the university or commercial industry partners' facilities.

As required by the Council on Environmental Quality and DOE NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR part 1021, respectively, DOE will evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives for the construction and operation of a VTR and its associated facilities. As required by NEPA, the alternatives will include a No Action Alternative to serve as a basis for comparison with the action alternatives.

Specific action alternatives proposed for analysis in the EIS include alternative DOE national laboratory sites for the construction and operation of the VTR and the provision of post-irradiation examination. Under all action alternatives and as described previously, the VTR would be a small (approximately 300 megawatt thermal), sodium-cooled, pool-type, metal-fueled reactor based on the GE Hitachi PRISM power reactor. DOE projects approval for the start of operations to occur as early as the end of 2026.

There are ancillary activities necessary to support any of the action alternatives. These include the fabrication of driver fuel, the assembly of test/experimental modules at existing, modified or newly constructed test/experiment assembly facilities, and the management of waste and spent nuclear fuel. After irradiation in the VTR, test/experimental cartridges would be transferred to post irradiation examination facilities. DOE would make use of existing facilities to the extent possible, but these post-irradiation examination facilities may require modification or expansion. These activities would be part of each action alternative.

Under the INL VTR Alternative, DOE would site the VTR at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) at INL and use existing hot-cell and other facilities at the MFC for post-irradiation examination. This area of INL is the location of the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF), the Irradiated Materials Characterization Laboratory (IMCL), the Experimental Fuels Facility (EFF), the Fuel Conditioning Facility (FCF), and the decommissioned Zero Power Physics Reactor (ZPPR). The existing security fence would be expanded to include VTR.

The existing facilities within the MFC would be modified as necessary to support fabrication of VTR driver fuel or test items and to support post-irradiation examination of irradiated targets withdrawn from the VTR. These types of activities are ongoing within the MFC. Under the conceptual design, the existing infrastructure including utilities and waste management facilities would be utilized to support construction and operation of the VTR. While some modifications and upgrades to the infrastructure might be necessary, the current infrastructure should be largely adequate to support the VTR.

The post-irradiation examination capabilities at MFC, including existing facilities, equipment, technical, engineering and support staff, would be capable of supporting the anticipated post-irradiation examination activities that the VTR would create. The potential increase in workload among the MFC facilities in the post-startup timeframe might require increased technical and operating staff.

Driver fuel for the VTR would likely be manufactured at the MFC or the Savanah River site, depending on multiple factors including the source of the nuclear material and the availability and capabilities of DOE, commercial, or foreign suppliers.

Under the ORNL VTR Alternative, the VTR would be sited at ORNL at a location to be identified.

Several existing facilities would be used and/or modified to provide operational support and needed post irradiation examination capabilities. The existing Irradiated Fuels Examination Laboratory (IFEL) Building 3525 and the Irradiated Materials Examination and Testing (IMET) Building 3025E hot cell facility would be used to support post irradiation examination and material testing. The IFEL is a Category 2 nuclear facility and contains hot cells that are currently used for examination of a wide variety of fuels. The IMET is a Category 3 nuclear facility and contains hot cells that are used for mechanical testing and examination of highly irradiated structural alloys and ceramics. Both facilities would need modifications to accommodate VTR work activities.

The existing Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) also would be used to support VTR operations. REDC consists of two hot-cell facilities, both constructed during the mid-1960s. REDC operates in conjunction with ORNL's High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) in remote and hands-on fabrication of targets for irradiation and subsequent processing and recovery of valuable radioisotopes. The existing capabilities of the REDC may not be adequate to support the anticipated workload from the VTR and would need to be modified or expanded. Existing glovebox laboratories in Building 7920, currently used for chemical extraction and processing, could be used for fuel and/or test item fabrication. Building 7930 houses heavily shielded hot cells and analytical laboratories that could be used for remote examination of irradiated fuels and test items.

Driver fuel for the VTR would likely be manufactured elsewhere, depending on a number of factors including the source of the nuclear material and the availability and capabilities of DOE, commercial, or foreign suppliers.

As required by NEPA, DOE will include a No Action Alternative to serve as a basis for comparison with the action alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, DOE would not pursue the construction and operation of a VTR and would make use of the limited capabilities of existing facilities to the extent they are capable and available for testing in the fast-neutron-flux spectrum.

DOE proposes to address the issues listed in this section when considering the potential impacts of the construction and operations of the proposed facilities (the VTR and associated pre- and post-irradiation facilities) and the transportation of materials (non-irradiated fuel, irradiated [spent] fuel and test materials, and waste):

• Potential effects on public health from exposure to radionuclides under routine and credible accident scenarios including natural disasters: Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and seismic events.

• Potential impacts on surface and groundwater, floodplains and wetlands, and on water use and quality.

• Potential impacts on air quality (including global climate change) and noise.

• Potential impacts on plants, animals, and their habitats, including species that are Federal- or state-listed as threatened or endangered, or of special concern.

• Potential impacts on geology and soils.

• Potential impacts on cultural resources such as historic, archeologic, and Native American culturally important sites.

• Socioeconomic impacts on potentially affected communities.

• Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations.

• Potential impacts on land-use plans, policies and controls, and visual resources.

• Potential impacts on waste management practices and activities.

• Potential impacts of intentional destructive acts, including sabotage and terrorism.

• Unavoidable adverse impacts and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

• Potential cumulative environmental effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

• Compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, and with international agreements, and required Federal and state environmental permits, consultations and notifications.

NEPA implementing regulations require an early and open process for determining the scope of an EIS and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action. To ensure that a full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed, DOE invites Federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, the general public and the international community to comment on the scope of the EIS. Specifically, DOE invites comment on the identification of reasonable alternatives and specific environmental issues to be addressed. Analysis of written and oral public comments provided during the scoping period will help DOE further identify concerns and potential issues to be considered in the Draft EIS.

DOE will host two interactive webcasts during the scoping period as listed under DATES . The purpose of the webcasts is two-fold—the first is to provide the public with information about the NEPA process and the VTR Project. The second purpose is to invite public comments on the scope of the EIS.

The webcasts will begin with presentations on the NEPA process and the VTR Project. Following the presentations, there will be a moderated session during which members of the public can provide oral comments on the scope of the EIS analysis. Commenters will be allowed 3 minutes to provide comments. Comments will be recorded. Note that providing oral comments will require joining the meeting by phone.

Members of the public who would like to provide oral comments can pre-register by sending an email to VTR.EIS@nuclear.energy.gov. Alternatively, participants will be able to request to speak during the webcast. Those who pre-register should indicate at which session they want to speak and their name.

If you are joining the webcast scoping meeting via internet, copy and paste the link below to login to the meeting site, then follow the prompts. If you are joining the webcast meeting via phone, dial the U.S. toll-free number below and follow the prompts. Comments will be accepted during the webcast meeting, by mail, and by email.

• Join webcast scoping meeting via the internet:

August 27: https://78449.themediaframe.com/dataconf/productusers/ldos/mediaframe/31759/indexl.html.

August 28: https://78449.themediaframe.com/dataconf/productusers/ldos/mediaframe/31762/indexl.html.

(Copy and Paste into web browser).

• Join webcast public meeting by phone: U.S. toll-free: 877-869-3847.

Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

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 estimates 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.

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 submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

EPA intends to initiate two new collection activities to provide more comprehensive and accurate information to inform the evaluation and risk management of existing chemicals as required under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was amended in 2016 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. EPA must prioritize, evaluate, and/or determine risks for at least 20 chemicals at a time, and manage any unreasonable risks, all under strict statutory deadlines. For each chemical evaluated, EPA must evaluate hazards and exposures for each condition of use and manage through regulations all risks that it has determined to be unreasonable. The Supporting Statement for each ICR, a copy of which is available in the corresponding docket, provides a more detailed explanation.

Title: TSCA Existing Chemical Risk Evaluation and Management; Generic ICR for Interviews and Focus Groups.

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2584.01.

OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-[NEW].

ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to PRA approval unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instruments or form, if applicable.

Abstract: The purpose of this ICR is to help provide data for EPA's risk evaluations and risk management of existing chemicals under TSCA section 6 more efficiently and effectively. EPA must gather information with sufficient detail about chemicals, including hazards, conditions of use, exposures, potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations, alternatives, and regulatory options in a timely fashion to meet TSCA's strict statutory timeframes as set forth in TSCA section 6. Therefore, EPA is proposing a generic ICR to conduct interviews and focus groups of chemical users, processors, distributors, manufacturers (including importers), recyclers, chemical waste handlers, consumers, employees, state regulators, non-governmental organizations, and industry experts related to information collection for TSCA chemical risk evaluation and management. This generic ICR is intended to supplement currently reasonably available information on chemicals in commerce and provide support for the Agency's evaluation and regulatory activities regarding existing chemicals.

As appropriate, EPA would collect data in several ways, such as interviews and focus groups. Data collected under this generic clearance may be used in several ways during the risk evaluation and risk management processes, including establishing generic scenarios, developing models of various conditions of use of chemicals evaluated under TSCA or their alternatives, pretesting survey questions, and providing important context for publicly available information already available to EPA. This research would consist of open-ended structured discussions or interviews with individuals or small groups of individuals, and therefore can provide in-depth information. By learning more about the conditions of use, exposures, and alternatives to chemicals being evaluated or regulated, EPA would be able to more efficiently and effectively carry out its mandate under TSCA to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable risks.

EPA would not collect information of a sensitive or private nature. However, respondents may claim information provided in an interview or focus group as CBI under TSCA section 14. Please refer to TSCA section 14(b) to understand what information is not protected from disclosure. For example, TSCA section 14(a) does not prohibit the disclosure of information from health and safety studies that are submitted under TSCA. Information on the requirements for asserting CBI claims under TSCA can be found at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-cbi/making-cbi-claims-tsca-submissions. EPA would disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures of TSCA section 14, which provides advance notice and an opportunity to object prior to public disclosure.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.99 hours per response. There are no recordkeeping burdens. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

Respondents/Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include chemical manufacturers (as long as the information requested does not duplicate information already in possession of the federal government), chemical users (including government agencies), processors, distributors, product manufacturers, recyclers, chemical waste handlers, consumers, employees, and others with important information about the chemical being evaluated or considered for risk management under TSCA. As such, there are no typical respondent NAICS codes and the respondents will vary depending on the conditions of use of each chemical under consideration.

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 714.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 237 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $18,296. This includes an estimated burden cost of $18,296 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Title: TSCA Existing Chemical Risk Evaluation and Management; Generic ICR for Surveys.

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2585.01.

OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-[NEW].

ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to PRA approval unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instruments or form, if applicable.

Abstract: The purpose of this ICR is to help collect data for EPA's risk evaluations and risk management of existing chemicals under TSCA section 6. EPA must gather information with sufficient detail about chemicals' conditions of use, exposures, potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, alternatives, and regulatory options in a timely fashion in order to meet TSCA's strict statutory timeframes as set forth in TSCA section 6. Therefore, EPA is proposing a generic ICR to conduct surveys of chemical users, processors, distributors, manufacturers (including importers), recyclers, chemical waste handlers, consumers, employees, state regulators, non-governmental organizations, and industry experts related to information collection for TSCA chemical risk evaluation and management. Surveys are defined as the collection of information from a common group through interviews or the application of questionnaires to a representative sample of that group.

These information collection efforts are intended to supplement currently reasonably available information on chemicals in commerce and would provide support for the Agency's evaluation and regulatory activities regarding existing chemicals. By learning more about the conditions of use, exposures, potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations, alternatives, and regulatory options for chemicals being evaluated or regulated, EPA would be able to more efficiently and effectively carry out its mandate under TSCA to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable risks.

EPA would not collect information of a sensitive or private nature. However, respondents may claim information provided in an interview or focus group as CBI under TSCA section 14. Please refer to TSCA section 14(b) to understand what information is not protected from disclosure. For example, TSCA section 14(a) does not prohibit the disclosure of information from health and safety studies that are submitted under TSCA. Information on the requirements for asserting CBI claims under TSCA can be found at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-cbi/making-cbi-claims-tsca-submissions. EPA would disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures of TSCA section 14, which provides advance notice and an opportunity to object prior to public disclosure.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

Respondents/Affected entities: Potential respondents include chemical manufacturers, chemical users, processors, distributors, manufacturers (including importers), recyclers, chemical waste handlers, consumers, employees, state regulators, non-governmental organizations, and industry experts about the chemical being evaluated or considered for risk management under TSCA. As such, there are no typical respondent NAICS codes and the respondents will vary depending on the conditions of use of each chemical under consideration.

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 600.

Frequency of response: On occasion, as necessary to support risk evaluation and management of existing chemicals.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: One.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 400 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $31,008. This includes an estimated burden cost of $31,008 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the individual ICRs as appropriate. The final ICR packages will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.10. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of these ICRs to OMB and the opportunity for the public to submit additional comments for OMB consideration. If you have any questions about any of these ICRs or the approval process in general, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

On June 21, 2019, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

This designation became effective on July 21, 2019. Therefore, beginning on July 21, 2019, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

Purpose: This Council advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Director, CDC, regarding the elimination of tuberculosis. Specifically, the Council makes recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and priorities; addresses the development and application of new technologies; and reviews the extent to which progress has been made toward eliminating tuberculosis.

Matters To Be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on (1) Update on Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) tuberculosis questions; (2) Overview of successful strategies implemented by the Texas Department of State Health Services to increase its tuberculosis budget; (3) Overview of tuberculosis prevention, treatment, and care of minors in HHS custody; and (4) Update from ACET workgroups. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

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

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), enacted on June 22, 2009, amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by, among other things, adding a new chapter (chapter IX) granting FDA the authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors (Pub. L. 111-31). Cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco, and smokeless tobacco were immediately subject to chapter IX.

For other kinds of tobacco products, the statute authorizes FDA to issue regulations “deeming” them to be subject to chapter IX. FDA published a final rule on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28974) (the Deeming Rule), deeming all products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” set forth in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), including components and parts, but excluding accessories of deemed products, to be subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act. 1

Section 904(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387d(e)) requires FDA to establish, and periodically revise as appropriate, “a list of harmful and potentially harmful constituents, including smoke constituents, to health in each tobacco product by brand and by quantity in each brand and subbrand.” FDA first established the list on April 3, 2012 (77 FR 20034) (the April 2012 notice). 2 The list currently contains 93 HPHCs (the HPHC established list). The April 2012 notice describes the history of the HPHC established list, and for additional background, we refer readers to that notice and the notice FDA published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2011 (76 FR 50226) (the August 2011 notice), in which we solicited public comment, including scientific and other information, concerning the HPHCs in tobacco products and tobacco smoke, including which constituents should be included on the HPHC established list, and the criteria used in determining whether a constituent is harmful or potentially harmful such that it should be included on the HPHC list. 3

As discussed previously, when the Agency established the HPHC established list, the tobacco products that were subject to its authorities under chapter IX of the FD&C Act were limited to cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products. Since then, however, the FDA's tobacco product authorities were extended under the Deeming Rule to all products, including components and parts (but excluding accessories of deemed products) that meet the statutory definition of tobacco product, including electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Therefore, consistent with section 904(e) of the FD&C Act, the Agency is considering revising the HPHC established list to reflect the current range of tobacco products now subject to the Agency's tobacco product authorities as well as the Agency's growing scientific expertise with respect to all tobacco products.

FDA has tentatively concluded that in revising the HPHC established list, the Agency should continue to apply the criteria that were originally applied when determining whether a constituent should be put on the list. Glycidol is a thermal byproduct of glycerol, a common component in e-liquids. In other words, glycidol can form and appear in the aerosol when a glycerol-containing solvent such as an e-liquid is heated and aerosol is produced (Refs. 1-2). Following a review of the data concerning degradation of glycerol, FDA has applied the original criteria and tentatively concluded that glycidol should be included on the HPHC established list, unless other scientific information obtained by or submitted to the Agency shows that the constituent is not, in fact, harmful or potentially harmful. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified glycidol as a probable carcinogen (Ref. 3). As discussed in the April 2012 notice, FDA has concluded that it should consider a constituent meeting this criterion to be harmful or potentially harmful, such that it should be included on the HPHC established list, unless other scientific information obtained by or submitted to the Agency shows that the constituent is not, in fact, harmful or potentially harmful. 4

In accordance with the original criteria, FDA has tentatively concluded that ethylene glycol should also be included on the HPHC established list, unless other scientific information obtained by or submitted to the Agency shows that the constituent is not, in fact, harmful or potentially harmful. In 2015, the California Environmental Protection Agency identified ethylene glycol (ingested) as a reproductive toxicant based on its developmental toxicity (Ref. 4). 5 As discussed in the April 2012 notice, FDA has concluded that it should consider a constituent meeting this criterion to be harmful or potentially harmful, such that it should be included on the HPHC established list, unless other scientific information obtained by or submitted to the Agency shows that the constituent is not, in fact, harmful or potentially harmful. Ethylene glycol has been identified in e-liquids, indicating that this compound may be used to replace glycerol and propylene glycol (Refs. 5 and 6). 6

Furthermore, at this time, FDA has tentatively concluded that the Agency should apply one additional criterion when determining whether a constituent should be included on the HPHC established list. Specifically, FDA tentatively concludes that in addition to the previously described criteria, the following criterion also should be applied for determining whether a constituent should be included on the HPHC established list, unless other scientific information obtained by or submitted to the Agency shows that the constituent is not, in fact, harmful or potentially harmful:

• Constituents identified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as having adverse respiratory effects.

FDA believes that having the additional criterion described in this document for use in determining whether a constituent is harmful or potentially harmful will be beneficial. We have tentatively identified 17 constituents that meet this criterion. They are: Acetic acid, acetoin, acetyl propionyl, benzyl acetate, butyraldehyde, diacetyl, ethyl acetate, ethyl acetoacetate, ethylene glycol (as discussed in section II.A., this compound also meets one of the criteria that were originally applied), furfural, glycerol, isoamyl acetate, isobutyl acetate, methyl acetate, n-butanol, propionic acid, and propylene glycol. As part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NIOSH is the Federal agency responsible for conducting research and making science-based recommendations to prevent work-related illness and injuries, including those related to human health hazards and respiratory disease from inhalation exposures to toxicants. In reaching the tentative conclusion described above, the Agency notes that FDA already considers whether NIOSH has identified a constituent as a potential occupational carcinogen in determining whether that constituent should be included on the HPHC list. 7

FDA has proposed diethylene glycol (DEG) as an HPHC because we are concerned that a product that contains either glycerol or propylene glycol also could be contaminated, perhaps inadvertently, by DEG. The acute health consequences from exposure to DEG-contaminated products may be serious and irreversible (Ref. 7). Poisoning because of DEG is not a common occurrence. Most of the documented cases of illness and death from DEG poisoning have been outbreaks where DEG was substituted in pharmaceutical preparations for the glycols or glycerine constituents customarily used (Ref. 8). Toxicity can result from ingestion  8 or dermal exposure to DEG-contaminated products (Refs. 9-10). Inhalation exposure to DEG-contaminated products also can have serious health consequences (Refs. 11 and 12). Suppliers of glycerol and propylene glycol can dilute them with DEG (Refs. 13 and 14) and manufacturers, unaware of the added DEG, can use the contaminated glycerol or propylene glycol in tobacco products. Although FDA has no reason to believe that U.S. suppliers of glycerol and propylene glycol currently use DEG, FDA has detected DEG in e-liquids and ENDs aerosol (Refs. 15 and 16). 9 Therefore, the Agency has tentatively concluded that DEG should be included on the HPHC established list.

Applying all the criteria discussed earlier in this document and using available information, FDA tentatively concludes that the 19 toxicants in table 1 should be added to the HPHC established list. This tentative conclusion is consistent with our definition of “harmful and potentially harmful constituent” as set forth in the Agency guidance entitled “Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents' in Tobacco Products as Used in Section 904(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” (Revised) dated August 2016 (the HPHC Guidance) in that the Agency has reviewed data regarding constituents identified in tobacco products and their smoke, including in e-liquids and in aerosols of ENDS products that are, or potentially are, inhaled, ingested, or absorbed into the body, including as an aerosol (vapor) or any other emission.

Under the Homeland Security Presidential Directive-19, DHS was mandated to develop strategies and recommendations on how to deter, prevent, detect, protect against, and respond to IED explosive attacks. DHS thus educates private sector security providers about IED threats, including tactics, techniques, and procedures relevant to their usage, so private sector security providers are knowledgeable about terrorist use of explosives and contribute to a layered security approach.

The Presidential Policy Directive-17 provides guidance to update and gives momentum to our ability to counter threats involving improvised explosive devices. DHS was mandated to deliver standardized IED awareness and familiarization training for federal, state and local responders and public safety personnel. The DHS CISA ISD Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP) must collect various information to effectively deliver this training. Additionally, OBP collects data to provide updated and awareness product information following conferences and other outreach events. OBP describes these collections below.

The purpose of the Volunteer Participant Release of Liability Agreement is to collect necessary information in case an individual who acts as a volunteer role player in support of official OBP training sustains an injury or death during the performance of their supporting role. If legal action is taken, this information can serve as a hold harmless statement/agreement by the Government. In the unlikely event that an injury or death is sustained in the performance of support for training, this information will be used by OBP to protect against legal action by the volunteer or their family. If legal action is taken, this information can serve as a “hold harmless” statement/agreement by the Government.

The purpose of the Gratuitous Services Agreement is to establish that no monies, favors or other compensation will be given or received by either party involved in volunteer training. The information from the Gratuitous Services Agreement will be used by OBP in the event that questions arise regarding remuneration or payment for volunteer participation in training events.

The purpose of the OBP Interest Sign-up sheet is to collect an individual's contact information at the training events and conferences. This information is used by OBP in order to follow-up with an individual's questions and to provide the individual with updated or new awareness product information at the conclusion of conference season as well as establish an OBP point of contact for them.

The changes to the collection since the previous OMB approval include: Updating the collection name to better reflect instruments in the collection, adding the collecting of contact information, an increase in burden estimates and costs.

The addition of the Interest Sign-up Sheet has increased the annual burden estimate by 8 hours, which corresponds to an annual cost of $319. It has also increased the annual government burden estimate by 2 hours at an annual cost of $247.

The annual burden cost for the existing collections ( i.e., the Volunteer Participant Release of Liability Agreement and the Gratuitous Services Agreement) has increased by $2,204, from $3,894 to $6,098, due to updated hourly compensation rates.

The annual government cost for the existing collections ( i.e., the Volunteer Participant Release of Liability Agreement and the Gratuitous Services Agreement) has increased by $11,695, from $6,831 to $18,526, due to updated hourly compensation rates.

This is a revision and renewal of an information collection.

OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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.

Title of Collection: Office of Bombing Prevention Training and Conference Forms.

OMB Control Number: 1670-0031.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments and Private Sector Individuals.

Number of Annualized Respondents: 1,250.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.10 hours, 0.02 hours.

Total Annualized Burden Hours: 158 hours.

Total Annualized Respondent Opportunity Cost: $6,416.

Total Annualized Respondent Out-of-Pocket Cost: $0.

Total Annualized Government Cost: $18,773.

The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2019, at 84 FR 17868, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0012 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

(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 submission of responses.

(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-824; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This information collection is used to request a duplicate approval notice, as well as to notify and to verify the U.S. Consulate that a petition has been approved or that a person has been adjusted to permanent resident status.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-824 is 11,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.42 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 4,830 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $1,480,625.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft general conservation plan (GCP), as well as the associated draft categorical exclusion (CatEx), for cultivation activities in Santa Barbara County. We invite public comment on these documents.

The draft GCP was developed by the Service in accordance with section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The GCP meets the issuance criteria as required by section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA for issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit (ITP). The Service developed the GCP to provide a streamlined mechanism for proponents engaged in in activities associated with the installation and operation of vineyards, crops, and other agricultural development, to meet statutory and regulatory requirements while promoting conservation of the Santa Barbara County distinct population segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ). Permits issued under the GCP would authorize incidental take of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander for up to 20 years after the plan becomes effective.

The Service prepared the draft CatEx in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) to evaluate the potential effects to the natural and human environment resulting from issuing permits under the GCP.

The Service listed the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander as endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57242).

Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the ESA to include the following activities: “[T]o harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532); however, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. Issuance of an incidental take permit also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. The permittees would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations ((50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)) regarding conservation activities for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander.

The proposed action is approval of the GCP and subsequent issuance of permits. The Service prepared the GCP to provide a more efficient and standardized mechanism for proponents in activities associated with the installation and operation of vineyards, crops, and other agricultural development on non-Federal lands. The GCP meets the permit issuance criteria as required by section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA and enables the construct of a programmatic permitting and conservation process to address a defined suite of proposed activities over a defined planning area. The proposed GCP would allow private individuals, local and State agencies, and other non-Federal entities to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of the ESA by applying for permits and complying with the requirements of the GCP, including all applicable avoidance, minimization, and mitigation actions.

The draft CatEx provides the required NEPA documentation for the proposed Federal action, which is approval of a conservation plan and subsequent issuance of permits pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The CatEx also provides baseline environmental information, and a discussion of impacts to the human and natural environment that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed GCP.

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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

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 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 USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS 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.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Research Act (WRRA) program issues an annual announcement to solicit applications for the noncompetitive State Water Resources Research Program annual grants authorized by section 104(c) and for the national competitive grant program authorized by section 104(g) of the Water Resources Research Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-242), as amended [42 U.S.C. 10303(c)].

Annual grants (104c) may contain research and information transfer projects as well as an administration project describing the institutes overall administration and objectives. The research projects are generally selected in a competitive statewide solicitation, peer review, and selection process designed and conducted by each institute. National competitive grants (104g) will focus on water problems and issues of a regional or interstate nature beyond those of concern only to a single State and which relate to specific program priorities identified jointly by the Secretary (of the Interior) and the institutes.

The State Water Resources Research Institutes were established under Section 104(a) of the Act [42 U.S.C. 10303(a)]. There are 54 Water Resources Research Institutes, one in each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. The Institutes are organized as the National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR). NIWR cooperates with the USGS in establishing total programmatic direction, reporting on the activities of the institutes, coordinating and facilitating regional research and information and technology transfer.

Title of Collection: State Water Resources Research Institute Program Annual Application, National Competitive Grants, and Reporting.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0097.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Universities.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 54.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 54.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 80 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,320 hours.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

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

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

An extension to an existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if the extension does not modify any other terms of the compact. 25 CFR 293.5. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota have reached an agreement to extend the expiration date of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact to October 21, 2019. This publication provides notice of the new expiration date of the compact.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Pima County, AZ.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (79 FR 53761-53767, September 10, 2014). The number of associated funerary objects has increased due to a search through uncatalogued collections. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53762, September 10, 2014), column 3, paragraph 3, sentence 7 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

The 179 associated funerary objects are one animal bone, one bone awl, 172 ceramic sherds, two ceramic vessels, one chipped stone, and two soil samples.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53764, September 10, 2014), column 2, paragraph 3, sentence 5 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

The 381 associated funerary objects are 130 animal bones, one bead, one ceramic bowl, five ceramic bowl fragments, one ceramic jar, 124 ceramic sherds, nine lots of charcoal, 108 chipped stones, one clay fragment, and one shell bracelet fragment.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53766, September 10, 2014), column 2, paragraph 4, sentence 2 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 2,011 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Claire S. Barker, Repatriation Coordinator, Arizona State Museum, P.O. Box 210026, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, telephone (520) 626-0320, email csbarker@email.arizona.edu, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico; hereafter referred to as “The Tribes,” may proceed.

The Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona is responsible for notifying the Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology, Andover, MA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from four sites in FL.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina); Cherokee Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma were invited to consult but did not participate.

Hereafter, all the Indian Tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes.”

In January 1920, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed by Fred Alanson Luce and his son Stanley Eldridge Luce from the Macey Mound (8OR10313) in Orange County, FL. Luce described the site as located on the Macey farm and the shores of Lake Butler (actually Lake Tibet-Butler), near the community of Zantee (a railroad siding and turpentine still that was all but defunct in 1920). The excavations are documented in a 215 page journal prepared by Fred Luce dated 1940, presumably based on notes taken in the field. Luce also made photographs, some artifact sketches, and sketch maps and plans of the excavation, all of which are on file at the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology. The collection was originally deposited by Luce at the Haverhill Historical Society “The Buttonwoods,” but was transferred to the Peabody in 1995. Examination by physical anthropologists Michael Gibbon and Harley Erickson found that the human remains represent two adults of indeterminate sex; four adult males; one adult, possibly female; and two juveniles of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The 1,685 associated funerary objects are one charcoal sample; one whelk shell columella; one shell bead; one stone plummet; nine quartz pebbles; three chert bifaces; one sand sample; and 1,668 pottery sherds.

Luce states that the mound was originally eight feet high and around seven yards in diameter, with a narrow trench connecting the mound to the lake shore, possibly a linear earthwork (which would not be uncommon for the area around Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee River). Luce mentions a great deal of human bone and some artifacts on the mound surface resulting from the earlier leveling work, and that the property owners had found one complete pottery vessel during earlier digging. The mound was constructed from very white sand. The descriptions of the burials suggest secondary interment, as well as some considerable disturbance of the mound in the past. Luce describes at least three burned areas that included human bone, charcoal and pottery. One of these, found outside the grid, on the east side of the mound, could be a pottery cache. Most of the burials and other features were found from near the mound surface to around 40 inches below surface; it seems that much of the material encountered above 30 inches had been disturbed in the past, with a few intact burials still preserved deeper in the mound.

The ceramic inventory from Macey Mound is dominated by spiculate wares. Based on the pottery, the Macey Mound likely dates to the Late Woodland Period, circa A.D. 500-1000. Cultural resource management investigations being conducted at the Macey Mound in 2019 have identified European artifacts, indicating occupation and use of the site during the seventeenth century as well.

At an unknown time, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by W.E. Snyder from a site in Fernandina, Amelia Island, Nassau County, FL. The Peabody received the human remains and associated funerary objects from Snyder on October 1, 1890. Examination of the human remains indicate that they represent one adult of indeterminate age and sex. No known individual was identified. The six associated funerary objects are stamped pottery sherds of either the Lamar or San Marcos series. The presence of the six decorated pottery sherds, all late types, indicates a date after A.D. 1400, perhaps as recent as seventeenth or early eighteenth centuries.

In 1903, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by Clarence B. Moore from an unknown site in Florida. The catalog entries indicate that the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from an archeological site in Florida by Moore during his 1903 expedition to the state, which included explorations in Calhoun, Citrus, Franklin, Gadsden, Hernando, Hillsborough, Jackson, Lafayette, Levy, Liberty, and Pasco Counties (based on Moore's fieldnotes at the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library). Moore transferred these human remains and funerary objects to the Phillips Academy Department of Archaeology (now known as the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology) sometime shortly after its opening in 1903. Physical anthropologist Michael Gibbon identified the human remains as those of a newborn or infant of indeterminate sex. No known individual was identified. The three associated funerary objects are one lot of medium sized shell beads and fragmentary beads, including one glass bead; one lot of small and medium shell beads and fragments, including flat, tubular, and round shapes; and one lot of medium shell beads and fragments, including flat, tubular, and round beads. The glass bead indicates a date in the sixteenth through eighteenth century or later.

In 1894, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed by Clarence B. Moore from the Mound near Peter's Creek, Green Cove Spring, Clay County, FL. Moore transferred these human remains and funerary objects to the Phillips Academy Department of Archaeology (now known as the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology) sometime shortly after its opening in 1903. Moore excavated the Mound near Peter's Creek (8CL6) in 1894 and reports on it in his 1894 publication, Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part II . He describes the site, located near Green Cove Springs, as originally 4 feet high and 60 feet in diameter, and notes that, “in occasional pockets of pink sand were many shell beads with human remains.” A note in the Peabody accession ledger for Cat. # 40361 reads, “3 1/2 feet down in sand colored pink with hematite, with human remains. Mound near Peter's Creek.” The human remains are extremely fragmentary. No known individual was identified. The one funerary object is one lot of medium sized shell beads and bead fragments, including flat, tubular, and round shell beads. Moore mentions that stamped pottery was dominant at the site, suggesting a St. Johns II period date (A.D. 750 to 1600).

Based on geographical, archeological, oral tradition, and historical lines of evidence, as well as expert opinion, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma are culturally affiliated with the human remains from Macey Mound, Fernandina-Amelia Island, Unknown Florida Site #1, and the Mound near Peter's Creek.

Officials of the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 12 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 1,695 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ryan Wheeler, Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810, telephone (978) 749-4490, email rwheeler@andover.edu, by September 4, 2019]. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma may proceed.

The Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the New York State Museum, Albany, NY, that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

In 1898, the New York State Museum acquired five cultural items from members of the Cayuga Nation. The five sacred objects are wooden medicine masks donated by Harriet Maxwell Converse of New York City, NY. Museum records indicate the medicine masks are culturally affiliated with the Cayuga Nation. One of the medicine faces was reportedly made in Canada about 1779 (E-37047). The other four masks have no additional provenience information (E-37027, E-37045, E-37050, E-37603).

Traditional religious leaders of the Cayuga Nation have identified these five medicine faces as being needed for the practice of traditional Native American religions by present-day adherents. Museum documentation, supported by oral evidence presented during consultation with members of the Haudenosaunee Standing Committee on Burial Rules and Regulations, indicates that these medicine faces are culturally affiliated with the Cayuga Nation.

Officials of the New York State Museum have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the five cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred objects and the Cayuga Nation.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Lisa Anderson, New York State Museum, 3049 Cultural Education Center, Albany, NY 12230 telephone (518) 486-2020, email lisa.anderson@nysed.gov, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the sacred objects to the Cayuga Nation may proceed.

The New York State Museum is responsible for notifying the Cayuga Nation; Oneida Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin); Oneida Indian Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Nation of New York); Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York); Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma); Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); and the Tuscarora Nation that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Pima County, AZ.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (79 FR 53754-53759, September 10, 2014). The number of human remains and associated funerary objects has changed due to a search through uncatalogued collections. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53757, September 10, 2014), column 1, paragraph 1, sentence 5 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

The 106 associated funerary objects include 62 animal bones, three bone awls, 16 ceramic sherds, one ceramic vessel, one lot of charcoal, 16 chipped stones, one ground stone, two minerals, three soil samples, and one turquoise fragment.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53757, September 10, 2014), column 1, paragraph 3, sentence 1 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

In the years 1981 to 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, 57 individuals were removed from the Redtail Village site, AZ AA:12:149(ASM), in Tucson, Pima County, AZ.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53757, September 10, 2014), column 1, paragraph 3, sentence 7 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

The 965 associated funerary objects are 45 animal bones, two ceramic bowls, two ceramic jars, two ceramic scoops, 730 ceramic sherds, five lots of charcoal, 74 chipped stones, 78 flotation fraction lots, two ground stones, one metate, one mineral, five pollen samples, three shells, two stone projectile points, and 13 turquoise fragments.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53757, September 10, 2014), column 3, paragraph 1, sentence 5 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

The 142 associated funerary objects are two animal bones, two lots of botanical material, 126 ceramic sherds, one lot of charcoal, and 11 chipped stones.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53758, September 10, 2014), column 1, paragraph 2, sentence 6 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

The 259 associated funerary objects are six ceramic bowls, three ceramic jars, 17 ceramic jar fragments, 166 ceramic sherds, two lot of charcoal, 27 chipped stones, two chipped stone knives, two flotation fraction lots, 20 flotation samples, one glass fragment, one ground stone, one mano, three minerals, two polishing stones, one shell, one shell bracelet, one soil sample, two stone artifacts, and one stone palette fragment.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53758, September 10, 2014), column 3, paragraph 4, sentence 1 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 626 individuals of Native American ancestry.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53758, September 10, 2014), column 3, paragraph 4, sentence 2 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 7,419 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Claire S. Barker, Repatriation Coordinator, Arizona State Museum, P.O. Box 210026, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, telephone (520) 626-0320, email csbarker@email.arizona.edu, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico; hereafter referred to as “The Tribes,” may proceed.

The Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles, CA. The human remains were removed from the Antelope Valley in northern Los Angeles County and the southeast portion of Kern County, CA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACMNH) professional staff in consultation with representatives of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation) and the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, a non-federally recognized Indian group. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Morongo Reservation); Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; and the Tejon Indian Tribe were invited to consult but deferred to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation) and the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, a non-federally recognized Indian group.

Hereafter, all Indian Tribes and Indian groups listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Indian Tribes and Groups.”

Prior to 1947, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (LACMNH Catalog Number L.2397.66) were removed by Nestor A. Young, Jr. of Sierra Madre, CA, from the Nestor Young Ranch at Barrel Springs, located near Palmdale in Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County, CA. According to the 2013 book Legendary Locals of Antelope Valley by Norma Gurba, Young actively collected artifacts from his large ranch property near Barrel Spring, in Antelope Valley. At the time, the human remains consisted of a cranium and a jar containing cremated human remains. In December 1947, the human remains were sold to the Laboratory of Anthropology Hancock Foundation (a now disbanded museum once part of the University of Southern California) and recorded in its logbook with the designation CH: 1 1/70. On February 1, 1966, the Laboratory of Anthropology Hancock Foundation anthropology collection was loaned to LACMNH. On March 29, 1983, the collection was transferred as a gift to LACMNH. In 1995, LACMNH staff conducted an inventory of the human remains in the museum's collections, and identified a mandible whose designation (CH: 1 1/70) matched the designation in the logbook, thus indicating it came from the Young Ranch in Antelope Valley, CA. The human remains, consisting of one mandible broken into two pieces, belong to an adult 20-25 years old. The rest of the cranium and the jar containing the cremated human remains are not in the LACMNH collection; likely they were not transferred in 1966. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Between 1920 and 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from an unknown location in the Antelope Valley, CA. They were accepted into the collections of the Antelope Valley Museum by either H. Arden Edwards, the museum founder, or by Grace W. Oliver, a later owner of the museum. One individual, cataloged as LACMNH Catalog Number F.A.2175.79-127, consist of a cranium representing an adult male 20-25 years old and has the number SK-9 written on the cranium. Notes accompanying the cranium state that the human remains were collected from an undisclosed location in the Antelope Valley. Four individuals, cataloged as LACMNH Catalog Number F.A.2175.79-137, consists of three incomplete crania with teeth, one premolar, and one upper incisor. The three crania represent one possible male age 30-35 years; one possible adult female age 30-40 years; and one individual of unknown sex and age. The premolar and upper incisor represent a fourth adult individual of unknown sex and age. A slip of paper found inside of one of the crania identifies them as SK-8 and notes that the human remains were collected from Antelope Valley at an unidentified location. Two individuals, cataloged as LACMNH Catalog Number F.A.2175.79-174, consist of one nearly complete skeleton of an adult male age 20-25 years, one left humerus, and one right ulna from a second possible adult female. Old exhibit label copy from the Antelope Valley Museum found with the human remains includes the geographic information as Antelope Valley, Indian Meadow, near Little Rock, CA.

In 1979, Grace W. Oliver transferred items by deed of gift from the Antelope Valley Museum to LACMNH. A list of items transferred includes the SK-9 and SK-8 numbers, but does not contain any information about the human remains from Little Rock. In 1979, the State of California purchased the Antelope Valley Museum property from Oliver, who donated the collections held by the museum to the State of California. On December 3, 1979, the SK-9, SK-8, and Little Rock remains were transferred to LACMNH as part of accession F.A.2175.79. The SK-9 cranium was accessioned as F.A.2175.79-127, the humans remains identified as SK-8 were accessioned as F.A.2175.79-137 and the remains from Little Rock were accessioned as F.A.2175.79-174. In 1995, LACNHM conducted an inventory of human remains in its collections and identified the cranium designated as SK-9 in its holdings and the nearly complete male skeleton, one left humerus, and one right ulna recovered from near Little Rock. In 2016, LACMNH reexamined the human remains in the F.A.2175.79 accession number and found a slip of paper inside one of the crania that identified the human remains of the four individuals designated SK-8 by the Antelope Valley Museum. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Bounded by the Tehachapi and Sierra Nevada mountains on the west and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains on the south, Antelope Valley constitutes the western Mojave Desert. Archaeological and ethnographic evidence suggests that this region was inhabited by Serran speakers of the Takic family of languages. More specifically, based on John P. Harrington's notes and mission records, the desert group occupying the Antelope Valley were speakers of the Serrano language. Inclusive of a few groups, the region was within the traditional territory of the Desert Serrano (referred to by some early Spanish explorers—and later ethnographers referencing their diaries—as the “Vanyume” or “Beneme”). Serrano peoples' oral traditions place them in this portion of their ancestral territory since time immemorial. Archaeologists have traditionally suggested that Serrano speakers have continuously occupied the San Bernardino Mountains and the areas north, northwest, and west of the San Bernardino Mountains for at least 3,000 years, but newer studies have lengthened their occupancy up to 5,000-6,000 years B.P.

The Tataviam, a desert group that spoke a language distinct from Serrano, are also tied to the land in the southwestern portion of the Antelope Valley, including the northern foothills of the Liebre Mountains. The Tataviam language is derived from the Takic languages of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock, and is associated with villages that held Serrano and Kitanemuk speakers.

There are mapped native settlements in the Antelope Valley which are known to have been inhabited by Tataviam, Serrano, and/or Kitanemuk- speaking peoples—sometimes separately and sometimes simultaneously. Such places in the Antelope Valley area, include but are not limited to, Amutskupiat/ Amutskupeat, or Big Rock, and Maviayek/ Maviajeh', or Little Rock Creek. Some of the occupants of these villages were recruited to Mission San Fernando and Mission San Gabriel, but it also appears that some people successfully avoided missionization. The cultural affiliation of both Serrano and Tataviam includes the well-documented Lovejoy Springs site (CA-LAN-942), also known as the village of Tameobit/Tameonga .

Officials of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of eight individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation), and, if joined, the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, a non-federally recognized Indian group.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Amy Gusick, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007, telephone (213) 763-3370, email agusick@nhm.org, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation) and the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (if joined to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California) may proceed.

The Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Indian Tribes and Groups that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN, and stored at the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the following archeological sites in Lauderdale County, AL: 1LU21, 1LU92, 1LU64, 1LU67, and 1LU72.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama- Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).

The sites listed in this notice were excavated as part of TVA's Pickwick reservoir project by the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama, using labor and funds provided by the Works Progress Administration. Details regarding these excavations and sites may be found in An Archaeological Survey of Pickwick Basin in the Adjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee, by William S. Webb and David L. DeJarnette. The human remains and associated funerary objects listed in this notice have been in the physical custody of AMNH at the University of Alabama since excavation but are under the control of the TVA. Human remains and other associated funerary objects from these sites were previously listed in a Notice of Inventory Completion (81 FR 60377-60380, September 1, 2016) and transferred to The Chickasaw Nation. Additional human remains and associated funerary objects were found during a recent improvement in the curation of the TVA archeological collections at AMNH.

From August 1937 to April 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 28 individuals were removed from site 1LU21, in Lauderdale County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA had acquired the land encompassing this site on February 19, 1937. Excavations focused on the earthen mound at this site. The mound was constructed in four stages, and supported at least four superimposed structures and two peripheral single post structures. The adjacent village was not part of these excavations. The primary occupation of this mound was during the Kogers Island phase of the Mississippian period (A.D. 1200-1500). These human remains represent four infants and 24 adults. The human remains were too fragmentary to identify sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

From October 1937 to December 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from site 1LU92, Lauderdale County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased this land November 27, 1935 for the Pickwick project. Site 1LU92 was composed of both a village and a cemetery. Excavations focused on the cemetery. There was no clear stratigraphy at the site. The excavators believed the village midden predates the cemetery. The later occupation is attributed to the Kogers Island phase of the Mississippian period (A.D. 1200-1500). The human remains include two adults and seven sub-adults. The sex could not be determined. No known individuals were identified. The 121 associated funerary objects are 114 shell beads, one bone awl, and six McKee Island Plain sherds.

From February to May 1937, and from February to March 1938, excavations took place at site 1LU64, 23 miles downstream from Florence, AL, on the Tennessee River in Lauderdale County, AL. TVA purchased the land encompassing site 1LU64 on October 28, 1936. Site 1LU64 was a Copena phase (A.D. 100-500) burial mound. The four associated funerary objects are two copper celts and two copper earspools.

From June to September 1936, excavations took place at the Long Branch site 1LU67, in Lauderdale County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased three parcels of land encompassing this site on January 11, 1935, September 16, 1935, and February 8, 1936. Site 1LU67 was located immediately adjacent to the Tennessee River. Although described as a mound, this site appears to have been from the accumulation of discarded shell, village midden, and alluvial soils rather than an intentionally constructed earthwork. This shell midden extended to a depth of 11 feet below surface. The Long Branch site had multiple occupations, including during the Middle Archaic (6000-4000 B.C.), Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.), Early Woodland (500-100 B.C.), Middle Woodland (100 B.C.-A.D. 500), Late Woodland (A.D. 500-1000) and Mississippian (A.D. 900-1500). It is not possible to determine from which level of occupation a burial unit originated. The two associated funerary objects are a bone atlatl hook and a stone atlatl weight.

From January to February 1938, excavations took place at the Union Hollow site 1LU72, in Lauderdale County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased the land encompassing this site in Lauderdale County, AL, on October 5, 1936 for the Pickwick Reservoir project. Site 1LU72 was located immediately adjacent to the Tennessee River. This shell mound was created from the accumulation of discarded shell, village midden, and alluvial soils rather than intentionally constructed earthworks. This shell midden extended to a depth of 10 feet below surface. Early flooding of the Pickwick reservoir abbreviated excavations at this site. The Union Hollow site had multiple occupations, including during the Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.), Early Woodland (500-100 B.C.), and Mississippian (A.D. 1200-1500). The one associated funerary object is a Bell Plain ceramic water bottle.

Officials of the Tennessee Valley Authority have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on their presence in prehistoric archeological sites and osteological analysis.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 37 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 128 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgements of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the cultural items were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

• The Treaty of September 20, 1816, indicates that the land from which the cultural items were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), the disposition of the cultural items may be to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma have declined to accept transfer of control of the human remains. The Tennessee Valley Authority has agreed to transfer control of the human remains to The Chickasaw Nation.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(4), the Tennessee Valley Authority has agreed to transfer control of the associated funerary objects to The Chickasaw Nation.

Representatives of any Federally-recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11C, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email tomaher@tva.gov, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Chickasaw Nation may proceed.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from Purdy Mound at Bob Creek, Lane County, OR.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation); Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; and the Coquille Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Coquille Tribe of Oregon), hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes.”

In 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Purdy Mound at Bob Creek in Lane County, OR. The human remains were removed by a private party and were donated to the museum in 1950 (acc. # 100LC). They belong to an adult male (cat. # 11-262). No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are one partial bone club and fragments of one elk maxillary.

The human remains are reasonably believed to be of Native American ancestry based on their archeological context. Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that the Bob Creek site lies near the territorial boundary between the Alsea and the Siuslaw peoples. Both cultural groups have occupied the region since pre-contact times. Based on information obtained through consultation, the human remains are identified as Alsea. The Alsea are members or the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon.

Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation).

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email endzweig@uoregon.edu, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation) may proceed.

The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

This notice corrects the number of unassociated funerary objects published in a Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items in the Federal Register (79 FR 53775-53777, September 10, 2014). The number of unassociated funerary objects increased due to a search through uncatalogued object collections. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53776, September 10, 2014), column 1, paragraph 3, sentence 1 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

In the years 1981 to 1987, 66 cultural items were removed from the Redtail Village site, AZ AA:12:149(ASM), in Tucson, Pima County, AZ.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53776, September 10, 2014), column 1, paragraph 3, sentence 6 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

The 66 unassociated funerary objects are 18 animal bones, 42 ceramic sherds, five chipped stones, and one ground stone.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 53777, September 10, 2014), column 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 2,081 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Claire S. Barker, Repatriation Coordinator, P.O. Box 210026, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, telephone (520) 626-0320, email csbarker@email.arizona.edu, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico; hereafter referred to as “The Tribes,” may proceed.

The Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona is responsible for notifying the Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains were removed from Klickitat County, WA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation.

Sometime in 1932, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an area three miles northwest of Spedis, on a flat above the Columbia River in Klickitat County, WA. The human remains were removed by a private individual, and in 1933, they were transferred to the museum (accession #17). The human remains belong to an adult of indeterminate sex (catalog #11-9). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email endzweig@uoregon.edu, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation may proceed.

The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Nevada State Museum, Carson City, NV. The human remains were removed from the area of Mud Lake Creek, Douglas County, NV.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Nevada State Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community & Washoe Ranches).

On November 11, 1996, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals, were removed from an eroding bank of Mud Lake Creek in Douglas County, NV. The human remains—several rib fragments—were collected by an anonymous private citizen and brought to the Nevada State Museum. They were later discovered in the collections at the Nevada State Museum and rehoused. A note in the file suggests these human remains were found close to an archeological site (26Do524), which contained burials of two adolescent individuals. The excavation of the associated site located nearby was done in conjunction with the Douglas County Sheriff's Department, the Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California, and the Nevada State Museum. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the Nevada State Museum have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the age of 1620±50 14 C B.P. (radiocarbon years before present), and 1490±50 14 C B.P. The location of the site was also in close proximity to an excavated Native American burial site.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community & Washoe Ranches).

• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which these Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community & Washoe Ranches).

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community & Washoe Ranches).

Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of their request to Anna Camp, Nevada State Museum, 600 North Carson Street, NV 89701, telephone (775) 687-4810 Ext. 261, email acamp@nevadaculture.org, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community & Washoe Ranches) may proceed.

The Nevada State Museum is responsible for notifying the Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community & Washoe Ranches) that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of associated funerary objects under the control of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN. The associated funerary objects were removed from the following archeological sites in Madison and Lawrence County, AL: 1MA48 and 1LA13.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).

The sites listed in this notice were excavated as part of TVA's Wheeler reservoir project by the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama, using labor and funds provided by the Works Progress Administration. Details regarding this site may be found in The Flint River Site, MA48, by William S. Webb and David L. DeJarnette and An Archaeological Survey of Wheeler Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama, by William S. Webb. The associated funerary objects listed in this notice have been in the physical custody of the AMNH at the University of Alabama since excavation but are under the control of TVA. The human remains and other associated funerary objects were previously listed in a Notice of Inventory Completion (81 FR 60380-60381, September 1, 2016) and transferred to The Chickasaw Nation. Additional funerary objects were found during a recent improvement in the curation of the TVA archeological collections at AMNH.

From June to December 1938, excavations took place at the Flint River site, 1MA48, in Madison County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA had acquired the two parcels of land encompassing site 1MA48 on November 11, 1935 and July 3, 1936. Excavations revealed multiple occupations, including the Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.) period, Colbert (300 B.C.-A.D. 100), Flint River (A.D. 500-1000), and the early Mississippian Langston phase (A.D. 900-1200). The one associated funerary object is a sandstone bowl.

From May to June 1934, excavations took place at site 1LA13 in Lawrence County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased this land February 14, 1934. Site 1LA13 was one of the first sites excavated on TVA land in north Alabama. Information about the excavations is not abundant. Excavations revealed this site to be a burial mound. All the burials were considered inclusive to the mound, not intruded into it at a later date. An examination of the funerary objects excavated at this site indicates that this mound was created during the Hobbs Island phase of the Mississippian period (A.D. 1200-1500). The one associated funerary object is a Mississippian Plain bowl.

Officials of the Tennessee Valley Authority have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgements of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the cultural items were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

• The Treaty of September 20, 1816, indicates that the land from which the cultural items were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), the disposition of the cultural items may be to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma have declined to accept transfer of control of the human remains.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(4), the Tennessee Valley Authority has agreed to transfer control of the associated funerary objects associated to The Chickasaw Nation.

Representatives of any Federally-recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11C, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email tomaher@tva.gov, by September 4, 2019. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the associated funerary objects to The Chickasaw Nation may proceed.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552B, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was implemented as a result of the Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to comply with consultation requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Pub. L. 102-575) of 1992. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning Glen Canyon Dam operations and other management actions to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act.

Agenda: The AMWG will meet to receive updates on: (1) Current basin hydrology and water year 2019 operations; (2) non-native fish issues; (3) joint tribal liaison report; and (4) science results from Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center staff. The AMWG will also discuss the FY 2020 Budget and Work Plan and other administrative and resource issues pertaining to the GCDAMP. To view a copy of the agenda and documents related to the above meeting, please visit Reclamation's website at https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg.html.

Meeting Accessibility/Special Accommodations: The meeting is open to the public and seating is on a first-come basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting or wanting to receive call-in information or a link to the live stream webcast should contact Lee Traynham, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, by email at ltraynham@usbr.gov, or by telephone at (801) 524-3752, to register no later than five (5) business days prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Traynham at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Public Disclosure of Comments: Time will be allowed at the meeting for any individual or organization wishing to make formal oral comments. To allow for full consideration of information by the AMWG members, written notice must be provided to Lee Traynham, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138; email at ltraynham@usbr.gov; or facsimile (801) 524-5499, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting. Any written comments received will be provided to the AMWG members.

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.

Scope. — For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as “primary and secondary pure and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size (including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, t-bars, rounds, sows, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and any other shapes). 1 For a full presentation of Commerce's scope see 84 FR 32712, July 9, 2019.

Background. —The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of magnesium, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on October 24, 2018, by US Magnesium LLC, Salt Lake City, Utah.

For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

Participation in the investigations and public service list. —Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. —Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report. —The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on November 4, 2019, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing. —The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, November 21, 2019, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before November 14, 2019. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on November 19, 2019, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions. —Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is November 13, 2019. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is December 2, 2019. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before November 27, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before December 16, 2019, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's website at https://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

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:

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

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: Bulletproof Vest Program Application.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: None. The program application can be found at the Bureau of Justice Assistance, United States Department of Justice's website at https://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvp/login/externalAccess.jsp.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies with armor vest needs.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that no more than 4,500 respondents will apply each year. Each application takes approximately 1 hour to complete.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: Approximately 4,500 hours.

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.

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:

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: National Institute of Justice Compliance Testing Program (NIJ CTP). This collection consists of eight forms: NIJ CTP Applicant Agreement; NIJ CTP Authorized Representatives Notification; NIJ CTP Electronic Signature Agreement; NIJ CTP Body Armor Build Sheet; NIJ CTP Body Armor Agreement; NIJ CTP Manufacturing Location Notification; NIJ CTP Multiple Listee Notification; NIJ Approved Laboratory Application and Agreement.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: There is no agency form number for this collection. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Applicants to the NIJ Compliance Testing Program and Testing Laboratories, which are businesses or other for-profit organizations. The purpose of the voluntary NIJ Compliance Testing Program is to provide confidence that equipment used for law enforcement and corrections applications meets minimum published performance requirements. One type of equipment is ballistic body armor. Ballistic body armor models that are determined to meet minimum requirements by NIJ and listed on the NIJ Compliant Products List are eligible for reimbursement through the Ballistic Vest Partnership.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: As of December 31, 2018, approximately 1,250 unique ballistic armor models have been submitted to the NIJ CTP by approximately 300 companies for compliance testing since OMB Number 1121-0321 was issued in 2009. Approximately one third of the companies that submitted armor are not based in the U.S., however only U.S. companies will be considered for the purpose of estimating the burden on the public. Therefore, a total of 200 responses is estimated for the following three forms over several years:

NIJ CTP Applicant Agreement: Estimated 100 responses at 15 minutes every year (and 50 responses per year after that);

NIJ CTP Authorized Representatives Notification: Estimated 100 responses at 15 minutes every year (and 50 responses per year after that);

NIJ CTP Electronic Signature Agreement: Estimated 100 responses at 15 minutes every year (and 50 responses per year after that).

Each time a new armor model is submitted to the NIJ CTP for testing, the following four forms must be completed. Respondents may submit as many armor models as they choose to the NIJ CTP and are therefore not limited to only one response. The number of overall submissions over the past decade roughly translates to 125 unique ballistic armor models tested per year. A fraction of those armors are submitted by companies not based in the U.S., however only U.S. companies will be considered for the purpose of estimating the burden on the public. Therefore, a total of 100 responses is estimated for the following four forms per year:

NIJ CTP Body Armor Agreement: Estimated 100 responses at 15 minutes every year;

NIJ CTP Body Armor Build Sheet: Estimated 100 responses at 2 hours every year;

NIJ CTP Manufacturing Location Notification: Estimated 100 responses at 15 minutes each every year;

NIJ CTP Listee Notification: Estimated 100 responses at 15 minutes every year; Testing laboratories provide responses to the laboratory agreement form and are therefore considered respondents in this case. There are currently four laboratories that participate in the NIJ CTP. Laboratories renew their status with the NIJ CTP roughly every two years.

NIJ Approved Laboratory Application and Agreement: Estimated 4 responses at 8 hours every two years, or a total of 16 hours on average per year.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 366 hours the first year and 328.5 hours per year in subsequent years.

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.

I. Background: The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601, requires private sector employers who employ 50 or more employees, all public and private elementary schools, and all public agencies to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave during any 12-month period to eligible employees for certain family and medical reasons (for birth of a son or daughter and to care for the newborn child; for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care; to care for the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition; because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's job; and to address qualifying exigencies arising out of the deployment of the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent to covered active duty in the military), and up to 26 weeks of unpaid, job protected leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness who is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin to the employee.

The Wage Hour Division (WHD) created optional use forms: WHD Publication 1420, WH-380-E, WH-380-F, WH-381, WH-382, WH-384, WH-385, and WH-385-V to assist employers and employees in meeting their FMLA third-party notification obligations. WHD Publication 1420 allows employers to satisfy the general notice requirement. See § 825.300(a). Form WH-380-E allows an employee requesting FMLA leave for his or her own serious health condition to satisfy the statutory requirement to furnish, upon the employer's request, appropriate certification (including a second or third opinion and recertification) to support the need for leave for the employee's own serious health condition. See § 825.305(a). Form WH-380-F allows an employee requesting FMLA leave for a family member's serious health condition to satisfy the statutory requirement to furnish, upon the employer's request, appropriate certification (including a second or third opinion and recertification) to support the need for leave for the family member's serious health condition. See § 825.305(a). Form WH-381 allows an employer to satisfy the regulatory requirement to provide employees taking FMLA leave with written notice detailing specific expectations and obligations of the employee and explaining any consequences of a failure to meet these obligations. See § 825.300(b) and (c). Form WH-382 allows an employer to meet its obligation to designate leave as FMLA-qualifying. See § 825.301(a). Form WH-384 allows an employee requesting FMLA leave based on a qualifying exigency to satisfy the statutory requirement to furnish, upon the employer's request, appropriate certification to support leave for a qualifying exigency. See § 825.309. Form WH-385 allows an employee requesting FMLA leave based on an active duty covered servicemember's serious injury or illness to satisfy the statutory requirement to furnish, upon the employer's request, a medical certification from an authorized health care provider. See § 825.310. Form WH-385-V allows an employee requesting leave based on a veteran's serious injury or illness to satisfy the statutory requirement to furnish, upon the employer's request, a medical certification from an authorized health care provider. See § 825.310.

II. Review Focus: The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• 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;

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

• 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;

• 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.

III. Current Actions: The Department of Labor seeks an approval for the revision of this information collection in order to ensure effective administration of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, As Amended.

Type of Review: Revision.

Agency: Wage and Hour Division.

Title: The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, As Amended.

OMB Control Number: 1235-0003.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Farms, State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Total Respondents: 6,888,800.

Total Annual Responses: 79,357,763.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 8,307,116.

Estimated Time per Response: Varies with type of request (1.25-20 minutes):

Frequency: On occasion.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost (operation/maintenance): $218,144,866.

Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more PRBs. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the final rating authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

The persons named below have been selected to serve on OMB's PRB.

OMB Number: 3133-0004.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: NCUA Call Report and Profile.

Forms: NCUA Form 5300 and 4501A.

Abstract: Sections 106 and 202 of the Federal Credit Union Act require federally insured credit unions to make financial reports to the NCUA. Section 741.6 prescribes the method in which federally insured credit unions must submit this information to NCUA. NCUA Form 5300, Call Report, is used to file quarterly financial and statistical data and NCUA Form 4501A, Credit Union Profile, is used to obtain non-financial data relevant to regulation and supervision such as the names of senior management and volunteer officials, and are reported through NCUA's online portal, Credit Unions Online.

The financial and statistical information is essential to NCUA in carrying out its responsibility for supervising federal credit unions. The information also enables NCUA to monitor all federally insured credit unions with National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) insured share accounts.

Reason for Change: Form 4501A, NCUA Profile, is being revised to include two questions to evaluate industry-wide risk exposure related to single- and multi-employer defined benefit plans. This revision will not alter the estimated burden hours per response.

By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on July 31, 2019.

The NRC is considering the approval of the decommissioning funding plans (DFPs) for the North Anna ISFSI. By letter dated December 17, 2012, Dominion submitted an initial DFP for the ISFSI at North Anna for the NRC's review and approval (ADAMS Accession No. ML13002A036). The NRC staff reviewed the initial DFP and issued a request for additional information (RAI) by letter dated July 18, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13200A025). Dominion responded to the NRC's RAI on September 30, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13283A085). By letter dated December 2, 2015, Dominion submitted an updated DFP (ADAMS Accession No. ML15342A039). The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML19165A113) in support of its review of Dominion's DFPs, in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DFPs for the North Anna ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted.

The North Anna ISFSI is located in Louisa, Virginia. Dominion is authorized by NRC, under a general license (License No. SFGL-34) and specific license (SNM-2507), to store spent nuclear fuel at the North Anna ISFSI. The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFPs submitted by Dominion on December 17, 2012, and December 2, 2015. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether Dominion's DFPs contain the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c) and whether Dominion has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of Dominion's DFPs submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c). To approve the DFPs, the NRC evaluates whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. The NRC also evaluates whether the aggregate dollar amount of Dominion financial instruments provides adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e). Finally, the NRC evaluates whether the effects of the following events have been considered in Dominion's submittal: (1) Spills of radioactive material producing additional residual radioactivity in onsite subsurface material; (2) facility modifications; (3) changes in authorized possession limits; and (4) actual remediation costs that exceed the previous cost estimate, consistent with 10 CFR 72.30(c).

The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of Dominion's DFPs. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI or any other part of North Anna.

The proposed action provides a means for the NRC to confirm that Dominion will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of Dominion's DFPs is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 30618) (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” the NRC's approval of Dominion's DFPs constitutes a Federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFPs is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of Dominion's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) (ESA), prior to taking a proposed action, a Federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. The NRC has determined that the proposed action will have no effect on any listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of Dominion's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste.

In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny Dominion's DFPs. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) or 72.30(c) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the EA for the 2011 rulemaking (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying Dominion's DFPs, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will undermine the licensee's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (State) by letter dated August 17, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17226A253), and gave the State 30 days to respond. The State did not respond. The NRC staff has determined that consultation under ESA Section 7 is not required because the proposed action is administrative/procedural in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat (ADAMS Accession No. ML17135A062). Consequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was not consulted on the proposed action.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of Dominion's initial and updated DFPs, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI.

The following documents, related to this notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

I. Introduction

The NRC is considering the approval of the decommissioning funding plans (DFPs) for the Davis-Besse ISFSI. FENOC submitted an initial DFP and an updated DFP for NRC review and approval by letters dated December 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12352A194), and December 9, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15343A350), respectively. The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML19162A009) in support of its review of FENOC's DFPs, in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DFPs for the Davis-Besse ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted.

The Davis-Besse ISFSI is located in Oak Harbor, Ohio. FENOC is authorized by the NRC, under License No. SFGL-04 to store spent nuclear fuel at the Davis-Besse ISFSI.

The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFPs submitted by FENOC on December 17, 2012, and December 9, 2015. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether FENOC's DFPs contain the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c) and whether FENOC has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of FENOC's DFPs submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c). To approve the DFPs, the NRC evaluates whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. The NRC also evaluates whether the aggregate dollar amount of FENOC financial instruments provides adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e). Finally, the NRC evaluates whether the effects of the following events have been considered in FENOC's submittal: (1) Spills of radioactive material producing additional residual radioactivity in onsite subsurface material; (2) facility modifications; (3) changes in authorized possession limits; and (4) actual remediation costs that exceed the previous cost estimate, consistent with 10 CFR 72.30(c).

The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land-disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of FENOC's DFPs. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI or any other part of Davis-Besse.

The proposed action provides a means for the NRC to confirm that FENOC will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of FENOC's DFPs is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 30618) (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” the NRC's approval of FENOC's DFPs constitutes a Federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFPs is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of FENOC's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) (ESA), prior to taking a proposed action, a Federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. The NRC has determined that the proposed action will have no effect on any listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of FENOC's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste.

In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny FENOC's DFPs. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) or 72.30(c) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the EA for the 2011 rulemaking (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying FENOC's DFPs, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will undermine the licensee's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the Ohio Emergency Management Agency, Department of Public Safety (State) by letter dated July 15, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17139C017), and gave the State 30 days to respond. The State did not respond. The NRC also consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service by letter dated July 15, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16197A381). However, the NRC staff has determined that consultation under ESA Section 7 is not required because the proposed action is administrative/procedural in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat (ADAMS Accession No. ML17135A062).

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of FENOC's initial and updated DFPs, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI.

The following documents, related to this notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The NRC is considering the approval of the decommissioning funding plans (DFPs) for the Perry ISFSI. FENOC submitted an initial DFP and an updated DFP for NRC review and approval by letters dated December 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12352A194), and December 9, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15343A350), respectively. The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML19162A009) in support of its review of FENOC's DFPs, in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DFPs for the Perry ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted.

The Perry ISFSI is located in Perry, Ohio. FENOC is authorized by the NRC, under License No. SFGL-51 to store spent nuclear fuel at the Perry ISFSI.

The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFPs submitted by FENOC on December 17, 2012, and December 9, 2015. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether FENOC's DFPs contain the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c) and whether FENOC has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of FENOC's DFPs submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c). To approve the DFPs, the NRC evaluates whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. The NRC also evaluates whether the aggregate dollar amount of FENOC financial instruments provides adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e). Finally, the NRC evaluates whether the effects of the following events have been considered in FENOC's submittal: (1) Spills of radioactive material producing additional residual radioactivity in onsite subsurface material; (2) facility modifications; (3) changes in authorized possession limits; and (4) actual remediation costs that exceed the previous cost estimate, consistent with 10 CFR 72.30(c).

The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land-disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of FENOC's DFPs. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI or any other part of Perry.

The proposed action provides a means for the NRC to confirm that FENOC will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of FENOC's DFPs is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 30618) (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” the NRC's approval of FENOC's DFPs constitutes a Federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFPs is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of FENOC's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) (ESA), prior to taking a proposed action, a Federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. The NRC has determined that the proposed action will have no effect on any listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of FENOC's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste.

In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny FENOC's DFPs. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) or 72.30(c) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the EA for the 2011 rulemaking (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying FENOC's DFPs, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will undermine the licensee's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the Ohio Emergency Management Agency, Department of Public Safety (State) by letter dated October 26, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17142A072), and gave the State 30 days to respond. The State did not respond. The NRC also consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service by letter dated October 26, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16301A368). However, the NRC staff has determined that consultation under ESA Section 7 is not required because the proposed action is administrative/procedural in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat (ADAMS Accession No. ML17135A062).

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of FENOC's initial and updated DFPs, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI.

The following documents, related to this notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The NRC is considering the approval of the decommissioning funding plans (DFPs) for the Kewaunee ISFSI. By letter dated December 17, 2012, Dominion submitted an initial DFP for the ISFSI at Kewaunee for the NRC's review and approval (ADAMS Accession No. ML13002A036). The NRC staff reviewed the initial DFP and issued a request for additional information (RAI) by letter dated July 18, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13200A025). Dominion responded to the NRC's RAI on September 30, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13283A085). By letter dated December 9, 2015, the Dominions submitted an updated DFP (ADAMS Accession No. ML15349B005). The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML19165A035) in support of its review of Dominion's DFPs, in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DFPs for the Kewaunee ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted.

The Kewaunee ISFSI is located in Kewaunee, Wisconsin. Dominion is authorized by the NRC, under License No. SFGL-40 to store spent nuclear fuel at the Kewaunee ISFSI.

The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFPs submitted by Dominion on December 17, 2012, and December 9, 2015. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether Dominion's DFPs contain the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c) and whether Dominion has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of Dominion's DFPs submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c). To approve the DFPs, the NRC evaluates whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. The NRC also evaluates whether the aggregate dollar amount of Dominion financial instruments provides adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e). Finally, the NRC evaluates whether the effects of the following events have been considered in Dominion's submittal: (1) Spills of radioactive material producing additional residual radioactivity in onsite subsurface material; (2) facility modifications; (3) changes in authorized possession limits; and (4) actual remediation costs that exceed the previous cost estimate, consistent with 10 CFR 72.30(c).

The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of Dominion's DFPs. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI or any other part of Kewaunee.

The proposed action provides a means for the NRC to confirm that Dominion will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of Dominion's DFPs is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 30618) (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” the NRC's approval of Dominion's DFPs constitutes a Federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFPs is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of Dominion's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) (ESA), prior to taking a proposed action, a Federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. The NRC has determined that the proposed action will have no effect on any listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of Dominion's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste.

In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny Dominion's DFPs. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) or 72.30(c) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the EA for the 2011 rulemaking (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying Dominion's DFPs, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will undermine the licensee's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Division of Public Health, Radiation Protection Section (State) by letter dated September 26, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17139C542), and gave the State 30 days to respond. The State did not respond. The NRC also consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service by letter dated September 26, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16271A034). However, the NRC staff has determined that consultation under ESA Section 7 is not required because the proposed action is administrative/procedural in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat (ADAMS Accession No. ML17135A062).

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of Dominion's initial and updated DFPs, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI.

The following documents, related to this notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The NRC is considering the approval of the decommissioning funding plans for the Beaver Valley ISFSI. FENOC submitted an initial DFP and an updated DFP for NRC review and approval by letters dated December 8, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14342A707), and December 9, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15343A350), respectively. The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML19161A329) in support of its review of FENOC's DFPs, in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DFPs for the Beaver Valley ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted.

The Beaver Valley ISFSI is located in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. FENOC is authorized by the NRC, under License No. SFGL-56 to store spent nuclear fuel at the Beaver Valley ISFSI.

The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFPs submitted by FENOC on December 8, 2014, and December 9, 2015. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether FENOC's DFPs contain the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c) and whether FENOC has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of FENOC's DFPs submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c). To approve the DFPs, the NRC evaluates whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. The NRC also evaluates whether the aggregate dollar amount of FENOC financial instruments provides adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e). Finally, the NRC evaluates whether the effects of the following events have been considered in FENOC's submittal: (1) Spills of radioactive material producing additional residual radioactivity in onsite subsurface material; (2) facility modifications; (3) changes in authorized possession limits; and (4) actual remediation costs that exceed the previous cost estimate, consistent with 10 CFR 72.30(c).

The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land-disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of FENOC's DFPs. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI or any other part of Beaver Valley Power Station.

The proposed action provides a means for the NRC to confirm that FENOC will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFPs will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of FENOC's DFPs is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 30618) (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” the NRC's approval of FENOC's DFPs constitutes a Federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFPs is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of FENOC's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) (ESA), prior to taking a proposed action, a Federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. The NRC has determined that the proposed action will have no effect on any listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of FENOC's DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste.

In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny FENOC's DFPs. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) or 72.30(c) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the EA for the 2011 rulemaking (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying FENOC's DFPs, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will undermine the licensee's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (State) by letter dated July 21, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17201B256), and gave the State 30 days to respond. The State did not respond. The NRC staff has determined that consultation under ESA Section 7 is not required because the proposed action is administrative/procedural in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat (ADAMS Accession No. ML17135A062). Consequently, the NRC did not consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed action.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of FENOC's initial and updated DFPs, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and 72.30(c), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFPs will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI.

The following documents, related to this notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this notice.