The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered (GE) organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 17-223-01p) from Verdeca LLC (Verdeca), seeking a determination of nonregulated status for the new plant variety called HB4 soybean ( Glycine max ) designated as event IND-00410-5 (also OECD unique identifier IND-00410-5), which has been genetically engineered for increased yield. The Verdeca petition states that information collected during field trials and laboratory analyses indicates that HB4 soybean is not likely to be a plant pest and therefore should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

According to our process  1 for soliciting public comment when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status of GE organisms, APHIS accepts written comments regarding a petition once APHIS deems it complete. In a notice  2 published in the Federal Register on November 15, 2017 (82 FR 52873-52874, Docket No. APHIS-2017-0075), APHIS announced the availability of the Verdeca petition for public comment. APHIS solicited comments on the petition for 60 days ending on January 16, 2018, in order to help identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that APHIS may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.

APHIS received five comments on the petition (a sixth comment addressing an entirely different topic was erroneously submitted). Of the five comments, four were opposed to the deregulation and one comment was in support. In May 2018, Verdeca provided supplemental information to APHIS informing us that its HB4 soybean variety also had field-level resistance to the herbicide glufosinate. APHIS reviewed the supplemental information and included it in its analyses in the draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) and draft environmental assessment (EA).

APHIS decided, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of the comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises substantive new issues. According to our public review process for such petitions (see footnote 1), APHIS is following Approach 2, where we first solicit written comments from the public on a draft EA and a draft PPRA for a 30-day comment period through the publication of a Federal Register notice. Then, after reviewing and evaluating the comments on the draft EA and the draft PPRA and other information, APHIS revises the draft PPRA as necessary and prepares a final EA and, based on the final EA, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) finding document (either a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement). If a FONSI is reached, APHIS furnishes a response to the petitioner, either approving or denying the petition. APHIS also publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the regulatory status of the GE organism and the availability of APHIS' final EA, PPRA, FONSI, and our regulatory determination.

APHIS sought public comment on a draft EA, draft PPRA, and the supplemental information provided by Verdeca from March 13, 2019, to April 12, 2019. 3 APHIS solicited comments on those documents and whether the subject soybean is likely to pose a plant pest risk. APHIS received three comments on the petition and supporting documents, all of which opposed a decision of nonregulated status for HB4 soybean. Those comments are addressed in our final EA.

After reviewing and evaluating the comments received during the comment period on the draft EA and draft PPRA and other information, APHIS has prepared a final EA. The EA has been prepared to provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of nonregulated status of HB4 soybean. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Based on our EA, the response to public comments, and other pertinent scientific data, APHIS has reached a FONSI with regard to the preferred alternative identified in the EA (to make a determination of nonregulated status of HB4 soybean).

Based on APHIS' analysis of field and laboratory data submitted by Verdeca, references provided in the petition, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the EA, the PPRA, comments provided by the public, and information provided in APHIS' response to those public comments, APHIS has determined that HB4 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore is no longer subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain GE organisms.

Copies of the signed determination document, PPRA, final EA, FONSI, and response to comments, as well as the previously published petition and supporting documents, are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT sections of this notice.

The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered (GE) organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 17-321-01p) from BASF Plant Science, LP, of Florham Park, NJ (BASF), seeking a determination of nonregulated status of canola ( Brassica napus L.) designated as event LBFLFK, which has been genetically engineered to allow for the synthesis of long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), from oleic acid in canola seed. The canola has also been genetically engineered for resistance to an imidazolinone herbicide. The BASF petition states that information collected during field trials and laboratory analyses indicates that LBFLFK canola is not likely to be a plant pest and therefore should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

According to our process  1 for soliciting public comment when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status of GE organisms, APHIS accepts written comments regarding a petition once APHIS deems it complete. In a notice  2 published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2018 (83 FR 13722-13723, Docket No. APHIS-2018-0014), APHIS announced the availability of the BASF petition for public comment. APHIS solicited comments on the petition for 60 days ending on May 29, 2018, in order to help identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that APHIS may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.

APHIS received eight comments on the petition. Three of the comments were from individuals, three were from the canola industry, one was from a public interest group, and one was from a State government. APHIS evaluated the issues raised during the comment period and, where appropriate, provided a discussion of those issues in our draft environmental assessment (EA).

APHIS decided, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of the comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises substantive new issues. According to our public review process for such petitions (see footnote 1), APHIS is following Approach 2, where we first solicit written comments from the public on a draft EA and a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) for a 30-day comment period through the publication of a Federal Register notice. Then, after reviewing and evaluating the comments on the draft EA and the draft PPRA and other information, APHIS revises the draft PPRA as necessary and prepares a final EA and, based on the final EA, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) finding document (either a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement). If a FONSI is reached, APHIS furnishes a response to the petitioner, either approving or denying the petition. APHIS also publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the regulatory status of the GE organism and the availability of APHIS' final EA, PPRA, FONSI, and our regulatory determination.

APHIS sought public comment on a draft EA and draft PPRA from April 4, 2019, to May 6, 2019. 3 APHIS solicited comments on those documents and whether the subject canola is likely to pose a plant pest risk. APHIS received three comments on the petition and supporting documents, one of which opposed and two of which supported a decision of nonregulated status for LBFLFK canola. Those comments are addressed in our final EA.

After reviewing and evaluating the comments received during the comment period on the draft EA and draft PPRA and other information, APHIS has prepared a final EA. The EA has been prepared to provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of nonregulated status of LBFLFK canola. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Based on our EA, the response to public comments, and other pertinent scientific data, APHIS has reached a FONSI with regard to the preferred alternative identified in the EA (to make a determination of nonregulated status of LBFLFK canola).

Based on APHIS' analysis of field and laboratory data submitted by BASF, references provided in the petition, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the EA, the PPRA, comments provided by the public, and information provided in APHIS' response to those public comments, APHIS has determined that LBFLFK canola is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore is no longer subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain GE organisms.

Copies of the signed determination document, PPRA, final EA, FONSI, and response to comments, as well as the previously published petition and supporting documents, are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT sections of this notice.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 subpart B, “Importation of Animals and Animal Products; Procedures for Requesting BSE Risk Status Classification With Regard To Bovines” (referred to below as the regulations), set forth the process by which the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) classifies regions for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk. Section 92.5 of the regulations provides that all countries of the world are considered by APHIS to be in one of three BSE risk categories: Negligible risk, controlled risk, or undetermined risk. These risk categories are defined in § 92.1. Any region that is not classified by APHIS as presenting either negligible risk or controlled risk for BSE is considered to present an undetermined risk. The list of those regions classified by APHIS as having either negligible risk or controlled risk can be accessed on the APHIS website at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-and-animal-product-import-information/animal-health-status-of-regions. The list can also be obtained by writing to APHIS at Strategy and Policy, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737.

Under § 92.5(c)(2) of the regulations, if APHIS at any time determines that a region no longer meets the criteria for the risk classification it had previously received, APHIS will remove the region from its list of regions so classified. If the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) determines the region no longer meets the criteria for the risk classification it had previously received, APHIS may concur with the OIE determination or may request updated information from the region and determine whether to concur with the OIE decision.

On October 19, 2018, the veterinary authority of the United Kingdom reported that Scotland had a case of classical C-type BSE in a 5 year-old indigenous cow; the BSE case was confirmed on October 18, 2018. As a result of this finding, the OIE suspended Scotland's negligible risk status effective October 2, 2018.

Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 92.5(c)(2) and in concurrence with the OIE's suspension of Scotland's negligible risk status, we have removed Scotland from our list of regions considered to be negligible risk for BSE and added Scotland to the list of regions classified by APHIS as having controlled risk for BSE.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Background

Special Milk Program for Children —Pursuant to section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1772), the Department announces the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to non-needy children in a school or institution that participates in the Special Milk Program for Children. This rate is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs —Pursuant to sections 11 and 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, (42 U.S.C. 1759a and 1766a), and section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), the Department annually announces the adjustments to the National Average Payment Factors and to the maximum Federal reimbursement rates for lunches and afterschool snacks served to children participating in the National School Lunch Program and breakfasts served to children participating in the School Breakfast Program. Adjustments are prescribed each July 1, based on changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

Lunch Payment Levels —Section 4 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753) provides general cash for food assistance payments to States to assist schools in purchasing food. The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act provides two different section 4 payment levels for lunches served under the National School Lunch Program. The lower payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which less than 60 percent of the lunches served in the school lunch program during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price. The higher payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which 60 percent or more of the lunches served during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price.

To supplement these section 4 payments, section 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.1759 (a)) provides special cash assistance payments to aid schools in providing free and reduced price lunches. The section 11 National Average Payment Factor for each reduced price lunch served is set at 40 cents less than the factor for each free lunch.

As authorized under sections 8 and 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1757 and 1759a), maximum reimbursement rates for each type of lunch are prescribed by the Department in this Notice. These maximum rates are to ensure equitable disbursement of Federal funds to school food authorities.

Performanced-based Reimbursement —In addition to the funding mentioned above, school food authorized certified as meeting the meal pattern and nutrition standard requirements set forth in 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 are eligible to receive performance-based cash assistance for each reimbursable lunch served (an additional seven cents per lunch available beginning July 1, 2019, increased by inflation from six cents to seven cents, and will continue to be adjusted and rounded down to the nearest whole cent).

Afterschool Snack Payments in Afterschool Care Programs —Section 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766a) establishes National Average Payments for free, reduced price and paid afterschool snacks as part of the National School Lunch Program.

Breakfast Payment Factors —Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) establishes National Average Payment Factors for free, reduced price, and paid breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program and additional payments for free and reduced price breakfasts served in schools determined to be in “severe need” because they serve a high percentage of needy children.

The following specific section 4, section 11, and section 17A National Average Payment Factors and maximum reimbursement rates for lunch, the afterschool snack rates, and the breakfast rates are in effect from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. Due to a higher cost of living, the average payments and maximum reimbursements for Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States. These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which schools receive as additional assistance for each meal served to participants under the Program. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the Federal Register .

Adjustments to the national average payment rates for all lunches served under the National School Lunch Program, breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program, and afterschool snacks served under the National School Lunch Program are rounded down to the nearest whole cent.

For the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to a non-needy child in a school or institution that participates in the Special Milk Program is 21.50 cents reflecting an increase of 1 cent from the School Year (SY) 2018-2019 level. This change is based on the 3.92 percent increase in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products from May 2018 to May 2019.

As a reminder, schools or institutions with pricing programs that elect to serve milk free to eligible children continue to receive the average cost of a half-pint of milk (the total cost of all milk purchased during the claim period divided by the total number of purchased half-pints) for each half-pint served to an eligible child.

Overall, payments for the National School Lunch Program and the Afterschool Snack Program either remained the same or increased from last years payments due to a 2.94 percent increase in the national average payment rates for schools and residential child care institutions for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the food away from home series during the 12-month period May 2018 to May 2019 (from a level of 275.307 in May 2017, as previously published in the Federal Register to 283.394 in May 2019).

These changes are reflected below.

Section 4 National Average Payment Factors —In school food authorities that served less than 60 percent free and reduced price lunches in School Year (SY) 2017-2018, the payments for meals served are: Contiguous States: Paid rate—32 cents (1 cent increase from the SY 2018-2019 level), free and reduced price rate—32 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—40 cents (1 cent increase); Alaska: Paid rate—53 cents (2 cents increase), free and reduced price rate—53 cents (2 cents increase), maximum rate—63 cents (2 cents increase); Hawaii and Puerto Rico: Paid rate—38 cents (1 cent increase), free and reduced price rate—38 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—46 cents (1 cent increase).

In school food authorities that served 60 percent or more free and reduced price lunches in School Year 2017-2018, payments are: Contiguous States: Paid rate—34 cents (1 cent increase from the SY 2018-2019 level), free and reduced price rate—34 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—40 cents (1 cent increase); Alaska: Paid rate—55 cents (2 cents increase), free and reduced price rate—55 cents (2 cents increase), maximum rate—63 cents (2 cents increase); Hawaii and Puerto Rico: Paid rate—40 cents (1 cent increase), free and reduced price rate—40 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—46 cents (1 cent increase).

Beginning this year, School food authorities certified to receive the performance-based cash assistance will receive an additional 7 cents (adjusted annually) added to the above amounts as part of their section 4 payments.

Section 11 National Average Payment Factors—Contiguous States: Free lunch—3 dollars and 9 cents (9 cents increase from the SY 2018-2019 level), reduced price lunch—2 dollars and 69 cents (9 cents increase); Alaska: Free lunch—5 dollars and 1 cent (14 cents increase), reduced price lunch—4 dollars and 61 cents (14 cents increase); Hawaii and Puerto Rico: Free lunch—3 dollars and 62 cents (11 cents increase), reduced price lunch—3 dollars and 22 cents (11 cents increase).

Afterschool Snacks in Afterschool Care Programs —The payments are: Contiguous States: Free snack—94 cents (3 cents increase from the SY 2018-2019 level), reduced price snack—47 cents (2 cents increase), paid snack—8 cents (no change); Alaska: Free snack—1 dollar and 52 cents (4 cents increase), reduced price snack—76 cents (2 cents increase), paid snack—13 cents (no change); Hawaii and Puerto Rico: Free snack—1 dollar and 10 cents (4 cents increase), reduced price snack—55 cents (2 cent increase), paid snack—10 cents (1 cent increase).

Overall, payments for the National School Breakfast Program either remained the same or increased from last years payments due to a 2.94 percent increase in the national average payment rates for schools and residential child care institutions for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the Food Away from Home series during the 12-month period May 2018 to May 2019 (from a level of 275.307 in May 2018, as previously published in the Federal Register to 283.394 in May 2019).

These changes are reflected below.

For schools “not in severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States: Free breakfast—1 dollar and 84 cents (5 cents increase from the SY 2018-2019 level), reduced price breakfast—1 dollar and 54 cents (5 cents increase), paid breakfast—31 cents (no change); Alaska: Free breakfast—2 dollars and 95 cents (8 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—2 dollars and 65 cents (8 cents increase), paid breakfast—47 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii and Puerto Rico: Free breakfast—2 dollars and 15 cents (6 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—1 dollar and 85 cents (6 cents increase), paid breakfast—36 cents (1 cent increase).

For schools in “severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States: Free breakfast—2 dollars and 20 cents (6 cents increase from the SY 2018-2019 level), reduced price breakfast—1 dollar and 90 cents (6 cents increase), paid breakfast—31 cents (no change); Alaska: Free breakfast—3 dollars and 53 cents (10 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—3 dollars and 23 cents (10 cents increase), paid breakfast—47 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii and Puerto Rico: Free breakfast—2 dollars and 57 cents (7 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—2 dollars and 27 cents (7 cents increase), paid breakfast—36 cents (1 cent increase).

The following chart illustrates the lunch National Average Payment Factors with the sections 4 and 11 already combined to indicate the per lunch amount; the maximum lunch reimbursement rates; the reimbursement rates for afterschool snacks served in afterschool care programs; the breakfast National Average Payment Factors including severe need schools; and the milk reimbursement rate. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. The payment factors and reimbursement rates used for the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, and Guam are those specified for the contiguous States.

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

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

This rule has been determined to be not significant by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

National School Lunch, School Breakfast, and Special Milk Programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555, No. 10.553, and No. 10.556, respectively, and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).

Background

Pursuant to sections 4, 11, and 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1759a and 1766), section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) and 7 CFR 226.4, 226.12 and 226.13 of the Program regulations, notice is hereby given of the new payment rates for institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). As provided for under the law, all rates in the CACFP must be revised annually, on July 1, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, for the most recent 12-month period. These rates are in effect during the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020.

The following national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks are in effect from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. Due to a higher cost of living, the reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States. These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which institutions receive as additional assistance for each lunch or supper served to participants under the Program. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the Federal Register .

Adjustments to the national average payment rates for all meals served under the Child and Adult Care Food Program are rounded down to the nearest whole cent.

The changes in the national average payment rates for centers reflect a 2.94 percent increase during the 12-month period from May 2018 to May 2019 (from 275.307 in May 2018, as previously published in the Federal Register , to 283.394 in May 2019) in the food away from home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

Payments for breakfasts served are: Contiguous States: Paid rate—31 cents (no change from 2018-2019 annual level), reduced price rate—1 dollar and 54 cents (5 cents increase), free rate—1 dollar and 84 cents (5 cents increase); Alaska: Paid rate—47 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—2 dollars and 65 cents (8 cents increase), free rate—2 dollars and 95 cents (8 cents increase); Hawaii: Paid rate—36 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—1 dollar and 85 cents (6 cents increase), free rate—2 dollars and 15 cents (6 cents increase).

Payments for lunch or supper served are: Contiguous States: Paid rate—32 cents (1 cent increase from 2018-2019 annual level), reduced price rate—3 dollars and 1 cent (10 cents increase), free rate—3 dollars and 41 cents (10 cents increase); Alaska: Paid rate—53 cents (2 cents increase), reduced price rate—5 dollars and 14 cents (16 cents increase), free rate—5 dollars and 54 cents (16 cents increase); Hawaii: Paid rate—38 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—3 dollars and 60 cents (12 cents increase), free rate—4 dollars (12 cents increase).

Payments for snack served are: Contiguous States: Paid rate—8 cents (no change from 2018-2019 annual level), reduced price rate—47 cents (2 cent increase), free rate—94 cents (3 cents increase); Alaska: Paid rate—13 cents (no change), reduced price rate—76 cents (2 cents increase), free rate—1 dollar and 52 cents (4 cents increase); Hawaii: Paid rate—10 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—55 cents (2 cent increase), free rate—1 dollar and 10 cents (4 cents increase).

The changes in the food service payment rates for day care homes reflect a 1.19 percent increase during the 12-month period from May 2018 to May 2019 (from 239.287 in May 2018, as previously published in the Federal Register , to 242.145 in May 2019) in the food at home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

Payments for breakfast served are: Contiguous States: Tier I—1 dollar and 33 cents (2 cent increase from 2018-2019 annual level) and tier II—48 cents (no change); Alaska: Tier I—2 dollars and 12 cents (3 cent increase) and tier II—75 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii: Tier I—1 dollar and 54 cents (1 cent increase) and tier II—56 cents (1 cent increase).

Payments for lunch and supper served are: Contiguous States: Tier I—2 dollars and 49 cents (3 cent increase from 2018-2019 annual level) and tier II—1 dollar and 50 cents (2 cent increase); Alaska: Tier I—4 dollars and 4 cents (5 cent increase) and tier II—2 dollars and 44 cents (3 cent increase); Hawaii: Tier I—2 dollars and 92 cents (4 cent increase) and tier II—1 dollar and 76 cents (2 cents increase).

Payments for snack served are: Contiguous States: Tier I—74 cents (1 cent increase from 2018-2019 annual level) and tier II—20 cents (no change); Alaska: Tier I—1 dollar and 20 cents (1 cent increase) and tier II—33 cents (no change); Hawaii: Tier I—87 cents (1 cent increase) and tier II—24 cents (1 cent increase).

The changes in the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes reflect a 1.79 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2018 to May 2019 (from 251.588 in May 2018, as previously published in the Federal Register , to 256.092 in May 2019) in the series for all items of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

Monthly administrative payments to sponsors for each sponsored day care home are: Contiguous States: Initial 50 homes—120 dollars (2 dollar increase from 2018-2019 annual level), next 150 homes—91 dollars (1 dollar increase), next 800 homes—71 dollars (1 dollar increase), each additional home—63 dollars (1 dollar increase); Alaska: Initial 50 homes—194 dollars (3 dollar increase), next 150 homes—148 dollars (3 dollar increase), next 800 homes—115 dollars (2 dollar increase), each additional home—102 dollars (2 dollar increase); Hawaii: Initial 50 homes—140 dollars (2 dollar increase), next 150 homes—107 dollars (2 dollar increase), next 800 homes—83 dollars (1 dollar increase), each additional home—73 dollars (1 dollar increase).

The following chart illustrates the national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks in effect from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020.

This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866.

CACFP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.558 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).

This rule has been determined to be not significant by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to OMB review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518).

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll-free number (audio only) and web access link (visual only). Please use both the call-in number and the web access link in order to follow the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

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

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzkoAAA. Please click on the “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Panel Presentations (12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m.)

• Jack McDevitt, Director, Northeastern University, Institute on Race and Justice

• Brian Levin, Director, CSU San Bernardino, Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism co-presenting with Lisa Nakashima, Legal Fellow

Q & A (1:30 p.m.-1:45 p.m.)

Open Public Comment (1:45 p.m.-2:00 p.m.)

Background

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 19, 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 products covered by this investigation are steel threaded rods from Thailand. 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 Commerce is preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. 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 the mandatory respondent, Tycoons Worldwide Group (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (Tycoons), because this respondent did not timely respond to Commerce's antidumping duty questionnaire. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for Tycoons, and for all other producers and exporters. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be 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 under section 776 of the Act. We cannot apply the methodology described in section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act to calculate the all-others rate because the sole margin in this preliminary determination was derived pursuant to section 776 of the Act. In cases where no weighted-average dumping margin other than margins that are zero, de minimis, or those determined entirely under section 776 of the Act has been established for individually examined entities, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, Commerce averages the margins calculated by the petitioners in the petition and applies the result to all other entities not individually examined. 6

In the Petition, the petitioner calculated only one margin. 7 Therefore, we assigned as the all-others rate the only margin in the Petition, which is 20.83 percent. 8

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists during the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018:

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 weighted-average 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 weighted-average 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 weighted-average 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 weighted-average dumping margin.

Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced or exported by Tycoons and all others. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of shipments of subject merchandise from the producer(s) or exporter(s) identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

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, Tycoons, 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 respondents in this investigation did not provide information requested by Commerce, and Commerce preliminarily determines that 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 50 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. 9 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).

I. Abstract

The NIST DN-45 Invention Disclosure Form is used to collect information pertaining to inventions created by Federal employees or by non-Federally employed individuals who have created an invention using NIST laboratory facilities as NIST Associates. The collection of this information is required to protect the United States rights to inventions created using Federal resources. The information collected on the form allows the Government to determine: (1) If an invention has been created; (2) the status of any statutory bar that pertains to the potential invention or that may pertain to the invention in the future. The information collected may allow the Government to begin a patent application process.

The Inventor Information Sheet is used to collect from individuals who have been named as potential inventors on a NIST Invention Disclosure Form. The collection of this information is used for multiple purposes:

(1) Some of the information may be required to file a patent application, if NIST seeks to protect a federally owned invention, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 207.

(2) The form, in part, is a statement made by the respondent declaring whether the respondent considers herself/himself to be an inventor.

(3) Some of the information is needed for NIST to determine potential assignees with which NIST would potentially negotiate consolidation of rights and other patent related matters.

(4) Some of the information helps NIST determine under which statutory authority NIST may consolidate rights in an invention with other potential assignees.

(5) Country citizenship information is required to determine whether a Scientific and Technology agreement or treaty with the respondent's country may impact the U.S. Government's rights to the invention.

The information is collected by the Technology Partnerships Office and shared with the Office of Chief Counsel at NIST. The information may also be shared with non-Governmental entities that may have ownership rights to the potential invention. The Government collects this information to execute the policy and objective of the Congress expressed at 35 U.S.C. 200. 35 U.S.C. 207 authorizes Federal agencies to apply for, obtain, and maintain patents or other forms of protection . . . on inventions in which the Federal Government owns a right, title, or interest. 35 U.S.C. 207 also authorizes each Federal agency to undertake all other suitable and necessary steps to protect and administer rights to federally owned inventions on behalf of the Federal government. The information collected through the NIST DN-45 is necessary for NIST to execute the authority granted at 35 U.S.C. 207.

Information is collected by completing the NIST DN-45 form which is a template created in Microsoft Word.

OMB Control Number: New Collection 0693-XXXX.

Form Number(s): NIST DN-45.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: Invention Disclosure Form—10 per year. Inventor Information Form—100 per year.

Estimated Time per Response: Invention Disclosure Form: 3 hours. Inventor Information Form: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: Invention Disclosure Form: 30 hours. Inventor Information Form: 50 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $500.

NIST invites comments on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Public Law 100-107 (The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987), which established the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program and its Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), stipulates that organizational applicants for the award (see OMB Control #0693-0006) receive “an intensive evaluation by a competent board of examiners which shall review the evidence submitted by the organization and, through a site visit, verify the accuracy of the quality improvements claimed.”

Per the statute, “the Director of the National Bureau of Standards shall rely upon” these examiners, as they are in essence the external workforce of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. Baldrige Program staff members manage and improve the award and all of its processes, but the examiners actually do the objective review of MBNQA applicants.

The Team Leader Consensus and Site Visit Surveys will be one key way that Baldrige staff members can communicate with and seek feedback from the external workforce (Baldrige Examiners). To manage these voluntary examiners (some private citizens, some government and military personnel), the Baldrige Program needs the ability to ask them of their preferences for the sector in which they will do their application review ( e.g., do they want to review a health care applicant, manufacturing applicant), their availability to conduct reviews, their ability to travel on a site visit and about all of their logistical needs ( e.g., dietary restrictions, cannot review an organization from a certain state due to conflicts in that state), their ability to perform particular MBNQA roles such as technical editor or team leader, their conflicts with a particular organization, etc. The Baldrige Program also needs to survey them to obtain qualitative information on performance, as being a Baldrige Examiner is a very competitive selection.

The Baldrige Program could not perform the intensive evaluation called for in the law without surveying its own workforce about their unique needs in relation to the MBNQA process (and its subprocesses). In fact, these volunteer examiners expect to be asked their preferences, as well as given the ability to give their feedback to improve processes.

Surveys are typically conducted via email or through a secure NIST file-sharing system if any MBNQA organization-specific information needs to be shared. Surveys can also be conducted over the phone if the number of examiners who need to be asked about a particular role or need is less than about 20. Often, a personal phone call is the best way to survey a subset of examiners, as maintaining positive relationships with examiners is very important to the program.

OMB Control Number: 0693-0079.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Extension and revision of a current information collection.

Affected Public: Individuals, including private citizens. All must be U.S. citizens (proof of citizenship is required prior to Baldrige Examiner training).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 350 per year.

Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 88 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

NIST invites comments on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

NTIA's BroadbandUSA program serves as a trusted and neutral strategic advisor, collaborating with federal, state and local government, and industry leaders working to advance smart city and broadband initiatives designed to attract new employers, create quality jobs, improve educational opportunities, increase health outcomes and advance public safety.

BroadbandUSA convenes workshops on a regular basis to bring stakeholders together to discuss ways to improve broadband policies, share best practices, and connect state and local stakeholders to other federal agencies and funding sources for the purpose of expanding broadband infrastructure and adoption throughout America. Experts from NTIA's BroadbandUSA program are available to provide technical assistance and to connect stakeholders with additional resources, such as best practices, guides and program models.

NTIA's BroadbandUSA team convenes events around the country to bring together government, industry and non-profit personnel working to expand broadband connectivity and improve digital inclusion and workforce skills. These webinars are among the events BroadbandUSA uses to share broadband information with the public, broadband stakeholders, tribal, local and state governments and federal programs.

Details on specific webinar topics and webinar registration information will be posted on the BroadbandUSA website, https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov under Events. These webinars are subject to change. Webinar time changes will be posted on the BroadbandUSA website, https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov under Events, at least thirty days in advance of the webinar. Any webinar cancellation will also be posted on the same website. Any date changes will be published in a new Federal Register notice and posted on the website. The presentation, transcript, and recording of each webinar will be posted on the BroadbandUSA website within 7 days following the live webinar.

The public is invited to participate in these webinars. General questions and comments are welcome at any time during webinars via email to BroadbandUSAwebinars@ntia.gov. The webinars are open to the public and press. Pre-registration is recommended. NTIA asks each registrant to provide their first and last name, city, state, zip code, job title, organization and email address for both registration purposes and to receive any updates on the BroadbandUSA program via email at BroadbandUSA@ntia.gov. Information on webinar content and how to register for one or more webinars will be available on NTIA's website at https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov under Events. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify the NTIA contact listed above at least seven (7) business days before the meeting.

Background: This National Telecommunications and Information Administration cybersecurity multistakeholder process focuses on promoting software component transparency. Most modern software is not written completely from scratch, but includes existing components, modules, and libraries from the open source and commercial software world. Modern development practices such as code reuse, and a dynamic IT marketplace with acquisitions and mergers, make it challenging to track the use of software components. The Internet of Things compounds this phenomenon, as new organizations, enterprises, and innovators take on the role of software developer to add “smart” features or connectivity to their products. While the majority of libraries and components do not have known vulnerabilities, many do, and the sheer quantity of software means that some software products ship with vulnerable or out-of-date components.

The first meeting of this multistakeholder process was held on July 19, 2018, in Washington, DC. 1 Stakeholders presented multiple perspectives, and identified several inter-related work streams: Understanding the Problem, Use Cases and State of Practice, Standards and Formats, and Healthcare Proof of Concept. Since then, stakeholders have been discussing key issues and developing products such as guidance documents. NTIA acts as the convener, but stakeholders drive the outcomes. Success of the process will be evaluated by the extent to which broader findings on software component transparency are implemented across the ecosystem.

The main objectives of the September 5, 2019, meeting are to review drafts provided by the working groups, discuss how they complement each other, and hear feedback from the broader stakeholder community. Stakeholders will also identify next steps in this effort, how progress can be made on extending the basic model, collecting tooling, and promoting awareness and adoption of stakeholder work. More information about stakeholders' work is available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/SoftwareTransparency.

Time and Date: NTIA will convene the next meeting of the multistakeholder process on Software Component Transparency on September 5, 2019, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Please refer to NTIA's website, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/SoftwareTransparency, for the most current information.

Place: The meeting will be held at the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006. The location of the meeting is subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's website, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/SoftwareTransparency, for the most current information.

Other Information: The meeting is open to the public and the press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Allan Friedman at (202) 482-4281 or afriedman@ntia.doc.gov at least seven (7) business days prior to each meeting. The meetings will also be webcast. Requests for real-time captioning of the webcast or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Allan Friedman at (202) 482-4281 or afriedman@ntia.doc.gov at least seven (7) business days prior to each meeting. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders viewing the webcast to participate remotely in the meetings through a moderated conference bridge, including polling functionality. Access details for the meetings are subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's website, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/SoftwareTransparency, for the most current information.

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Business Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the August 7, 2019 meeting of the Defense Business Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

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

Purpose of the Meeting: To obtain, review, and evaluate information related to the Board's mission in advising the Secretary of Defense on overall DoD management and governance on (a) issues central to strategic DoD planning; (b) policy implications of U.S. force structure and force modernization and on DoD's ability to execute U.S. defense strategy; (c) U.S. regional defense policies; and (d) other research and analysis of topics raised by the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, or Chief Management Officer (CMO) to allow the Board to provide informed, independent advice reflecting an outside private sector perspective of proven and effective best practices that can be applied to the DoD.

Agenda: The meeting will begin on August 7, 2019 at 7:55 a.m. with opening remarks by Ms. Roma Laster, the Designated Federal Officer, and Mr. Atul Vashistha, Interim Board Chairman. The day's presentations will begin with a series of panel discussions featuring DoD officials and private sector experts that will inform the Board's advice and recommendations to be provided on the CMO's ongoing reform efforts. Panels scheduled are:

Mr. James Baker, Director, Office of Net Assessment (ONA) and Mr. David Ochmanek will provide a classified briefing on current and future strategic challenges to DoD. The meeting will adjourn at 3:00 p.m.

Meeting Accessibility: In accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the Board's meeting will be closed to the public. Specifically, the CMO, after consultation with the DoD Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that the meeting will be closed as it will consider commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(4), as well as classified information covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). The 5 U.S.C. 552b(4) determination is based on the consideration that it is expected panel discussions will involve the sharing of commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential by the private sector participants. The 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) determination is based on the consideration that the ONA briefing is classified and it is expected that discussions throughout the briefing will involve classified matters of national security concern. Such privileged and proprietary information and classified material are so intertwined with the unclassified material that the sessions cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without defeating the effectiveness and meaning of the overall meeting. To permit the meeting to be open to the public would preclude any substantive discussion of such matters and would serve to greatly diminish the ultimate utility of the Board's findings and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and to the CMO.

Written Statements: Written comments may be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer via email to mailbox address: osd.pentagon.odam.mbx.defense-business-board@mail.mil in either Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word format. Please note that because the Board operates under the provisions of the FACA, all submitted comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the Board's website.

Background: The Denali Commission's mission is to partner with tribal, federal, state, and local governments and collaborate with all Alaskans to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government services, to build and ensure the operation and maintenance of Alaska's basic infrastructure, and to develop a well-trained labor force employed in a diversified and sustainable economy.

By creating the Commission, Congress mandated that all parties involved partner together to find new and innovative solutions to the unique infrastructure and economic development challenges in America's most remote communities. Pursuant to the Act, the Commission determines its own basic operating principles and funding criteria on an annual federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30) basis. The Commission outlines these priorities and funding recommendations in an annual work plan. The FY 2020 Work Plan was developed in the following manner.

• A workgroup comprised of Denali Commissioners and Commission staff developed a preliminary draft work plan.

• The preliminary draft work plan was published on Denali.gov for review by the public in advance of public testimony.

• A public hearing was held to record public comments and recommendations on the preliminary draft work plan.

• Written comments on the preliminary draft work plan were accepted for another ten days after the public hearing.

• All public hearing comments and written comments were provided to Commissioners for their review and consideration.

• Commissioners discussed the preliminary draft work plan in a public meeting and then voted on the work plan during the meeting.

• The Commissioners forwarded their recommended work plan to the Federal Co-Chair, who then prepared the draft work plan for publication in the Federal Register providing a 30-day period for public review and written comment. During this time, the draft work plan will also be disseminated to Commission program partners including, but not limited to, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Agriculture—Rural Utilities Service (USDA/RUS), and the State of Alaska.

• At the conclusion of the Federal Register Public comment period Commission staff provides the Federal Co-Chair with a summary of public comments and recommendations, if any, on the draft work plan.

• If no revisions are made to the draft, the Federal Co-Chair provides notice of approval of the work plan to the Commissioners, and forwards the work plan to the Secretary of Commerce for approval; or, if there are revisions the Federal Co-Chair provides notice of modifications to the Commissioners for their consideration and approval, and upon receipt of approval from Commissioners, forwards the work plan to the Secretary of Commerce for approval.

• The Secretary of Commerce approves the work plan.

• The Federal Co-Chair then approves grants and contracts based upon the approved work plan.

The Commission has historically received federal funding from several sources. The two primary sources at this time include the Energy & Water Appropriation Bill (“base” or “discretionary” funds) and an annual allocation from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) fund. The proposed FY 2020 Work Plan assumes the Commission will receive $15,000,000 of base funds, which is the amount referenced in the reauthorization of the Commission passed by Congress in 2016 (ref: Pub. L. 114-322), and a $2,917,000 TAPL allocation based on discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Approximately $2,500,000 of the base funds will be used for administrative expenses and non-project program support, leaving $12,500,000 available for program activities. The total base funding shown in the Work Plan also includes an amount typically available from project closeouts and other de-obligations that occur in any given year. Approximately $117,000 of the TAPL funds will be utilized for administrative expenses and non-project program support, leaving $2,800,000 available for program activities. Absent any new specific direction or limitations provided by Congress in the current Energy & Water Appropriations Bill, these funding sources are governed by the following general principles, either by statute or by language in the Work Plan itself:

• Funds from the Energy & Water Appropriation are eligible for use in all programs.

• TAPL funds can only be used for bulk fuel related projects and activities.

• Appropriated funds may be reduced due to Congressional action, rescissions by OMB, and other federal agency actions.

• All Energy & Water and TAPL investment amounts identified in the work plan, are “up to” amounts, and may be reassigned to other programs included in the current year work plan, if they are not fully expended in a program component area or a specific project.

• Energy & Water and TAPL funds set aside for administrative expenses that subsequently become available, may be used for program activities included in the current year work plan.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing TA, supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research.

Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)).

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

This priority is:

Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for the Development and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction, Interventions, and Services for Children with Disabilities (Center).

Background:

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles all eligible children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living. (20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A)). The individualized education program (IEP) is the primary vehicle through which FAPE is delivered to those eligible children and is the foundation for each eligible child's special education programming.

The 2017 U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, stated that “a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances,” id. at 999, and that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives,” id. at 1000. As the Supreme Court noted, “The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Id. at 1001. The Court's opinion reiterated that an adequate special education program includes development of challenging objectives in the IEP designed to enable the child with disabilities to make progress. School personnel must “be able to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances.”  1 Id. at 1002.

After the Court's ruling, some LEAs and schools requested TA for setting and meeting these high standards. This Center will disseminate to the field knowledge and best practices developed through research and provide intensive TA to a group of LEAs, CMOs, and schools that are examining and testing the features, activities, and relationships that ensure that the broadest set of children with disabilities have access to high-quality IEPs and the provision of a FAPE consistent with the Endrew F. decision as articulated by the Court. 2 This Center must be operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and Federal civil rights laws.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for the Development and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction, Interventions, and Services for Children with Disabilities (Center). This Center will develop knowledge, disseminate strategies and products, and provide TA for LEAs, CMOs, private school associations, and schools to develop and implement high-quality special education programs that enable children with disabilities to make progress toward meeting challenging objectives in light of each child's circumstances.

The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Design and refinement of a framework that incorporates theories, knowledge base, and effective policies, procedures, practices, and tools that can be used in a variety of settings  3 to develop and implement high-quality IEPs and the provision of a FAPE consistent with the Endrew F. decision by showing positive impact on the achievement of challenging objectives by children with disabilities;

(b) Increased knowledge of the practices that support high expectations and the achievement of challenging goals and objectives tailored to children's individual circumstances;

(c) Increased knowledge of how to improve students' access to appropriate, effective, and individualized instruction and services that enable appropriate developmental, social, academic, and functional progress and achievement; and

(d) Increased use of evidence-based  4 knowledge, tools, and products demonstrated to increase the capacity of LEAs, CMOs, and schools to develop and implement high-quality IEPs and the provision of a FAPE consistent with the Endrew F. decision and to have a positive impact on the progress toward meeting and the achievement of challenging objectives by children with disabilities.

In addition to meeting the programmatic requirements in this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Identify and address the current and emerging needs of LEAs, CMOs, and school personnel to develop and implement high-quality IEPs reasonably calculated to enable children to make progress based on challenging goals and objectives and high expectations in light of each child's circumstances. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—

(i) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local research demonstrating significant features, components, and practices of IEP development and implementation on student progress and achievement of challenging objectives;

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives, including disability policy initiatives, that identify and address the particular and ongoing capacity needs of LEA, CMO, and school personnel, and school personnel in a variety of settings, and how they are likely to change, translate, and expand the general and special education approach to programming and implementing instruction and related services for students with disabilities;

(iii) Present information about how school leaders and practitioners access and utilize knowledge, tools, and products, which are developed based on evidence of their ability to impact progress and achievement of students with disabilities; and

(2) Improve the knowledge and use of the features of IEP development and implementation that have been shown to be positively related to progress and achievement of challenging goals and objectives by children with disabilities in rural, suburban, and urban communities, as well as those living in poverty or attending a high-need school, 5 and indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—

(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and

(ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients of the grant;

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model  6 by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals and how they will be measured, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The research methods for determining the salient IEP development and implementation of EBPs that are most closely related to ensuring children with disabilities are offered IEPs that are reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances, as outlined in the IDEA, the Endrew F. decision, and current practices in rural, suburban, and urban communities, as well as those living in poverty or attending a high-need school;

(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and

(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base of:

(A) The relationships among IEP development, service delivery, parent engagement, and individual student outcomes; and

(B) The ways in which improved implementation of instructional practices and related services guided by the IEPs lead to improved student outcomes;

(ii) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, 7 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that will receive the products and services designed to impact student progress and achievement based on the improved development and implementation of IEPs;

(B) The proposed measures and instruments used to show fidelity of implementation of the identified salient IEP development and implementation features as well as the impact on student progress and achievement;

(C) Its proposed approach to the selection of TA recipients, including how it will measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their need and interest, current infrastructure, available resources, and feasibility and likelihood of increasing capacity at the LEA, CMO, private school association, and school levels;

(D) Its proposed plan for collaborating with the State educational agencies (SEAs) to work with and assist LEAs, CMOs, and schools in developing and enhancing sustainable systems, consistent with the Endrew F. decision, that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching;

(E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system ( e.g., SEAs, LEAs, CMOs, schools, families) to ensure there is communication between each level and there are systems in place to support the use of EBPs; and

(F) Its proposed plan for disseminating lessons learned from LEAs, CMOs, and schools receiving the intensive TA for universal TA recipients;

(iii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, 8 which must identify the intended recipients, including the educators, administrators, parents, and service providers, and how they will access and utilize:

(A) The knowledge developed through the research methods described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of these application and administrative requirements;

(B) The tools and products developed through the activities described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of these application and administrative requirements; and

(C) The lessons learned from the delivery of intensive TA on IEP development and implementation.

(6) Develop products and implement services that are impartial and maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will ensure that its products and services are not designed to influence the enrollment or placement decisions of parents of children with disabilities and are designed to support services for children with disabilities equally, regardless of placement;

(ii) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(iii) How the proposed project will collaborate with other organizations and Department-funded TA centers, including parent centers, and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iv) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project as described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe: Measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and services have met the goals for reaching its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met. Applicants must also include a proposed plan for collecting baseline, targeted, and outcome data for each intensive TA site.

The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the evaluation plan, it will—

(1) Designate, with the approval of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIP3), 9 the project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following tasks:

(i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the application to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting;

(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the application consistent with the logic model ( e.g., prepare evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes; develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation, as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify analytic strategies); and

(iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the application such that it clearly—

(A) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completing the plan;

(B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the second project year for use during the project's evaluation (3+2 review) for continued funding described under the heading Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; and

(C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project officer, with the assistance of CIP3, as needed, to specify the performance measures to be addressed in the project's annual performance report;

(2) Cooperate with CIP3 staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and

(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section and implementing the evaluation plan.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience, to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) How key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) How the proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

(4) How the proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A two-day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

(ii) A two-and-one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;

(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and

(iv) A two-day intensive 3+2 review meeting during the second year of the project period;

(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 10 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs and future Department policy initiatives that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs and initiatives are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period; and

(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;

(5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website; and

(6) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to a new award at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:

In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as well as—

(a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue funding accordingly.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: $2,000,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2020 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $2,000,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State lead agencies under Part C of the IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

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

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

4. Other General Requirements:

(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2019.

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

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 70 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1Prime; margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed below:

(a) Significance (10 points).

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

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

(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.

(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.

(b) Quality of project services (35 points).

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

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

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

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.

(ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that framework.

(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.

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

(v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.

(c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.

(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.

(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15 points).

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.

(iv) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and independence, of the evaluator.

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

(vi) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

(vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.

(viii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

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

(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

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

(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.

(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives is brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.

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

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

3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program. These measures are:

• Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review the substantive content of the products and services.

• Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of all Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program includes the percentage of milestones achieved in the current annual performance report period and the percentage of funds spent during the current fiscal year.

• Long-term Program Performance Measure: The percentage of States receiving Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based practices for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities that successfully promote the implementation of those practices in school districts and service agencies.

The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by stakeholders and may require the Center to report on such alignment in their annual and final performance reports.

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

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

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5081A, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

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

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

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: Application for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP).

OMB Control Number: 1810-0646.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 6,049.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20,683.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) administers the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program (authorized under sections 5211-5212 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)) and the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program (authorized under ESEA section 5221). In order to make grant awards to eligible SRSA and RLIS entities, the Department must collect information from State and local educational agencies. The information collected is used to determine the eligibility of individual LEAs and calculate the allocation each eligible LEA should receive according to formulas prescribed in the ESEA.

Purpose: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Technical Guidelines Development Committee will conduct a conference call to discuss Voluntary Voting System Guidelines and Usability Requirements.

Agenda: The Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) will discuss the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 (VVSG 2.0) High Quality Design, High Quality Implementation, Transparency, and Interoperability Requirements. TGDC will discuss the next TGDC meeting dates and the continuing steps to develop the Requirements. There may be votes conducted on this call.

The TGDC will discuss the Usability and Accessibility Requirements of the VVSG 2.0. Draft VVSG Requirements can be found at the TWiki page link: https://collaborate.nist.gov/voting/bin/view/Voting/VVSG20DraftRequirements. The most current version of the draft VVSG 2.0 Requirements is clearly marked at the top of the page to ensure the latest version is the topic of discussion at the time of the meetings. As stated in the disclaimer (and in each document), the Requirements are in a draft state and are not yet ready for final posting in their current form. These are provided “as is” for facilitating our on-going discussions, but do not yet represent an official or final version. Members of the public may submit relevant written statements to about the meeting's content the TGDC with no later than 3:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 2, 2019.

Statements may be sent electronically via https://www.eac.gov/contact/, via standard mail addressed to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, TGDC, 1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or by fax at 301-734-3108. Notice of this meeting is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting date and time because the TGDC was unable to establish a quorum prior to the 15 day publication requirement.

This conference call will be open to the public.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Purpose of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee (EM&R): The EM&R Committee provides a citizens' perspective to NNMCAB on current and future environmental remediation activities resulting from historical Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operations and, in particular, issues pertaining to groundwater, surface water and work required under the New Mexico Environment Department Order on Consent. The EM&R Committee will keep abreast of DOE-EM and site programs and plans. The committee will work with the NNMCAB to provide assistance in determining priorities and the best use of limited funds and time. Formal recommendations will be proposed when needed and, after consideration and approval by the full NNMCAB, may be sent to DOE-EM for action.

Purpose of the Waste Management (WM) Committee: The WM Committee reviews policies, practices and procedures, existing and proposed, so as to provide recommendations, advice, suggestions and opinions to the NNMCAB regarding waste management operations at the Los Alamos site.

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The NNMCAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the internet at: http://energy.gov/em/nnmcab/meeting-materials.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, EPA seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides if they conduct experimental field tests on more than 10 acres of land or more than one surface acre of water.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), EPA has determined that the following EUP application may be of regional or national significance, and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:

Submitter: Valent BioSciences LLC, 870 Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048 (73049-EUP-RE).

Pesticide Chemical: 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC).

Summary of Request: The biochemical plant regulator ACC is intended to be applied to apples and stone fruits at flowering for the purpose of fruit thinning. The objective of the testing is to verify the efficacy of and crop tolerance to the test pesticide product under commercial production methods. The testing is intended to last 3 years. The testing will take place on 1,800 acres and 325 pounds of formulated pesticide product (30 pounds of active ingredient) will be applied in total each year. The testing on apples will occur in the following states: California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The apple applications will be applied at 46 fluid ounces of pesticide per acre on a total of 1,150 acres each year. The testing on stone fruits will occur in the following states: California, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The stone fruit applications will be applied at 103 fluid ounces of pesticide per acre on a total of 650 acres each year. (Note: The formulated pesticide product contains 10% active ingredient and is diluted for spraying.)

Following the review of the application and any comments and data received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register .

Background: The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee. The CASAC provides advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and NAAQS under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC shall also: Advise the EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information; advise the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity; and advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS.

As amended, Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA reviews the NAAQS at five-year intervals and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including PM and ozone.

This Federal Register notice solicitation is seeking nominations for consultants to support the Chartered CASAC for the PM and ozone reviews. These consultants will review science and policy assessments, and related documents, and will make themselves available, as requested, to provide feedback to the Chartered CASAC as part of EPA's review of the PM and Ozone NAAQS. The Chartered CASAC will provide advice to the EPA Administrator in a manner consistent with the Clean Air Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act, and CASAC's charter. These consultants should be available for consultation, through CASAC's Chair and Designated Federal Official. Chartered CASAC members will have the opportunity to seek input from consultants through written requests provided to CASAC's Chair and facilitated by the Designated Federal Official.

The Chartered CASAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As a Federal Advisory Committee, the chartered CASAC conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. The Chartered CASAC will comply with the provisions of FACA.

Request for Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of scientists with demonstrated expertise and research in the field of air pollution related to PM and ozone, including:

• Air quality, atmospheric science and chemistry (including ambient measurements and satellite remote sensing aerosol optical depth analysis);

• exposure assessment (including dispersion modeling, photochemical grid modeling, and errors-in-variables methods and effects of exposure/covariate estimation errors on epidemiologic study results);

• dosimetry;

• toxicology;

• comparative toxicology (including extrapolation of findings in animals to humans);

• controlled clinical exposure;

• epidemiology (including low-dose causal concentration-response functions);

• biostatistics;

• human exposure modeling;

• causal inference;

• biological mechanisms of causation;

• risk assessment/modeling;

• multi-stressor interactions;

• ecology and effects on welfare and the environment;

• and effects on visibility impairment, climate, and materials.

Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals in the areas of expertise described above. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations should be submitted via email to the DFO, Mr. Aaron Yeow, as identified above. EPA values and welcomes diversity. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply regardless of sex, race, disability or ethnicity. Nominations should be submitted by August 21, 2019.

The following information should be provided to the DFO: Contact information for the person making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vitae; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background; research activities; sources of research funding for the last two years; and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. Persons having questions about the nomination process should contact the DFO, as identified above. The DFO will acknowledge receipt of nominations. The Administrator shall select the expert consultants.

In selecting these consultants, the Administrator will consider information provided by the candidates themselves, and additional background information. Selection criteria to be used for selecting consultants include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors) necessary to address anticipated questions from the CASAC; (b) availability and willingness to provide feedback to the Chartered CASAC as requested; (c) skills providing subject matter expertise to committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and, (d) diversity of expertise.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0214.

Title: Sections 73.3526 and 73.3527, Local Public Inspection Files; Sections 73.1212, 76.1701 and 73.1943, Political Files.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal government; Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 23,984 respondents; 62,839 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-52 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections is contained in Sections 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 2,043,805 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: The Commission prepared a system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-2, “Broadcast Station Public Inspection Files,” that covers the PII contained in the broadcast station public inspection files located on the Commission's website. The Commission will revise appropriate privacy requirements as necessary to include any entities and information added to the online public file in this proceeding.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Most of the documents comprising the public file consist of materials that are not of a confidential nature. Respondents complying with the information collection requirements may request that the information they submit be withheld from disclosure. If confidentiality is requested, such requests will be processed in accordance with the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

In addition, the Commission has adopted provisions that permit respondents subject to the information collection requirement for Shared Service Agreements to redact confidential or proprietary information from their disclosures.

Needs and Uses: On July 10, 2019, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in MB Docket Nos. 18-202 and 17-105, FCC 19-67, In the Matter of Children's Television Programming Rules; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, which modernizes the children's television programming rules in light of changes to the media landscape that have occurred since the rules were first adopted. The Report and Order revises the following information collection requirements:

Pursuant to 47 CFR 73.3526(e)(11)(ii), commercial TV and Class A TV broadcast stations must maintain records sufficient to permit substantiation of the station's certification, in its license renewal application, of compliance with the commercial limits on children's programming established in 47 U.S.C. Section 303a and 47 CFR 73.670. In the Report and Order, the Commission revises this rule to permit these stations to place such records in their public files annually rather than quarterly and to permit the filing of these records within 30 days after the end of the calendar year. The Commission also revises 47 CFR 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) to require commercial television stations to place in their public files the Children's Television Programming Report (Report) (FCC Form 2100 Schedule H) on an annual rather than quarterly basis, within 30 days after the end of the calendar year and to eliminate the requirement to publicize the existence and location of the Report.

All other information collection requirements contained under 47 CFR 73.1212, 73.3526, 73.3527, 73.1943, and 76.1701 are still a part of the information collection and remain unchanged since last approved by OMB.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0316.

Title: 47 CFR 76.5, Definitions, 76.1700, Records to Be Maintained Locally by Cable System Operators; 76.1702, Equal Employment Opportunity; 76.1703, Commercial Records on Children's Programs; 76.1707, Leased Access; 76.1711, Emergency Alert System (EAS) Tests and Activation.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,000 respondents; 3,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 14 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 42,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impacts.

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

Needs and Uses: On July 10, 2019, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in MB Docket Nos. 18-202 and 17-105, FCC 19-67, In the Matter of Children's Television Programming Rules; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, which modernizes the children's television programming rules in light of changes to the media landscape that have occurred since the rules were first adopted. The Report and Order revises the following information collection requirements:

Pursuant to 47 CFR 76.1703, cable operators that air children's programming must maintain records sufficient to verify compliance with 47 CFR 76.225 and make such records available to the public. Such records must be maintained for a period sufficient to cover the limitations period specified in 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b)(6)(B). In the Report and Order, the Commission revises the rules to permit cable television operators to file their certifications of compliance with the commercial limits in children's programming annually rather than quarterly and to permit the filing of these certifications within 30 days after the end of the calendar year.

All other information collection requirements contained under 47 CFR 76.5, 76.1700, 76.1702, 76.1703, 76.1707, and 76.1711 are still a part of the information collection and remain unchanged since last approved by OMB.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0750.

Title: 47 CFR 73.671, Educational and Informational Programming for Children; 47 CFR 73.673, Public Information Initiatives Regarding Educational and informational Programming for Children.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,770 respondents; 1,125,720 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.017-0.084 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 303, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 57,560 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impacts.

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

Needs and Uses: On July 10, 2019, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in MB Docket Nos. 18-202 and 17-105, FCC 19-67, In the Matter of Children's Television Programming Rules; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, which modernizes the children's television programming rules in light of changes to the media landscape that have occurred since the rules were first adopted. The Report and Order revises the following information collection requirements:

Pursuant to 47 CFR 73.671(c)(5), each commercial television broadcast station must identify programming as specifically designed to educate and inform children by the display on the television screen throughout the program of the symbol E/I. This requirement is intended to assist parents in identifying educational and informational programming for their children. Noncommercial television broadcast stations are no longer be required to identify Core Programming by displaying the E/I symbol throughout the program.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 73.671(e), each television broadcast station that preempts an episode of a regularly scheduled weekly Core Program on its primary stream will be permitted to count the episode toward the Core Programming processing guidelines if it reschedules the episode on its primary stream in accordance with the requirements of 47 CFR 73.671(e). Similarly, each television broadcast station that preempts an episode of a regularly scheduled weekly Core Program on a multicast stream will be permitted to count the episode toward the Core Programming processing guidelines if it reschedules the episode on the multicast stream in accordance with the requirements of 47 CFR 73.671(e). Among other requirements, the station must make an on-air notification of the schedule change during the same time slot as the preempted episode. The on-air notification must include the alternate date and time when the program will air. This requirement will help to ensure that parents and children are able to locate the rescheduled program.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 73.673, each commercial television broadcast station licensee must provide information identifying programming specifically designed to educate and inform children to publishers of program guides. This requirement is intended to improve the information available to parents regarding programming specifically designed for children's educational and informational needs. Commercial television broadcast station licensees are no longer be required to provide program guide publishers an indication of the age group for which the programming is intended. The Report and Order finds that very few program guides include this information.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1065.

Title: Section 25.701 of the Commission's Rules, Direct Broadcast Satellite Public Interest Obligations.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2 respondents; 2 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-10 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; one time reporting requirement; annual reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority which covers this information collection is contained in Section 335 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 48 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impacts.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Although the Commission does not believe that any confidential information will need to be disclosed in order to comply with the information collection requirements, applicants are free to request that materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection. (See 47 CFR 0.459).

Needs and Uses: On July 10, 2019, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in MB Docket Nos. 18-202 and 17-105, FCC 19-67, In the Matter of Children's Television Programming Rules; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, which modernizes the children's television programming rules in light of changes to the media landscape that have occurred since the rules were first adopted. The Report and Order revises the following information collection requirements:

Pursuant to 47 CFR 25.701(e)(3), DBS providers that air children's programming must maintain records sufficient to verify compliance with this rule and make such records available to the public. Such records must be maintained for a period sufficient to cover the limitations period specified in 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b)(6)(B). In the Report and Order, the Commission revises the rules to permit DBS operators to file their certifications of compliance with the commercial limits in children's programming annually rather than quarterly and to permit the filing of these certifications within 30 days after the end of the calendar year.

All other information collection requirements contained under 47 CFR 25.701 are still a part of the information collection and remain unchanged since last approved by OMB.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0626.

Title: Section 90.483, Permissible Methods and Requirements of Interconnecting Private and Public Systems of Communications.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business of other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 100 respondents; 100 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

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

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

T otal Annual Burden: 100 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: When a frequency is shared by more than one system, automatic monitoring equipment must be installed at the base station to prevent activation of the transmitter when signals of co-channel stations are present and activation would interfere with communications in progress. Licensees may operate without the monitoring equipment if they have obtained the consent of all co-channel licensees located within a 120 kilometer (75 mile) radius of the interconnected base station transmitter. A statement must be submitted to the Commission indicating that all co-channel licensees have consented to operate without the monitoring equipment. This information is necessary to ensure that licensees comply with the Commission's technical and operational rules, and to prevent activation of the transmitter when signals of co-channel stations are present and could possibly interfere with communications in process.

The Commission is requesting emergency OMB processing of the information collection requirement(s) contained in this notice and has requested OMB approval no later than 35 days after the collection is received at OMB. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of Commission ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Application to Participate in a Toll Free Number Auction, FCC Form 833.

Form Number: FCC Form 833.

Type of Review: New information collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Individuals or households, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government, State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 200 respondents; 200 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201(b) and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 251(e)(1).

Total Annual Burden: 300 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $0.

Privacy Impact Assessment: The Commission is preparing to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Information collected on FCC Form 833 is made available for public inspection, and the Commission is not requesting that respondents submit confidential information as part of the pre-auction application process. For individuals, the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(a), is the statutory authority for confidentiality and applies to this information collection. To the extent the information submitted pursuant to this information collection is determined to be confidential, it will be protected by the Commission. If a respondent seeks to have certain information collected on FCC Form 833 withheld from public inspection, the respondent may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 0.459.

Needs and Uses: The Commission's rules and related requirements are designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process for assigning toll free numbers is limited to qualified applicants, deter possible abuse of the bidding process, and enhance the use of competitive bidding to assign toll free numbers in furtherance of the public interest. Applicants will use FCC Form 833 to submit the required disclosures and certifications, and the information collected on FCC Form 833 will then be reviewed to determine if an applicant is qualified to bid in the 833 code toll free number auction (833 Auction). The 833 Auction will not be able to occur without the collection of information on FCC Form 833. Without the information collected on FCC Form 833, a determination of whether the applicant is qualified to bid in the 833 Auction cannot be made.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Toll Free Number Auctions.

Form Number: FCC-5633.

Type of Review: New information collection.

Respondents: Individuals or Households, Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit Institutions, Farms and/or Federal, State, Local and/or Tribal government agencies.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,220 respondents; 1,220 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.084 hours (5 minutes)-0.166 hours (10 minutes).

Frequency of Response: On occasion and one-time reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1).

Total Annual Burden: 105 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: The Commission is preparing to conduct a Privacy Act Impact Assessment (PIA).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that respondents for this information collection (LOA and Secondary Market) submit confidential information to the FCC. For individuals, the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, is the statutory authority for confidentiality and it applies to this information collection. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: On September 27, 2018, the Commission released a Report and Order in WC Docket No. 17-192, FCC 18-137 ( Report and Order ). In the Report and Order, the Commission established competitive bidding as a toll free number assignment method, and called for an auction for select numbers in the toll free code 833 as an experiment to test this method. To verify the relationship between the responsible organization (RespOrg) and the potential subscriber, a Letter of Authorization (LOA) is required during the bidding process. Additionally, a key component to the effectiveness of the auction is the adoption of a post-auction secondary market (Secondary Market) for the sale of the rights to use 833 code toll free numbers. Collecting data on Secondary Market transactions will allow the Commission to evaluate the entire experimental auction process and determine the potential use of competitive bidding in future toll free number assignments.

The ASC was established by Title XI. 1 The purpose of Title XI is “to provide that Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related transactions will be protected by requiring that real estate appraisals utilized in connection with federally related transactions are performed in writing, in accordance with uniform standards, by individuals whose competency has been demonstrated and whose professional conduct will be subject to effective supervision.”  2 Section 1119(b) of Title XI authorizes the ASC to waive, on a temporary basis and with concurrence of the FFIEC, “any requirement relating to certification or licensing of a person to perform appraisals under [Title XI] upon a written determination that there is a scarcity of certified or licensed appraisers to perform appraisals in connection with federally related transactions  3 in a State, or in any geographical political subdivision of a State, leading to significant delays in the performance of such appraisals.”  4 Congress intended that the ASC exercise this waiver authority “cautiously.”  5

The ASC has promulgated regulations that set forth procedures  6 governing the processing of temporary waiver requests. After receiving a waiver request, the ASC is required to issue a public notice in the Federal Register requesting comment on the request for a proposed temporary waiver. Within 15 days of the close of the 30-day comment period, the ASC, by order, must grant or deny a waiver, in whole or in part, and with specified terms or conditions, including provisions for waiver termination. The ASC's order shall respond to comments received, provide reasons for its finding, and be published promptly in the Federal Register . Any ASC approval order shall be effective only upon FFIEC concurrence.

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

On May 30, 2019, the ASC published a Notice of Received Request for a Temporary Waiver giving interested persons 30 days to submit comments, including submission of written data, views and arguments. 7 The comment period closed on July 1, 2019. A discussion of the public comments received by the ASC concerning the request for temporary waiver relief follows in Section III below.

The ASC called a Special Meeting to consider this matter on July 9, 2019, and voted to approve the issuance of this final order granting in part, upon specified terms and conditions, and subject to FFIEC concurrence, temporary waiver relief. The FFIEC met via teleconference on July 12, 2019, and a quorum of the Council being present, took the following action: Pursuant to § 1119(b) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, the Council approved the temporary waiver granted by the ASC on July 9, 2019.

The Requester sought a temporary waiver of the appraiser credentialing requirements for appraisals for FRTs under $500,000 for 1-to-4 family residential real estate transactions and under $1,000,000 for agricultural and commercial real estate transactions throughout the State of North Dakota for a period of not less than five years. The Requester stated that a scarcity of appraisers exists, particularly in the rural areas of the western part of the State, indicating that of the 53 counties in North Dakota, 29 counties do not have a single appraiser residing in the county, and that while the most severe impact of the appraiser scarcity has been experienced in western and the most rural districts in North Dakota, the population centers are also impacted.

The Requester conducted a survey to assess what lenders deem are appropriate turnaround times for residential and commercial appraisals. The Requester summarized the results of the survey as follows:

• 81 percent reported that up to 30 days is appropriate for residential appraisals.

• 80 percent reported that up to 60 days is appropriate for commercial appraisals.

• 65 percent reported a delay in receiving a residential real estate appraisal, and 71 percent reported a delay in receiving a commercial appraisal.

• 57 percent reported unreasonable delays in receiving residential real estate appraisals in the prior 12 months. 72 percent reported unreasonable delays in receiving commercial appraisals in the prior 12 months.

The Requester acknowledged that federal banking agencies and NCUA have proposed increases to the appraisal thresholds, 8 stating that “[if adopted, it] will have a positive effect that is similar to that which can be achieved by the granting of this waiver since both approaches will provide much needed relief.”

The ASC received 109  9 comment letters in response to the published Notice of Received Request for a Temporary Waiver and request for comment. These comment letters were received from State appraiser certifying and licensing agencies, appraiser and mortgage lending associations, professional associations, appraisal firms, appraisers, and several banks and financial institution associations in the State of North Dakota.

While a few commenters supported the granting of a temporary waiver, the majority of comments received were from appraisers opposing the granting of a temporary waiver. Associations representing insured depository institutions in North Dakota (banks and credit unions) meanwhile argued that the waiver would provide some measure of relief in local communities without increasing any safety and soundness risks. Several other commenters disputed that there was a shortage of appraisers in North Dakota and that there are significant delays. Specifically, commenters offered data showing that the number of appraisers in North Dakota is consistent with other similarly populated States. Commenters also stated that the turn time of appraisals in North Dakota average within the Requester's range of appropriate turn times. Commenters also noted decreased economic activity in North Dakota and that turn times have improved in recent years. Several commenters also expressed varying concerns about the long term impact a waiver would have on appraisers and the appraisal profession, consumers and the safety and soundness of the North Dakota banking system. Several commenters reported making attempts to be added to lender lists of approved appraisers without success. Several commenters asked if a waiver were granted, who would be qualified to perform a Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)-compliant appraisal without the training and education a credentialed appraiser is required to have, and with whom consumers and other parties would file a complaint. Commenters also expressed concern over the loss of protection to the public if a waiver is granted. The ASC acknowledges these concerns and emphasizes that this is a temporary waiver while more long-term solutions are researched and implemented by the Requester and interested stakeholders in the State of North Dakota. In the interim, lenders are still required to obtain USPAP-compliant appraisals for FRTs and should review appraisals for compliance with USPAP. Several commenters challenged the ASC's authority to exercise temporary waiver discretion at this point in time, commenting that the statutory provision was meant to be applied when States were first setting up appraiser regulatory programs and were perhaps not going to be able to meet the statutory deadline to establish a program. The ASC notes that the statute includes no expiration of the waiver provisions in the statute.

The North Dakota Real Estate Appraiser Qualifications and Ethics Board (Appraiser Board) provided a letter in which they recommend denying the request. The Appraiser Board reported a 44 percent increase in appraisers since 2009 and submitted data in support of their position. The letter from the Appraiser Board also addressed recent regulatory changes that have been made or are being considered that address many of the concerns in the request.

In order to grant a temporary waiver, the ASC must make a determination that a scarcity of credentialed appraisers is leading to significant delays in obtaining appraisals for FRTs in the geographic area  10 specified in the request. In considering this request, the ASC examined both evidence of a scarcity of appraisers in North Dakota, and evidence of scarcity leading to significant delay. The ASC noted that North Dakota's appraisal turnaround time is one of the slowest in the country. In this case, while data provided to the ASC by the Requester and the Appraiser Board and included in public comments, was not consistent and sometimes conflicted, the majority of the ASC members concluded that a scarcity of appraisers does exist in North Dakota and that the scarcity is leading to a significant delay in appraisal services for FRTs. Therefore, by majority vote, the ASC determined to grant in part, subject to specified terms and conditions, and subject to FFIEC concurrence, temporary waiver relief as follows:

• A temporary waiver of appraiser credentialing requirements for appraisals of FRTs under $500,000 for 1-to-4 family residential real estate transactions throughout the State of North Dakota for a period of one year, unless the federal banking agencies issue a rule increasing appraisal exemption threshold limits for residential real estate transactions, 11 in which case the residential waiver will terminate 60 days after the effective date of that threshold increase.

• A temporary waiver of appraiser credentialing requirements for appraisals of FRTs under $1,000,000 for commercial real estate transactions  12 throughout the State of North Dakota for a period of one year.

• During the one-year period, the Requester is expected to develop a plan through continued dialogue with North Dakota stakeholders, including the Appraiser Board, to identify potential solutions to address appraiser scarcity and appraisal delay.

• At least 30 days prior to the expiration of the one-year period, the Requester should provide (1) a status report to the ASC on the plan that was developed in collaboration with stakeholders and any implementation progress made on that plan toward identifying meaningful solutions to resolve appraiser scarcity and delay issues faced in North Dakota; and (2) supporting data showing that appraiser scarcity leading to significant delays continues to exist, which may include information to identify specific localities affected by appraiser scarcity. The ASC will consider the information as presented by the Requester, and by vote in open session, may extend the temporary waiver for an additional one-year period.

• The ASC at any time may terminate a waiver order on a finding that significant delay in the receipt of appraisals for FRTs no longer exists, or that the terms and conditions of the order are not being satisfied.

For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to section 1119(b) of Title XI and 12 CFR part 1102, subpart A, the ASC grants temporary waiver relief to the Requester, subject to the following specified terms and conditions:

• A temporary waiver of appraiser credentialing requirements for appraisals of FRTs under $500,000 for 1-to-4 family residential real estate transactions throughout the State of North Dakota for a period of one year, unless the federal banking agencies issue a rule increasing appraisal exemption threshold limits for residential real estate transactions, 13 in which case the residential waiver will terminate 60 days after the effective date of that threshold increase.

• A temporary waiver of appraiser credentialing requirements for appraisals of FRTs under $1,000,000 for commercial real estate transactions throughout the State of North Dakota for a period of one year.

• During the one-year period, the Requester is expected to develop a plan through continued dialogue with North Dakota stakeholders, including the Appraiser Board, to identify potential solutions to address appraiser scarcity and appraisal delay.

• At least 30 days prior to the expiration of the one-year period, the Requester should provide (1) a status report to the ASC on the plan that was developed in collaboration with stakeholders and any implementation progress made on that plan toward identifying meaningful solutions to resolve appraiser scarcity and delay issues faced in North Dakota; and (2) supporting data showing that appraiser scarcity leading to significant delays continues to exist, which may include information to identify specific localities affected by appraiser scarcity. The ASC will consider the information as presented by the Requester, and by vote in open session, may extend the temporary waiver for an additional one-year period.

• The ASC at any time may terminate a waiver order on a finding that significant delay in the receipt of appraisals for FRTs no longer exists, or that the terms and conditions of the order are not being satisfied.

The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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 Agency intends to add a nonvoting industry representative(s) to the following advisory committee:

The committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products which are intended for use in the prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of human diseases, and, as required, any other products for which FDA has regulatory responsibility. The committee also considers the quality and relevance of FDA's research program which provides scientific support for the regulation of these products and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (Commissioner).

Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES ). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching a complete list of all such organizations, as well as a list of all nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry interests for the committee. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

Individuals may self-nominate, and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES ) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES ). FDA will forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not participate in the selection process).

FDA seeks to include the views of women, men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and therefore encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

Oligonucleotide therapeutics typically are synthetically modified single- or double-stranded ribonucleic acid (RNA) or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that exert pharmacologic effects through a variety of mechanisms ( e.g., altered splicing, RNA interference, immunomodulation, microRNA modulation). Compared to small molecule or biological products, oligonucleotide therapeutics have unique characteristics regarding their chemistry, pharmacology, sites of action, pharmacokinetic disposition, and pharmacodynamics. As a result, there may be special considerations for the design and conduct of clinical pharmacology studies to assess oligonucleotide therapeutics, such as those designed to evaluate the effects of organ impairment or drug interactions. Currently, none of FDA's currently published guidance documents on clinical pharmacology assessments contain specific recommendations for oligonucleotide therapeutics.

Interested persons are invited to provide detailed information and comments on certain aspects of evaluating the clinical pharmacology of oligonucleotide therapeutics. This request focuses on oligonucleotide therapeutics designed to hybridize to a cognate RNA to elicit a pharmacologic effect. For all questions, organize any discussion by the type of oligonucleotide therapeutics ( e.g., by chemistry or modification type). Please provide the rationale for your suggestions and include supporting data if available. FDA is particularly interested in responses to the following overarching questions:

(1) Evaluating Drug-Drug Interactions (DDIs)

(a) Under what circumstances should clinical DDI assessment be warranted or not warranted for oligonucleotide therapeutics?

(b) In circumstances where DDI assessments are warranted:

(i) What types of DDI assessments are suitable and why ( e.g., in vitro studies, dedicated clinical studies, cocktail studies, population pharmacokinetic analyses)? Please discuss the advantages, challenges, and limitations with each type of assessment.

(ii) What are the study design considerations ( e.g., in vitro test systems, population, analytes) for the types of assessments discussed in item (1)(b)(i) above? Please describe the rationale for any design considerations proposed.

(2) Evaluating the Pharmacokinetics in Organ Impairment

(a) Under what circumstances are organ impairment assessments for oligonucleotide therapeutics warranted or not warranted for:

(i) Renal function

(ii) hepatic function

(b) In circumstances where organ impairment assessments are warranted:

(i) What types of assessments are suitable for renal and/or hepatic impairment and why ( e.g., dedicated clinical studies, population pharmacokinetic analyses)? Please discuss the advantages, challenges, and limitations with each type of assessment.

(ii) What are the study design considerations ( e.g., study population) for the types of assessments discussed in item (2)(b)(i) above for renal and/or hepatic impairment? Please describe the rationale for any design considerations proposed.

(3) Evaluating Immunogenicity

(a) Under what circumstances are immunogenicity assessments of oligonucleotide therapeutics warranted or not warranted?

(b) In circumstances where immunogenicity assessments are warranted:

What types of assessments are suitable and why ( e.g., antibodies against other components of the formulation, antibodies against a newly created “splice-altered” protein, neutralizing titers, cytokine measurements)? Please discuss the advantages, challenges, and limitations with each type of assessment.

(4) Evaluating QT Prolongation

(a) Under what circumstances are cardiac electrophysiology assessments warranted or not warranted in the evaluation of oligonucleotide therapeutics?

(b) In circumstances where cardiac electrophysiology assessments are warranted:

What types of assessments are suitable and why ( e.g., hERG inhibition assay, thorough QT assessment) in nonclinical or clinical studies? Please discuss the advantages, challenges, and limitations with each type of assessment.

(5) With regard to the four questions above, when a sponsor seeks to rely on previously generated data and information that it owns or to which it has a right of reference, what scientific findings may be applied across the sponsor's oligonucleotide therapeutics with shared characteristics ( e.g., similar backbone modifications)?

FDA will consider all information and comments submitted.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain relevant clinical pharmacology guidances at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents.

Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) as amended by the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Pub L. 108-276) and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub L. 113-5) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations. On August 17, 2016, FDA issued an EUA to InBios for the ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA, subject to the terms of the Authorization. Notice of the issuance of the Authorization was published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2016 (81 FR 75092), as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act. In response to requests from InBios, the EUA was amended on March 27, 2017, and May 18, 2018. Under section 564(g)(2) of the FD&C Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) may revoke an EUA if, among other things, the criteria for issuance are no longer met.

On March 23, 2019, FDA revoked the EUA for the InBios ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA because the criteria for issuance were no longer met. Under section 564(c)(3) of the FD&C Act, an EUA may be issued only if FDA concludes there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. The InBios ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA had a De Novo classification request granted as a Class II device under the generic name Zika virus serological reagents on May 23, 2019 ( https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/DEN180069.pdf ). FDA has concluded that this is an adequate, approved, and available alternative for diagnosing Zika virus infection.

An electronic version of this document and the full text of the revocation are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov/.

Having concluded that the criteria for revocation of the Authorization under section 564(g) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has revoked the EUA for the InBios ZIKV Detect 2.0 IgM Capture ELISA. The revocation in its entirety follows and provides an explanation of the reasons for revocation, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.

Information Collection Request Title: Enrollment and Re-Certification of Entities in the 340B Drug Pricing Program, OMB No. 0915-0327—Revision.

Abstract: Section 602 of Public Law 102-585, the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, enacted section 340B of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, which instructs HHS to enter into a Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement (PPA) with manufacturers of covered outpatient drugs. Manufacturers are required by section 1927(a)(5)(A) of the Social Security Act to enter into agreements with the Secretary of HHS that comply with section 340B of the PHS Act if they participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. When a drug manufacturer signs a PPA, it is opting into the 340B Drug Pricing Program (340B Program), and it agrees to the statutory requirement that prices charged for covered outpatient drugs to covered entities will not exceed statutorily defined 340B ceiling prices. When an eligible covered entity voluntarily decides to enroll and participate in the 340B Program, it accepts responsibility for ensuring compliance with all provisions of the 340B Program, including all associated costs. Covered entities that choose to participate in the 340B Program must comply with the requirements of section 340B(a)(5) of the PHS Act. Section 340B(a)(5)(A) of the PHS Act prohibits a covered entity from accepting a discount for a drug that would also generate a Medicaid rebate. Further, section 340B(a)(5)(B) of the PHS Act prohibits a covered entity from reselling or otherwise transferring a discounted drug to a person who is not a patient of the covered entity.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: To ensure the ongoing responsibility to administer the 340B Program while maintaining efficiency, transparency, and integrity, HRSA developed a process of registration for covered entities to address specific statutory mandates. Section 340B(a)(9) of the PHS Act requires HRSA to notify manufacturers of the identities of covered entities and of their status pertaining to certification and annual recertification in the 340B Program pursuant to section 340B(a)(7) and the establishment of a mechanism to prevent duplicate discounts as outlined at section 340B(a)(5)(A)(ii) of the PHS Act.

In addition, section 340B(a)(1) of the PHS Act requires each participating manufacturer to enter into an agreement with the Secretary to offer covered outpatient drugs to 340B covered entities.

Finally, section 340B(d)(1)(B)(i) of the PHS Act requires the development of a system to enable the Secretary to verify the accuracy of ceiling prices calculated by manufacturers under subsection (a)(1) and charged to covered entities.

HRSA is requesting approval for existing information collections. HRSA notes that the previously approved collections are mostly unchanged, except that HRSA has transitioned completely to online versus hardcopy instruments. In doing so, some of the instruments have been revised to increase program efficiency and integrity. Below are descriptions of each of the instruments and any resulting revisions captured in both the registration and pricing component of the 340B Office of Pharmacy Affairs Information System (OPAIS).

To enroll and certify the eligible federally funded grantees and other safety net health care providers, HRSA requires entities to submit administrative information ( e.g., shipping and billing arrangements, Medicaid participation), certifying information ( e.g., Medicare Cost Report information, documentation supporting the hospital's selected classification) and attestation from appropriate grantee level or entity level authorizing officials and primary contacts. The purpose of this registration information is to determine eligibility for the 340B Program. To maintain accurate records, HRSA requests entities to submit modifications to any administrative information that they submitted when initially enrolling into the Program. 340B covered entities have an ongoing responsibility to immediately notify HRSA in the event of any change in eligibility for the 340B Program. No less than on an annual basis, entities must certify the accuracy of the information provided and continued maintenance of their eligibility and comply with statutory mandates of the Program.

Registration and annual recertification information is entered into the 340B OPAIS by entities and verified by HRSA staff according to 340B Program requirements. In response to the comments received, HRSA has made technical revisions to the draft instruments and explains the revisions below.

1. 340B Program Registrations & Certifications for Hospitals (applies to all hospital types): With the launch of 340B OPAIS in September 2017, HRSA removed the requirement for a Government Official to attest to the hospital classification of a parent hospital. HRSA would like to require parent hospitals to attach documents supporting the hospital classification that they select during registration. This is a more accurate and efficient way to determine the eligibility of parent hospital registrations, without increasing the burden, since the Government Official attestation has been removed. In response to comments, HRSA notes that the 340B Program Hospital Registration Instructions lists examples of the types of documentation that supports the hospital's classification. The instructions are located at https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/opa/340b-hospital-registration-instructions.pdf.

2. 340B Program Registrations for STD/TB Clinics: HRSA is requesting that any STD and TB entity provide its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) number at the time of registration. HRSA is also requesting that an entity describe the type of in-kind funding it receives, as well as the period of the funding. This will assist HRSA in accurately determining the eligibility of the covered entity registration. This requirement would impose minimal burden on the public, as the NOFO number correlates to the Federal Grant Number, which is already required during registration.

In response to comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR, HRSA continues to believe there will be no additional burden associated with providing what type of in-kind funding they receive as it is expected to be provided as part of an audit of a covered entity. The draft instruments explain that in-kind contributions may be in the form of real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property, and goods and services directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to the project or program.

3. 340B Registrations for Ryan White Entities: HRSA is requesting that any Ryan White entity provide its NOFO number at the time of registration. HRSA is also requesting that an entity provide the period of assistance. This will assist HRSA in accurately determining the eligibility of the registration. This requirement would impose minimal burden on the public, as the NOFO number correlates to the Federal Grant Number, which is already required during registration.

4. Medicaid Billing: HRSA is making a minor change to clarify the question about Medicaid billing. In response to comments received, HRSA has made general technical and editorial revisions to this instrument.

Accurate records are critical to the prevention of drug diversion to non-eligible individuals as well as duplicate discounts in the 340B Program. To maintain accurate records, HRSA also requires that covered entities recertify eligibility annually, and that they notify the program of updates to any administrative information that they submitted when initially enrolling into the program. HRSA expects that the burden imposed these processes is low for recertification and minimal for submitting change requests.

To ensure that drug manufacturers and drug wholesalers recognize contract pharmacy arrangements, covered entities that elect to utilize one or more contract pharmacies are required to submit general information about the arrangements and certify that signed agreements are in place with those contract pharmacies. In response to comments, HRSA has made several technical corrections to this instrument.

In accordance with the 340B Program guidance issued in the May 7, 1993, Federal Register , section 340B(a)(1) of the PHS Act provides that a manufacturer who sells covered outpatient drugs to eligible entities must sign a PPA with the Secretary of HHS in which the manufacturer agrees to charge a price for covered outpatient drugs that will not exceed the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) decreased by a rebate percentage. In addition, section 340B(a)(1) of the PHS Act includes specific required components of the PPA with manufacturers of covered outpatient drugs. In particular, section 340B(a)(1) includes the following requirements:

I. “Each such agreement shall require that the manufacturer furnish the Secretary with reports, on a quarterly basis, of the price for each covered outpatient drug subject to the agreement that, according to the manufacturer, represents the maximum price that covered entities may permissibly be required to pay for the drug (referred to in this section as the “ceiling price”) and

II. “. . . shall require that the manufacturer offer each covered entity covered outpatient drugs for purchase at or below the applicable ceiling price if such drug is made available to any other purchaser at any price.”

The burden imposed on manufacturers by submission of the PPA and PPA Addendum is low as the information is readily available.

To implement section 340B(d)(1)(B)(i)(II) of the PHS Act, HRSA developed a system to calculate 340B ceiling prices prospectively from data obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as well as a third party commercial database. However, to conduct the comparison required under the statute, manufacturers must submit the quarterly pricing data as required by section 340B(d)(1)(B)(i)(II). The 340B OPAIS securely collects the following data from manufacturers on a quarterly basis: Average manufacturer price, unit rebate amount, package size, case pack size, unit type, national drug code, labeler code, product code, period of sale (year and quarter), FDA product name, labeler name, wholesale acquisition cost, and the manufacturer determined ceiling price for each covered outpatient drug produced by a manufacturer subject to a PPA. One commenter suggested that HRSA list FDA “ingredient names” in the 340B OPAIS to simplify the search process for covered entities. HRSA will consider this for future collections due to system changes that would need to occur to operationalize this suggestion.

The burden imposed on manufacturers is low because the information requested is readily available and utilized by manufacturers in other areas.

Likely Respondents: Drug manufacturers and covered entities.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

The San Juan Islands MAC is comprised of 12 members representing a wide array of interests, including recreation, tribal interests, education, environmental organizations, and landowners. The MAC advises the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the preparation and implementation of the San Juan Islands National Monument Resource Management Plan.

The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. with a welcome to the new MAC members. After introductions, the members will spend time reviewing the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement and clarifying items from the BLM. The next agenda topic will be a discussion regarding opportunities for the MAC to support implementation of the management plan once the record of decision is signed. A roundtable discussion on local landscape status over the last two years will follow. The public comment period will be held at 2 p.m. The MAC will adjourn no later than 3:30 p.m. All advisory council meetings are open to the public.

Public Disclosure of Comments: 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.

Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period should register in person with the BLM by 1 p.m. on the meeting day, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited.

The public may send written comments to the MAC as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The BLM appreciates all comments.

Scope. —For purposes of this investigation, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as “all fresh or chilled tomatoes (fresh tomatoes) which have Mexico as their origin, except for those tomatoes which are for processing. Processing is defined to include preserving by any commercial process, such as canning, dehydrating, drying, or the addition of chemical substances, or converting the tomato product into juices, sauces, or purees. Fresh tomatoes that are imported for cutting up, not further processing ( e.g., tomatoes used in the preparation of fresh salsa or salad bars), are covered by the investigation.

Commercially grown tomatoes, both for the fresh market and for processing, are classified as Lycopersicon esculentum. Important commercial varieties of fresh tomatoes include common round, cherry, grape, plum, greenhouse, and pear tomatoes, all of which are covered by this investigation.

Tomatoes imported from Mexico covered by this investigation are classified under the following subheading of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), according to the season of importation: 0702. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.”

Background. —The final phase of this investigation is being scheduled, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), as a result of an affirmative preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico 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 final phase of this investigation was resumed on May 7, 2019 (84 FR 27805, June 14, 2019).

For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigation, 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 investigation 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 this investigation 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. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation.

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 this investigation available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigation, 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 investigation. 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 this investigation will be placed in the nonpublic record on September 3, 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 this investigation beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 19, 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 September 12, 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 September 13, 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 September 10, 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 September 26, 2019. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigation may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigation, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before September 26, 2019. On October 17, 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 October 21, 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://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, 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 investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (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:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the [Component or Office name], including whether the information will have practical utility;

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

• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

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

1. Type of Information Collection: New Collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Sector and Industry Survey.

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 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary respondents will be individuals. Information will be collected from FBI InfraGard and Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC) members to assist in determining the private sector partner's perspective in regards to the status of critical infrastructure sector/sub-sector/industry's risks and concerns.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: There is an expectation of approximately 500 respondents per RFI. It is estimated that each survey will take approximately 5 minutes to complete.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: (Approximation) 20 surveys of 500 respondents each at 5 minute survey completion rate = 1,200 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: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Approval as a Provider of a Personal Financial Management Instructional Course (Application).

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 United States Trustee Program.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Individuals and businesses that wish to offer instructional courses to debtors concerning personal financial management pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”), Public Law 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, 37, 38 (April 20, 2005), and codified at 11 U.S.C. 109(h) and 111, and Application Procedures and Criteria for Approval of Providers of a Personal Financial Management Instructional Course by United States Trustees, 78 FR 16,159 (March 14, 2013) (Rule).

The BAPCPA requires individual debtors in bankruptcy cases to complete a personal financial management instructional course given by a provider that has been approved by the United States Trustee as a condition of receiving a discharge. The Application collects information from such providers in order to ensure compliance with the law and the Rule.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 147 respondents will complete the Application; initial applicants will complete the Application in approximately ten (10) hours, while renewal applicants will complete the Application in approximately four (4) hours. In addition, it is estimated that approximately 996,970 debtors will complete a survey evaluating the effectiveness of an instructional course in approximately one (1) minute.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 17,228 hours: the applicants' burden is 612 hours and the debtors' burden is 16,616 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: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Approval as a Nonprofit Budget and Credit Counseling Agency (Application).

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 United States Trustee Program.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Nonprofit agencies that wish to offer credit counseling services pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”), Public Law 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, 37, 38 (April 20, 2005), and codified at 11 U.S.C. 109(h) and 111, and Application Procedures and Criteria for Approval of Nonprofit Budget and Credit Counseling Agencies by United States Trustees, 78 FR 16,138 (March 14, 2013) (Rule).

The BAPCPA requires any individual who wishes to file for bankruptcy to obtain credit counseling, within 180 days before filing for bankruptcy relief, from a nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency that has been approved by the United States Trustee. The Application collects information from such agencies in order to ensure compliance with the law and the Rule.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 86 respondents will complete the Application; initial applicants will complete the Application in approximately ten (10) hours, while renewal applicants will complete the Application in approximately four (4) hours.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 362 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.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2019-002-M.

Petitioner: Graymont (PA) Inc., 375 Graymont Road, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823.

Mine: Graymont (PA) Inc. Pleasant Gap, MSHA I.D. 36-06468, located in Centre County, Pennsylvania.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.14105 (Procedures during repairs or maintenance).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance during its automated and robotic bagging operations. The petitioner proposes a Category Three PLC Interlock energy-control method (PLC Interlock) as a means of compliance with existing energy-control and lockout/tagout methods.

The petitioner states that:

(1) The petitioner uses automated and robotic bagging systems at the mine. The bagging systems are equipped with area guarding that includes a PLC Interlock.

(2) With the automated and robotic bagging systems, miners need to perform routine operational tasks such as: Removing broken bags from the hydrate spout, emptying bag falls on the discharge conveyor, fixing pallet alignment on the pallet infeed, adjusting slip sheets on the pallet, replacing empty or torn bags on the robot, removing film from the stretch hood machine, removing overweight bags from the open mouth packer, removing bags at the flattener if reset is tripped, and cleaning sensors in order to ensure good operating function of the equipment. These tasks are routine, low risk, very limited in duration, and performed by miners trained on the equipment.

(3) To perform such tasks, miners are required to open the door and enter the area beyond the physical guarding (Operating Area), necessitating energy control procedures.

(4) Isolating power from the control computers upwards of 15-20 times per shift to perform routine non-maintenance tasks will cause computer and mechanical failures that would result in increased non-routine maintenance tasks that pose greater risk to miners. Only control power shutdowns will uphold the level of safety inherent in complete source power shutdown and will further maintain the lifespan and integrity of the equipment. This would have the effect of reducing required maintenance and making the equipment safer, which enhances miner safety.

(5) The PLC Interlock method does not cut full source power to the area and equipment surrounding the Operating Area. The equipment adjacent to the Operating Area does have electricity flow, with power cables still carrying power to the system as a whole, even though control power to the Operating Area where the miners work is cut off.

The petitioner proposes the following terms and conditions:

(a) To control energy related to this system, once a worker enters the Operating Area, the PLC Interlock system would engage and the electronic Category Three interlocks within the door completely cut control power to the area in order to ensure there would not be any unexpected reenergization or movement of the equipment being accessed.

(b) The PLC Interlock method also includes lockable mechanisms on all applicable doors whereby a miner can lock the interlock with a traditional lockout/tagout padlock, such that the lock(s) can only be removed by the miner who installed them or by other authorized personnel.

(c) Suitable notices are posted at the power switch and signed by the miner assigned the tasks.

(d) Only upon completion of the tasks, the miner would remove the lock, unlock the gate, close the gate, leave the Operating Area, walk to the control panel, reset the system, and restart operation by reenergizing the control system while ensuring no miners are exposed to an unexpected release of energy or any associated potential hazards. PLC Interlock devices are designed so that the safety-related parts of the control system do not have a single fault that could lead to loss of safety function. The PLC Interlock devices are designed with redundancy to ensure that a failure within the device will not allow operation of the machine. Additionally, miners are not exposed to any live electrical conductors when they work beyond the guarding.

(e) Component failures are protected via redundant and fail-safe design, and the computer program is not controlling the system when the interlocks are not met. Program errors, power surges, or magnetic field interference could not cause the equipment to operate because every time an operator stops the system, the computer program must be reset and re-started.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-003-M.

Petitioner: Graymont (PA) Inc., 375 Graymont Road, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823.

Mine: Graymont (PA) Inc. Pleasant Gap, MSHA I.D. 36-06468, located in Centre County, Pennsylvania.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.12016 (Work on electrically-powered equipment).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance during its automated and robotic bagging operations. The petitioner proposes a Category Three PLC Interlock energy-control method (PLC Interlock) as a means of compliance with existing energy-control and lockout/tagout methods.

The petitioner states that:

(1) The petitioner uses automated and robotic bagging systems at the mine. The bagging systems are equipped with area guarding that includes a PLC Interlock.

(2) With the automated and robotic bagging systems, miners need to perform routine operational tasks such as: Removing broken bags from the hydrate spout, emptying bag falls on the discharge conveyor, fixing pallet alignment on the pallet infeed, adjusting slip sheets on the pallet, replacing empty or torn bags on the robot, removing film from the stretch hood machine, removing overweight bags from the open mouth packer, removing bags at the flattener if reset is tripped, and cleaning sensors in order to ensure good operating function of the equipment. These tasks are routine, low risk, very limited in duration, and performed by miners trained on the equipment.

(3) To perform such tasks, miners are required to open the door and enter the area beyond the physical guarding (Operating Area), necessitating energy control procedures.

(4) Isolating power from the control computers upwards of 15-20 times per shift to perform routine non-maintenance tasks will cause computer and mechanical failures that would result in increased non-routine maintenance tasks that pose greater risk to miners. Only control power shutdowns will uphold the level of safety inherent in complete source power shutdown and will further maintain the lifespan and integrity of the equipment. This would have the effect of reducing required maintenance and making the equipment safer, which enhances miner safety.

(5) The PLC Interlock method does not cut full source power to the area and equipment surrounding the Operating Area. The equipment adjacent to the Operating Area does have electricity flow, with power cables still carrying power to the system as a whole, even though control power to the Operating Area where the miners work is cut off.

The petitioner proposes the following terms and conditions:

(a) To control energy related to this system, once a worker enters the Operating Area, the PLC Interlock system would engage and the electronic Category Three interlocks within the door completely cut control power to the area in order to ensure there would not be any unexpected reenergization or movement of the equipment being accessed.

(b) The PLC Interlock method also includes lockable mechanisms on all applicable doors whereby a miner can lock the interlock with a traditional lockout/tagout padlock, such that the lock(s) can only be removed by the miner who installed them or by other authorized personnel.

(c) Suitable notices are posted at the power switch and signed by the miner assigned the tasks.

(d) Only upon completion of the tasks, the miner would remove the lock, unlock the gate, close the gate, leave the Operating Area, walk to the control panel, reset the system, and restart operation by reenergizing the control system while ensuring no miners are exposed to an unexpected release of energy or any associated potential hazards. PLC Interlock devices are designed so that the safety-related parts of the control system do not have a single fault that could lead to loss of safety function. The PLC Interlock devices are designed with redundancy to ensure that a failure within the device will not allow operation of the machine. Additionally, miners are not exposed to any live electrical conductors when they work beyond the guarding.

(e) Component failures are protected via redundant and fail-safe design, and the computer program is not controlling the system when the interlocks are not met. Program errors, power surges, or magnetic field interference could not cause the equipment to operate because every time an operator stops the system, the computer program must be reset and re-started.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-004-M.

Petitioner: Solvay Chemicals, Inc., P.O. Box 1167, 400 County Road 85, Green River, WY 82935.

Mine: Solvay Chemicals, Inc. Mine, MSHA I.D. 48-01295, located in Sweetwater County, WY.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.22305 (Approved equipment (III mines)).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance for the respiratory protection of miners. The petitioner proposes to use non-MSHA approved, intrinsically safe battery-powered air purifying respirators (PAPR) to protect miners from potential exposure to respirable dust and ammonia gas during normal mining conditions in or in by the last open crosscut and where methane may be present.

The petitioner states that:

(1) The operator may use the following battery-powered PAPR units to provide respiratory protection for personnel, subject to the conditions of this petition:

The petitioner proposes the following terms and conditions:

(a) The batteries for the PAPRs will be charged outby the last open crosscut when not in operation.

(b) Affected miners will be trained in the proper use and care of the PAPR units in accordance with manufacturers' instructions.

(c) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 57.22234 will be followed.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-05-M.

Petitioner: Nevada Gold Mines, LLC, 1655 Mountain City Highway, Elko, Nevada 89801.

Mine: Genesis Mine, MSHA I.D. 26-00062, 26 Miles on SR766, North of Carlin, Carlin, Nevada 89822, located in Eureka County, Nevada.

South Area Mine, MSHA I.D. 26-00500, 6 Miles on SR766, North of Carlin, Carlin, Nevada, located in Eureka County, Nevada.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 56.6309(b) (Fuel oil requirements for ANFO).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to allow the use of recycled used waste oil blended with diesel fuel (blended oil) to prepare ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO).

The petitioner states that:

(1) On July 1, 2019, petitioner assumed the operation of multiple gold mines in Nevada, including Goldstrike Mine, Genesis Mine and South Area Mine.

(2) Blended oil has been approved for use to prepare ANFO at petitioner's Goldstrike Mine, pursuant to MSHA's Amended Decision and Order of December 1, 1998, reinstated by Decision and Order of November 4, 2011, granting modification of the application of 30 CFR 56.6309(b) at Goldstrike Mine (Goldstrike Modification Order). The petitioner states that it seeks only to use the blended oil that has already been recycled and tested at Goldstrike Mine according to the conditions set out in the Goldstrike Modification Order in its ANFO blasting agents, and use the blended oil prepared and approved for use at Goldstrike Mine in ANFO mixtures at petitioner's Genesis Mine and South Area Mine.

(3) The Genesis Mine and South Area Mine are open-pit gold mines that consist of series of sediment hosted Carlin-style gold deposits. The Genesis Mine is adjacent to the Goldstrike Mine. The principle blasting method to be applied at both mines involves the use of ANFO loaded in pre-drilled blast holes, similar to the blasting methods at Goldstrike Mine. The petitioner states that it intends to ignite approximately 1,000 blast holes per month at each mine.

The petitioner proposes the following terms and conditions:

(a) The ANFO blasting agents the petitioner seeks to load in its blast holes at Genesis Mine and South Area Mine will consist of blended oil prepared at Goldstrike Mine according to the conditions set forth in the Goldstrike Modification Order, combined with ammonium nitrate.

(b) The ammonium nitrate to be combined with the blended oil to create ANFO will be stored separate and apart from the blended oil in three 100-ton silos in a locked and secured compound in the same vicinity at Goldstrike Mine. Only authorized blasting personnel will have access to the blended oil and ammonium nitrate storage facilities.

(c) The blended oil and ammonium nitrate will be transported from Goldstrike Mine to the respective blast sties at Genesis Mine and South Area Mine in separate containers and will be combined at each mine only as part of the actual process of loading the blast holes. The same certified blasting personnel operating at Goldstrike Mine will perform blasting operations at Genesis Mine and South Area Mine.

(d) The ANFO will not be used in confined spaces or underground blasting operations. The ANFO will be used only at Genesis Mine and South Area Mine, and not be sold or transported to other mine properties.

(e) The petitioner will maintain a daily “load” and “shot” report detailing all holes loaded and shots fired which contain the ANFO.

(f) Emulsions (heavy ANFO) will not be used with the recycled oil unless the emulsion manufacturer certifies compatibility of the product with the oil.

(g) Misfires/hangfires which are reasonably suspected to have been caused by the blended oil will be reported to the MSHA District Manager in a timely manner.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2019-025-C.

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Mines: No. 88 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-19400, located in Knott County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance to allow the use of battery-powered nonpermissible surveying equipment including, but not limited to, portable battery-operated mine transits, total station surveying equipment, distance meters, and data loggers, within 150 feet of pillar workings and longwall faces.

The petitioner states that:

(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372, 75.1002(a), and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary. It is necessary to determine the exact location and extent of mine workings to ensure the safety of miners in active mines and to protect miners in future mines which may mine in close proximity to the active mines.

(2) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.

As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:

(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces subject to this petition:

(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.

(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.

(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:

(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;

(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and

(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.

(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.

(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.

(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.

(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn further than 150 feet from pillar workings and longwall faces. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock-dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.

(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.

(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 of pillar workings and longwall faces, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces when production is occurring.

(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.

(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings and longwall faces. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.

(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air more than 150 feet from pillar workings or longwall faces. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.

(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.

(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.

(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.

(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.

(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.

(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.

(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-026-C.

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Mines: No. 88 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-19400, located in Knott County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance to allow the use of battery-powered nonpermissible surveying equipment including, but not limited to, portable battery-operated mine transits, total station surveying equipment, distance meters, and data loggers, in or inby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.

(2) The operator utilizes the continuous mining method. Accurate surveying is critical to the safety of the miners at the mine.

(3) Mechanical surveying equipment has been obsolete for a number of years. Such equipment of acceptable quality is not commercially available. Further, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have such equipment serviced or repaired.

(4) Electronic surveying equipment is, at a minimum, 8 to 10 times more accurate than mechanical equipment.

(5) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.

As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:

(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater in or inby the last open crosscut, subject to this petition:

(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.

(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.

(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:

(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;

(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and

(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.

(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.

(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.

(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.

(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering in or inby the last open crosscut.

(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within in or inby the last open crosscut, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock-dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.

(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.

(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used in or inby the last open crosscut when production is occurring.

(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.

(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.

(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air outby the last open crosscut. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.

(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, in or inby the last open crosscut is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.

(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.

(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.

(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.

(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.

(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.

(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-027-C.

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Mines: No. 88 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-19400, located in Knott County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance to allow the use of battery-powered nonpermissible surveying equipment including, but not limited to, portable battery-operated mine transits, total station surveying equipment, distance meters, and data loggers, in return airways.

The petitioner states that:

(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200(a), use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.

(2) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.

As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:

(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater in return airways, subject to this petition:

(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.

(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.

(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used in return airways will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:

(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;

(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and

(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.

(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.

(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.

(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in return airways will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.

(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn out of return airways. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering in return airways.

(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock-dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.

(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.

(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used in return airways when production is occurring.

(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.

(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.

(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air out of return airways. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.

(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, in return airways is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.

(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.

(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.

(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.

(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.

(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in return airways, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.

(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-028-C.

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Mines: No. 77 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-09636, located in Perry County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance to allow the use of battery-powered nonpermissible surveying equipment including, but not limited to, portable battery-operated mine transits, total station surveying equipment, distance meters, and data loggers, within 150 feet of pillar workings and longwall faces.

The petitioner states that:

(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372, 75.1002(a), and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary. It is necessary to determine the exact location and extent of mine workings to ensure the safety of miners in active mines and to protect miners in future mines which may mine in close proximity to the active mines.

(2) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.

As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:

(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces subject to this petition:

(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.

(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.

(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:

(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;

(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and

(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.

(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.

(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.

(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.

(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn further than 150 feet from pillar workings and longwall faces. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock-dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.

(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.

(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 of pillar workings and longwall faces, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces when production is occurring.

(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.

(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings and longwall faces. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.

(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air more than 150 feet from pillar workings or longwall faces. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.

(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.

(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.

(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.

(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.

(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.

(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.

(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-029-C.

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Mines: No. 77 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-09636, located in Perry County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance to allow the use of battery-powered nonpermissible surveying equipment including, but not limited to, portable battery-operated mine transits, total station surveying equipment, distance meters, and data loggers, in or inby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.

(2) The operator utilizes the continuous mining method. Accurate surveying is critical to the safety of the miners at the mine.

(3) Mechanical surveying equipment has been obsolete for a number of years. Such equipment of acceptable quality is not commercially available. Further, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have such equipment serviced or repaired.

(4) Electronic surveying equipment is, at a minimum, 8 to 10 times more accurate than mechanical equipment.

(5) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.

As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:

(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater in or inby the last open crosscut, subject to this petition:

(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.

(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.

(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:

(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;

(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and

(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.

(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.

(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.

(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.

(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering in or inby the last open crosscut.

(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within in or inby the last open crosscut, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock-dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.

(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.

(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used in or inby the last open crosscut when production is occurring.

(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.

(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.

(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air outby the last open crosscut. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.

(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, in or inby the last open crosscut is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.

(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.

(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.

(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.

(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.

(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.

(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-030-C.

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Mines: No. 77 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-09636, located in Perry County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance to allow the use of battery-powered nonpermissible surveying equipment including, but not limited to, portable battery-operated mine transits, total station surveying equipment, distance meters, and data loggers, in return airways.

The petitioner states that:

(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200(a), use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.

(2) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.

As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:

(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater in return airways, subject to this petition:

(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.

(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.

(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used in return airways will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:

(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;

(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and

(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.

(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.

(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.

(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in return airways will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.

(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn out of return airways. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering in return airways.

(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock-dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.

(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.

(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used in return airways when production is occurring.

(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.

(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.

(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air out of return airways. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.

(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, in return airways is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.

(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.

(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.

(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.

(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.

(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in return airways, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.

(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-031-C.

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Mines: Calvary No. 81 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-12753, located in Leslie County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance to allow the use of battery-powered nonpermissible surveying equipment including, but not limited to, portable battery-operated mine transits, total station surveying equipment, distance meters, and data loggers, within 150 feet of pillar workings and longwall faces.

The petitioner states that:

(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372, 75.1002(a), and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary. It is necessary to determine the exact location and extent of mine workings to ensure the safety of miners in active mines and to protect miners in future mines which may mine in close proximity to the active mines.

(2) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.

As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:

(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces subject to this petition:

(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.

(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.

(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:

(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;

(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and

(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.

(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.

(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.

(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.

(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn further than 150 feet from pillar workings and longwall faces. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock-dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.

(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.

(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 of pillar workings and longwall faces, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces when production is occurring.

(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.

(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings and longwall faces. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.

(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air more than 150 feet from pillar workings or longwall faces. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.

(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.

(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.

(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.

(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.

(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.

(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.

(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-032-C.

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Mines: Calvary No. 81 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-12753, located in Leslie County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance to allow the use of battery-powered nonpermissible surveying equipment including, but not limited to, portable battery-operated mine transits, total station surveying equipment, distance meters, and data loggers, in or inby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.

(2) The operator utilizes the continuous mining method. Accurate surveying is critical to the safety of the miners at the mine.

(3) Mechanical surveying equipment has been obsolete for a number of years. Such equipment of acceptable quality is not commercially available. Further, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have such equipment serviced or repaired.

(4) Electronic surveying equipment is, at a minimum, 8 to 10 times more accurate than mechanical equipment.

(5) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.

As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:

(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater in or inby the last open crosscut, subject to this petition:

(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.

(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.

(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:

(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;

(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and

(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.

(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.

(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.

(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.

(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering in or inby the last open crosscut.

(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within in or inby the last open crosscut, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock-dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.

(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.

(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used in or inby the last open crosscut when production is occurring.

(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.

(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.

(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air outby the last open crosscut. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.

(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, in or inby the last open crosscut is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.

(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.

(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.

(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.

(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.

(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.

(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2019-033-C.

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 4300, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

Mines: Calvary No. 81 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-12753, located in Leslie County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance to allow the use of battery-powered nonpermissible surveying equipment including, but not limited to, portable battery-operated mine transits, total station surveying equipment, distance meters, and data loggers, in return airways.

The petitioner states that:

(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200(a), use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.

(2) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.

As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:

(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater in return airways, subject to this petition: