Title: Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders.

OMB Number: 0581-0178.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2020.

Type of Request: Extension and Revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Marketing order programs provide an opportunity for producers of fresh fruits, vegetables and specialty crops, in specified production areas, to work together to solve marketing problems that cannot be solved individually. This notice covers the following marketing order citations: 7 CFR parts 932 (California olives), 945 (Idaho/Oregon potatoes), 946 (Washington potatoes), 948 (Colorado potatoes), 955 (Vidalia onions), 956 (Walla Walla onions), 958 (Idaho/Oregon onions), 959 (South Texas onions), 966 (Florida tomatoes), 981 (California almonds), 982 (Oregon/Washington hazelnuts), 984 (California walnuts), 985 (Northwest spearmint oil), 987 (California dates), 989 (California raisins), 993 (California dried prunes), and 999 (Specialty Crop Import Regulations).

Marketing Order 953 (North Carolina/Virginia potatoes) has been terminated since the last three-year renewal period of this information collection package. Currently, handling requirements for Marketing Order 993 for California dried prunes are suspended at the industry's request, meaning its information collection requirements are not active. The California dried prune industry maintains the committee, which works in partnership with State programs. In addition, the import regulation for California dried prunes, as contained in 7 CFR 999.200—Regulation governing the importation of prunes—is indefinitely suspended, effective January 17, 2009 ( Federal Register , Vol. 74 No. 11).

Marketing order requirements help ensure adequate supplies of high quality product and adequate returns to producers. Marketing orders are authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674). The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to oversee the marketing order operations and issue regulations recommended by a committee of representatives from each commodity industry.

The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the marketing orders. Under the Act, marketing orders may authorize: Production and marketing research, including paid advertising; volume regulation; reserves, including pools and producer allotments; container requirements; and quality control. Assessments are levied on handlers regulated under the marketing orders. Section 8e of the Act requires imports of 14 commodities to meet certain standards. Included among these commodities are some covered in this forms package: Olives, potatoes, onions, tomatoes, walnuts, dates, dried prunes, and raisins.

USDA requires several forms to be filed to enable the administration of each marketing order. These include forms covering the selection process for industry members to serve on a marketing order's committee or board and ballots used in referenda to amend or continue marketing orders.

Under Federal marketing orders, producers and handlers are nominated by their peers to serve as representatives on a committee or board which administers each program. Nominees must provide information on their qualifications to serve on the committee or board. Qualified nominees are then appointed by the Secretary. Amendments to marketing orders made through Formal rulemaking must be approved in referenda conducted by USDA and the Secretary. For the purposes of this action, ballots are considered information collections and are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. If a marketing order is amended, handlers are asked to sign an agreement indicating their willingness to abide by the provisions of the amended marketing order.

Some forms are required to be filed with the committee or board. The marketing orders authorize the respective committee or board, the agencies responsible for local administration of the marketing orders, to require handlers and producers to submit certain information. Much of the information is compiled in aggregate and provided to the respective industries to assist in marketing decisions. The committees and boards developed forms as a means for persons to file required information relating to supplies, shipments, and dispositions of their respective commodities, and other information needed to effectively carry out the purpose of the Act and their respective orders, and these forms are utilized accordingly.

The forms covered under this information collection require respondents to provide the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the marketing orders, and use of these forms is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act as expressed in the marketing orders.

The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the committees and authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Specialty Crops Program's regional and headquarters' staff. Authorized committee or board employees are the primary users of the information and AMS is the secondary user.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.32 hours per response.

Respondents: Producers, handlers, processors, dehydrators, cooperatives, manufacturers, importers, and public members.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 15,481.

Estimated Number of Responses: 79,213.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 5.12.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 25,438 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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.

Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-0178 OMB Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders, and be sent to the USDA in care of the Docket Clerk at the address above. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

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

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to the notice.

At the Board meeting scheduled on the afternoon of Wednesday, March 11, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organizations they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference call. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324 or emailed to Carolyn Allen at callen@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Program Unit Office at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Program Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, South Carolina Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Program Unit at the above email or street address.

Background

On June 3, 2019, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the AD order on CDMT from Korea for the POR November 22, 2017 through May 31, 2019. 1 ArcelorMittal Tubular Products LLC, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, PTC Alliance Corp., and Webco Industries, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), timely filed a request for administrative review of Dong A Steel Co., Ltd., Husteel Co., Ltd., Nexteel Co., Ltd., Sang Shin Ind. Co., Ltd., Seah Steel Corporation, Sic Tube, Tgs Pipe Co., Ltd., Tpc Co., Ltd., and Yulchon Co., Ltd., in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b). 2

On July 29, 2019, pursuant to this request, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce published a notice initiating an administrative review of the antidumping order on CDMT from Korea. 3 On October 8, 2019, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review with respect to all of the companies for which they had requested a review. 4

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioners withdrew their request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of CDMT from Korea. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.42(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of AD duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of AD duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled AD duties.

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On September 3, 2019, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey for the period September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019. 1 On September 30, 2019, the petitioner  2 filed a timely request for review with respect to nine companies. 3 Based on this request, on November 12, 2019, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review covering the period September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019. 4 On February 10, 2020, the petitioner submitted a timely request to withdraw its request for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey for all nine companies. 5

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested the review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, the petitioner fully withdrew its review request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As such, Commerce is in receipt of a timely request for withdrawal of this administrative review with respect to all companies listed in the Initiation Notices . Accordingly, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey for the period September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019, in its entirety.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

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

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Background

On January 8, 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of forged steel fluid end blocks from the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, and the People's Republic of China. 1 Currently, the preliminary determinations are due no later than March 13, 2020.

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

On February 10, 2020, the petitioners  2 submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary CVD determinations. 3 The petitioners stated that they request postponement because, “[a]s currently scheduled, the deadlines for responding to Commerce's questionnaire fall almost in parallel with the scheduled preliminary determinations. Without extending the preliminary determinations, [p]etitioners would be unable to comment on the responses, and Commerce would be similarly unable to consider the responses.”  4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners have stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determinations, and Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations to no later than 130 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated, i.e., May 18, 2020. 5 Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

On December 3, 2014, Commerce published in the Federal Register the notices of the antidumping duty orders on NOES from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. 1 On November 1, 2019, Commerce published the initiation of the first sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 On November 15, 2019, Commerce received timely and complete notices of intent to participate in these sunset reviews from AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel) (domestic interested party), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 3 The domestic interested party claimed interested party status within the meaning of section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a manufacturer in the United States of the domestic like product. 4

On November 27, 2019, the domestic interested party filed timely and adequate substantive responses, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 5 Commerce did not receive substantive responses from any respondent interested party, with respect to any of the orders covered by these sunset reviews. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of the Orders.

The merchandise covered by these orders is NOES from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. The subject merchandise is provided for in subheadings 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, and 7226.19.9000 of the HTSUS. Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, 7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0180 of the HTSUS. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the Orders is contained in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 6

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

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Orders on NOES from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins of up to 407.52 percent for China, 98.84 percent for Germany, 204.79 percent for Japan, 6.88 percent for Korea, 126.72 percent for Sweden, and 52.23 percent for Taiwan.

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

On May 2, 2019, based on a timely request for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large residential washers from Mexico, for one company, Electrolux Home Products Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home Products de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (collectively, Electrolux). 1 The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. In October 2019, we extended the preliminary results of this review to no later than February 28, 2020. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3

The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Mexico. 4 The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 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 http://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 at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/mexico/mexico-fr.htm. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average margin of 3.53 percent exists for Electrolux for the period February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019.

Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 5

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 6

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Electrolux will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific cash deposit rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 36.52 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 7 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 8 Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 9 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 10 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 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. 11 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS. 12

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 13 Hearing requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. 14

An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless the deadline is extended. 15

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

Notification to Interested Parties

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On December 3, 2014, Commerce published in the Federal Register the CVD order on non-oriented electrical steel (NOES) from the People's Republic of China (China). 1 On November 1, 2019, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the CVD order on NOES from China, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 On November 15, 2019, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate from the domestic interested party, AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel). 3 The notice of intent to participate was timely filed within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Additionally, AK Steel claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of NOES.

Commerce received an adequate substantive response to the notice of initiation from the domestic producer within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 4 However, because we did not receive a substantive response from the Government of China (GOC) or from any other respondent interested parties who are producers or exporters of NOES, we determined that respondent interested parties provided inadequate responses to Commerce's notice of initiation.

On December 13, 2019, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties. 5 As a result, pursuant to 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B)(2) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the CVD Order on NOES from China.

The merchandise covered by the Order is NOES, which includes cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term “substantially equal” means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction ( i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along ( i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet ( i.e., B 800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.

NOES is subject to the Order whether it is fully processed ( i.e., fully annealed to develop final magnetic properties) or semi-processed ( i.e., finished to final thickness and physical form but not fully annealed to develop final magnetic properties). Fully processed NOES is typically made to the requirements of ASTM specification A 677, Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) specification C 2552, and/or International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) specification 60404-8-4. Semi-processed NOES is typically made to the requirements of ASTM specification A 683. However, the scope of the Order is not limited to merchandise meeting the ASTM, JIS, and IEC specifications noted immediately above.

NOES is sometimes referred to as cold-rolled non-oriented (CRNO), non-grain oriented (NGO), non-oriented (NO), or cold-rolled non-grain oriented (CRNGO) electrical steel. These terms are interchangeable.

Excluded from the scope of the Order are flat-rolled products not in coils that, prior to importation into the United States, have been cut to a shape and undergone all punching, coating, or other operations necessary for classification in Chapter 85 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as a part ( i.e., lamination) for use in a device such as a motor, generator, or transformer.

The subject merchandise is provided for in subheadings 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, and 7226.19.9000 of the HTSUS. Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, 7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0180 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purpose, the written description of the scope of the Order is dispositive.

All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, 6 which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum are the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if the order were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and to all in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the CVD order on NOES from China would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:

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

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

On August 5, 2019, Commerce initiated an LTFV investigation of imports of wind towers from Vietnam. 1 The period of investigation is January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. On February 14, 2020, Commerce published its Preliminary Determination in this LTFV investigation. 2

Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) provide that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the exporters or producers who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Further, 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that such postponement requests by exporters be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act.

On February 11, 2020, CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. (CS Wind), the mandatory respondent in this investigation, requested that Commerce postpone the deadline for the final determination until no later than 135 days from the publication of the Preliminary Determination, and extend the application of the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months. 3 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination was affirmative; (2) the request was made by the exporter and producer who accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination, and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will issue its final determination no later than June 29, 2020. 4

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).

On December 26, 2019, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 1 Although we invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results, 2 no interested party submitted comments. Accordingly, no decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice. Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the order include drawn stainless steel sinks. Imports of subject merchandise are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. 3

We made no changes from the Preliminary Results. Therefore, as a result of this review, we determine that the two mandatory respondents, New Shichu and KaiPing, have not established their eligibility for a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity. We also determine that, because the following companies did not submit separate rate applications or certifications, they are ineligible for a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity: B&R Industries Limited (B&R); Feidong Import and Export Co. Ltd. (Feidong); Guangdong G-Top Import & Export Co., Ltd. (G-Top); Jiangmen Pioneer Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Pioneer); Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Afa); Xinhe Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd. (Xinhe); Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Yuyao Afa); and Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Superte). We also determine that, because Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & Bathroom Products Co. Ltd. (Kohler) failed to respond to Commerce's supplemental separate rate questionnaire, this company is ineligible for a separate rate and is part of the China-wide entity. Finally, we continue to grant a separate rate to New Star, which demonstrated eligibility for separate rate status, but was not selected for individual examination. 4 We determine that the dumping margin for New Star for the period April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 is as follows:

Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). Because we determined that the following companies were not eligible for a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 76.45 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were produced and/or exported by: B&R; Feidong; G-Top; KaiPing; Kohler; New Shichu; Ningbo Afa; Pioneer; Superte; Xinhe; and Yuyao Afa. We will instruct CBP to apply an assessment rate to all entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by New Star equal to the dumping margin indicated above. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the company listed above that has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in these final results of review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be equal to the exporter-specific weighted-average dumping margin published of the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for China-wide entity, 76.45 percent; and (4) for all exporters of subject merchandise which are not located in China and which are not eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

Background

Commerce published the Order on January 4, 2005. 1 On January 28, 2020, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), Commerce received a timely NSR request from Kunshan Jujia Decoration Design Co., Ltd (Kunshan Jujia). 2 The deadline for publication of the NSR initiation is February 28, 2020.

In its submission, Kunshan Jujia certified that it is the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which its request for a NSR is based. 3 Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Kunshan Jujia certified that it did not export WBF to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). 4 Additionally, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Kunshan Jujia certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any producer or exporter that exported WBF to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. 5 As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Kunshan Jujia also certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of China. 6 Further, Kunshan Jujia certified that it has not made subsequent shipments of subject merchandise. 7

In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Kunshan Jujia submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped WBF for export to the United States and the date on which the WBF was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. 8

Commerce conducted a query of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and confirmed that Kunshan Jujia's subject merchandise entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The CBP data that Commerce examined are consistent with information provided by Kunshan Jujia in its NSR request. In particular, the CBP data confirm the price and quantity reported by Kunshan Jujia for the sale that forms that basis of its NSR request. 9

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), an exporter or producer may request an NSR within one year of the date on which its subject merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or shipped to the United States, as appropriate. Kunshan Jujia requested this NSR within one year of the date on which its WBF first entered the United States, and made its request in the month of January, which is the anniversary month of the Order. 10 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(l)(i)(A), the POR is January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on the information on the record, we find that Kunshan Jujia's NSR request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a NSR of its shipment(s) of WBF to the United States. 11 However, if the information supplied by Kunshan Jujia is later found to be incorrect or insufficient during the course of this NSR, Commerce may rescind the review or apply adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776 of the Act, as appropriate. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce will publish the notice of initiation of an NSR no later than the last day of the month following the anniversary or semiannual anniversary month of the order. Commerce intends to issue the preliminary results of this review no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and the final results of this review no later than 90 days after the date the preliminary results are issued. 12

It is Commerce's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economies, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate ( i.e., separate rate) to provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company's export activities. 13 Accordingly, Commerce will issue questionnaires to Kunshan Jujia requesting, inter alia, information regarding its export activities for the purpose of determining whether it is eligible for a separate rate. The review of the exporter will proceed if the response provides sufficient indication that the exporter is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its exports of WBF.

We will conduct this NSR in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act. 14 Because Kunshan Jujia certified that it produced and exported subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for its NSR request, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Kunshan Jujia. To assist in its analysis of the bona fide nature of Kunshan Jujia's sales, upon initiation of this NSR, Commerce will require Kunshan Jujia to submit, on an ongoing basis, complete transaction information concerning any sales of subject merchandise to the United States that were made subsequent to the POR.

Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).

I. Background

Manufacturing USA was authorized by the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act in December 2014. 1 In 2019 the House Science Committee convened a hearing on Manufacturing USA, leading to the House passing the American Manufacturing Leadership Act. Concurrently the Senate developed and passed the Global Leadership in Manufacturing Act. Both of these bills were reconciled and included into the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law on December 20, 2019. 2 This Manufacturing USA reauthorization prescribes three pathways for creating centers for manufacturing innovation, or institutes in the Manufacturing USA network. The three pathways are:

(1) Institutes established pursuant to Federal law or executive actions which became members of the network,

(2) institutes created via competitions held by the Secretary of Commerce through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and

(3) manufacturing centers outside of Manufacturing USA but recognized by the Secretary of Commerce as centers for manufacturing innovation in response to a formal request by the centers for such recognition. “A manufacturing center that is substantially similar to those established under this subsection but does not receive financial assistance under subsection (d) may, upon request of the center, be recognized as a center for manufacturing innovation by the Secretary for purposes of participation in the Network”.

The third pathway may be termed the “alliance” model for membership in Manufacturing USA. These could be existing agency-sponsored institutes which are no longer under a federal financial aid agreement or existing entities not in the network with relevant characteristics that are new to the network. NIST is seeking broad input and participation from stakeholders to assist in identifying and prioritizing issues and proposed solutions on the information provided regarding the proposed “alliance” path to establish a Manufacturing USA Institute.

Entities that seek to join Manufacturing USA through the “alliance” model stand to benefit in ways that are both tangible and intangible. Some of the key benefits are identified below.

• Formal recognition and “branding” with associated visibility as a national manufacturing innovation institute.

• Membership in a nationwide network of manufacturing innovation institutes with associated support.

○ Enhanced communication with leadership of the Manufacturing USA Institutes.

○ Opportunities for synergistic collaboration with other institutes in the network.

○ Access to the shared network services offered by the National Program Office. 3

• Eligibility for programmatic funding specifically for entities designated as Manufacturing USA Institutes which are not federally sponsored. Grants may be awarded on a competitive basis, subject to the availability of funds, for public service activities, such as workforce development, outreach to small- and medium-sized manufacturers, and other activities aligned with the mission of Manufacturing USA.

The alliance model for new manufacturing innovation institutes and their induction into Manufacturing USA can facilitate expansion of the network, and technical areas not currently addressed by existing or pending Manufacturing USA Institutes can be established. In doing so, the federal government can significantly leverage its existing and future Manufacturing USA investments to spur the U.S. advanced manufacturing efforts already underway.

The extensive public and private sector inputs gathered by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) initiatives  4 5 and by the five “Designing for Impact” regional workshops  6 held around the country clearly indicate that several technology areas of importance to U.S. manufacturers remain to be addressed by Manufacturing USA. The alliance model can serve as a cost-effective pathway to rapidly expand technology coverage, geographical reach, and national impact of Manufacturing USA. It should however be noted that the “alliance” model is not intended to be a substitute for robust long-term federal support of Manufacturing USA.

Institutes in the network have the potential to improve the competitiveness of United States manufacturing, including in key advanced manufacturing technologies, and to accelerate non-Federal investment in advanced manufacturing production capacity in the United States.

Existing institutes in Manufacturing USA also stand to benefit from their association with the alliance members. Some of the key potential benefits to existing institutes that are already in the network are listed below.

• The new technology topics of the joining entities will enrich the network of institutes and will provide additional opportunities for the existing institutes to leverage complementary technical capabilities and services offered by the alliance members.

• Alliance members will have different operational and governance models. The existing and future Manufacturing USA Institutes, and their federal sponsor agencies, stand to benefit from the best practices gleaned from the different operational models adopted.

1. Information about the application process will be on the Manufacturing USA website.

2. Interested applicants can apply at any time.

3. Applications will be evaluated by a panel of Federal employees against evaluation criteria to be determined. If additional information is needed, it can be requested by the panel.

4. Applicants will be notified of the decision with regard to the review.

5. If an applicant is selected for as an alliance institute, a binding Memorandum of Understanding will be executed by the applicant and NIST. A template MOU will be made available on the website along with instructions.

6. The addition is announced and added to appropriate messaging as a network member.

7. An orientation to the network will be provided by Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office to each new member.

Respondents are encouraged—but are not required—to respond to each question and to present their answers after each question. The following questions cover the major areas about which NIST seeks comment. Respondents may organize their submissions in response to this RFI in any manner. Responses may include estimates, which should be identified as such.

All responses that comply with the requirements listed in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this RFI will be considered.

NIST is interested in receiving responses to the following questions from the stakeholder community:

1. Congress has defined specific goals and activities for federally sponsored Manufacturing USA Institutes. Which of these goals and activities should be minimal requirements for “alliance pathway” institutes?

2. Should all Manufacturing USA Institutes brought into the network under an “alliance pathway” follow the same process? If not, what should be the differences?

3. Who/what types of entities should be eligible to join the Manufacturing USA network using the ”alliance pathway”?

4. What additional opportunities should be considered for a Manufacturing USA alliance institute? Technical projects? Education and workforce efforts? Others?

5. Should joining the Manufacturing USA network change any aspect of how a current organization operates?

6. What, if any, administrative, reporting, and meeting responsibilities should be required for the alliance institutes? For those responsibilities, what technical or other support should NIST provide to assist the alliance institutes?

7. Should institutes joining the Manufacturing USA network be able to accept projects or funding from foreign entities? If so, under what terms should foreign entities be able to participate?

8. If an existing organization becomes a member of Manufacturing USA via the “alliance pathway,” should that organization still be eligible to apply to be a fully funded institute under a competition sponsored by a federal agency?

9. How might the alliance pathway be structured to ease entry to the network by manufacturing centers that specifically address underrepresented technology areas of importance to U.S. manufacturers, or that increase the geographic reach and accessibility of the Network to underserved customers and communities?

10. What types of relationships should exist, or be required, between applicant entities and other federal manufacturing programs, such as NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)?

11. Does the proposed process, as described in this notice, seem appropriate? Any suggestions for changes?

12. Applications will be evaluated by a panel using evaluation criteria that has yet to be determined. What are some relevant evaluation criteria for use in this process?

13. Do you have any other comments or suggestions related to this proposed approach?

The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding the Atlantic Shark ID and Safe Handling, Release, and ID workshops are posted on the internet at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/atlantic-highly-migratory-species/atlantic-shark-identification-workshops and https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/atlantic-highly-migratory-species/safe-handling-release-and-identification-workshops .

Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Thus, certificates that were initially issued in 2017 will be expiring in 2020. Approximately 169 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since April 2008.

Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.

1. April 2, 2020, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 124 Old Eastwood Road, Wilmington, NC 28403.

2. May 7, 2020, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., La Quinta Inn, 10 Aero Road, Bohemia, NY 11716.

3. June 11, 2020, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 West, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.

To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at ericssharkguide@yahoo.com or at (386) 852-8588. Pre-registration is highly recommended, but not required.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:

• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.

The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Certificates issued in 2017 will be expiring in 2020. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 340 free Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.

In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.

1. April 1, 2020, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.

2. April 3, 2020, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hampton Inn, 230 Lee Burbank Highway, Revere MA 02151,

3. May 1, 2020, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 99701 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, FL 33037.

4. May 4, 2020, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.

5. June 1, 2020, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 55 Town Center Boulevard, Palm Coast, FL 32164.

6. June 11, 2020, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Residence Inn, 300 Seabay Lane, Ocean City, MD 21842.

To register for a scheduled Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158. Pre-registration is highly recommended, but not required.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:

• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.

• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.

• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.

The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, and prohibited sharks. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species and prohibited sharks will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species and prohibited sharks, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.

On February 14, 2005, the Makah Indian Tribe submitted to NMFS a request to resume treaty-based hunting of eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales in the coastal portion of the Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds (U&A). The Tribe's request stems from the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay, which expressly secures the Makah Tribe's right to hunt whales. To exercise that right, the Makah Tribe is seeking authorization from NMFS under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Whaling Convention Act. The MMPA imposes a general moratorium on the taking of marine mammals but authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to waive the moratorium and issue regulations governing the take of marine mammals if certain statutory criteria are met. The decision to waive the moratorium and issue regulations must be made on the record after an opportunity for an agency hearing on both the waiver and regulations (16 U.S.C. 1373(d)).

On May 9, 2008, NMFS released a DEIS but later terminated that DEIS in 2012 (77 FR 29967, May 21, 2012) because of new scientific information. In that 2012 notice the agency announced its intent to prepare a new DEIS and open a scoping process (77 FR 29967, May 21, 2012). On March 13, 2015, NMFS released a new DEIS (80 FR 13373) for public comment that included a no-action alternative and five action alternatives. On April 5, 2019, NMFS published a proposed rule (84 FR 13604) and notice of hearing (84 FR 13639) to issue a waiver under the MMPA and propose regulations governing the hunting of ENP gray whales by the Makah Tribe for a 10-year period. The hunt proposal as set forth in the proposed rule represents a composite alternative that combines certain elements from the five DEIS action alternatives.

As required under the MMPA, NMFS convened a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge regarding the proposed waiver and regulations (16 U.S.C. 1373(d)). The hearing took place from November 14, 2019 through November 21, 2019 in Seattle, Washington. In addition to NMFS, five parties participated at the hearing. Following the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will issue a recommended decision regarding the proposed waiver and regulations, NMFS will provide notice of a 20-day public comment period, and then the NMFS Assistant Administrator will make a final decision on the proposed regulations and waiver in accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR part 228.

NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1502.9 provide for supplementing a DEIS if the agency determines that there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. An agency may also prepare a supplement when it determines that the purposes of NEPA will be furthered by doing so. A new issue of fact that occurred after issuance of the 2015 DEIS but was addressed at the agency hearing is the Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for ENP gray whales declared by NMFS in May 2019 (see information posted https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast ). Because information concerning the ongoing 2019 UME was presented at the agency hearing but not expressly addressed in the 2015 DEIS, NMFS has determined that it would now benefit both the public and agency decision making to prepare a supplement to the DEIS. NMFS expects that the supplement will incorporate the information presented at the hearing regarding the 2019 UME and any additional relevant information and will take into consideration the Administrative Law Judge's recommended decision. NMFS also intends to expressly identify the hunt proposal, as described in the proposed rule and addressed at the agency hearing, as a separate action alternative in the supplement. Previously, NMFS determined that because the hunt proposal comprises elements and outcomes within the scope of the DEIS action alternatives and does not substantially change the proposed action in a manner relevant to environmental concerns, a supplement to the DEIS was not warranted based on the consideration of the composite alternative alone. Given our determination that NEPA's purposes would be furthered through a DSEIS addressing the 2019 UME, we will also separately evaluate the composite alternative/hunt proposal in the DEIS.

The environmental review of the Makah Tribe's request to resume treaty-based hunting of ENP gray whales will be conducted under the authority and in accordance with the requirements of the NEPA of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361-1421h), other applicable Federal laws and regulations, and policies and procedures of NMFS for compliance with those regulations.

This is a request for review of a new information collection.

NOAA's Office of Coastal Management (OCM) is proposing a new information collection that will allow interested parties to submit requests for revisions to update the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS). CMECS was approved by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) in August 2012 and provides a national standard for consistent descriptions of coastal and marine ecological features. The primary uses of CMECS are in mapping and classifying the geological, physical, biological, and chemical components of the environment. Among other applications, the CMECS framework can be used to integrate data from disparate sources, facilitate comparisons among sites, and organize data for regional assessment. Since its publication in 2012, the CMECS has been used to characterize habitats ranging from coastal wetlands and estuaries to the deep ocean and at local to global scales. Benefits of CMECS include: Data collected by different sensors and methods can be integrated into a single database; all the physical, biological, and chemical-forcing functions that collectively determine a habitat type can be captured; and the system has the flexibility to accommodate new units as additional information becomes available.

The CMECS was developed as a dynamic standard to allow periodic revisions to continue to meet the needs of the user community and as such, the CMECS can be updated to accommodate the requirements of evolving scientific practices, technology, and coastal and marine resource management. The review process allows the CMECS to retain its consistency, credibility, and rigor through periodic reviews and an orderly, authoritative, and transparent updating process as required by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Anyone can propose changes, which can include minor edits, such as grammatical or typographical corrections, clarifications of definitions and meaning, or more substantial changes to the hierarchy within components. The CMECS Implementation Group, through the Office for Coastal Management, has determined it is necessary to initiate the dynamic standard process to revise the CMECS. We are soliciting recommendations for revisions to the CMECS through a form to be posted on the CMECS website. All recommendations collected will be reviewed and revisions will be made to the CMECS to reflect those recommendations found to be valuable for implementation of the CMECS and supportive of the user community needs.

Information will primarily be collected through a form on the CMECS website; however, we will also accept paper format for anyone unable to access the form through the internet. Some follow up interviews may occur to better understand recommendations as needed.

OMB Control Number: 0648-NEW.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission; request for a new information collection.

Affected Public: Coastal scientists and managers throughout the United States responsible for characterization of coastal and marine habitats or ecosystems more broadly. This may include academia; non-governmental organizations; State, Local or Tribal government; Federal government; and for-profit environmental support businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 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.

The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) was established within the Executive Branch of the Federal Government by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, 712 (D.C. Code § 24-133(a)). On August 4, 2000, CSOSA was certified by the United States Attorney General as an independent Federal agency. The Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA) is an independent entity within CSOSA.

Section 3 of Executive Order 13891 requires federal agencies to “establish or maintain on its website a single, searchable, indexed database that contains or links to all guidance documents in effect from such agency or component.” Executive Order 13891, 84 FR 55, 235 (October 9, 2019). OMB Memorandum M-20-02 further requires agencies to “send to the Federal Register a notice announcing the existence of the new guidance portal and explaining that all guidance documents remaining in effect are contained on the new guidance portal.” OMB Memorandum M-20-02, page 1 (October 31, 2019).

In compliance with the above, CSOSA and PSA are respectively noticing the availability of a single, searchable, indexed database for CSOSA containing all CSOSA guidance documents currently in effect, which may be accessed at https://www.csosa.gov/guidance; and the availability of a single, searchable, indexed database for PSA containing all PSA guidance currently in effect, which may be accessed at https://www.psa.gov/?q=subject_index.

The ASMIS covers records pertaining to safety investigation data and travel risk assessments. The records are associated with two USA information technology (IT) systems: Army Safety Management Information System-Revised (ASMIS-R) and Travel Risk Planning System (TRiPS). The ASMIS-R is the USA's enterprise IT system for collecting, storing, and managing USA safety incident data. The TRiPS is a web-based application which allows individuals to generate risk assessments when traveling by a personally owned automobile or motorcycle. Records generated by the ASMIS-R and TRiPS are not retrieved by the use of a personal identifier, therefore the records are not subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended).

The U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center (USACRC) uses safety incident data stored in the ASMIS-R to produce reports, operational guidance, training materials, and incident analyses for the USA. Investigations for mishaps and occupational injuries are mandated by 5 U.S.C. 7902, Safety Programs and DoD Instruction 6055.07, “Mishap Notification, Investigation, Reporting, and Record Keeping.” The investigations are conducted in accordance with USA Regulation 385-10, “The Army Safety Program,” and USA Pamphlet 385-40, “Army Accident Investigations and Reporting.” Safety investigations are used exclusively for accident prevention purposes. As such, the USA established specialized procedures to maintain the integrity of investigatory case files by restricting queries to descriptors of the incident. Safety investigation records may contain privileged information to include witness statements, deliberative products, pictures, diagrams, audio and video tapes, investigatory notes, and findings. The information collected is required to determine causal factors, implement corrective actions, and develop mitigation strategies. Although personal information is collected during the course of the investigation, it is not used to retrieve safety records. The collection and use of personal information is necessary to conduct interviews and to assess causal factors (human error, material, or environmental). Personal identifiers may be used to request data maintained in existing DoD Systems of Records to include personnel, training, medical, and law enforcement records.

Individuals involved in, witness to a USA safety incident, and or other interested parties may request information collected in safety investigations records under the provisions of the FOIA. The USACRC Commander has oversight of the USA Safety program under authority granted by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment. Accordingly, the USACRC is the repository for all USA safety accident reports. All FOIA requests pertaining to USA safety accident investigation reports will be referred through command channels to Commander, U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center, Ruf Avenue, Building 4905, Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5363. Electronic FOIA requests may be submitted via the USACRC web page at: https://safety.army.mil/HOME/FOIA.aspx. The USACRC Commander has the authority to act as the initial denial authority on requests for information from USA Safety Accident Reports.

Records pertaining to individual travel risk assessments are created in the TRiPS application. The TRiPS is a web-based tool accessible to all DoD service members and civilians. The TRiPS allows individuals to create a safety assessment when traveling by a privately owned automobile or motorcycle for leave, pass or other purpose. The application provides a fillable worksheet and generates a PDF file and is automatically emailed to the addressee specified by the individual completing the worksheet. Personal information entered in the worksheet includes name, email address, supervisor's email address, departure location, destination, and travel dates. All personal information entered in the TRiPS is stored in a temporary cache while the assessment is generated. The output (PDF) is a travel risk assessment for the individual to submit to his or her supervisor for face-to-face counseling. The risk assessment provides tips to help with trip planning and reinforces safe driving practices. The individual may optionally save the PDF to a location of his or her choosing. The completed worksheet is retained by the supervisor in the individual's local supervisory/counseling record. The application does not store or share data with the ASMIS-R. The application was included as a System of Records under the ASMIS during initial development, however, the requirements changed as the application was expanded to support all services. The TRiPS does not require user registration and does not maintain any records on individuals.

Rescission of this SORN does not affect the safeguards, retention, or disposition of the records. Paper and electronic records are protected in accordance with policies in DoD Manual 5200.01, Volume 4, DoD Information Security Program: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Records are accessed by person(s) responsible for servicing the records system in performance of their official duties and by properly screened authorized personnel cleared for need-to-know. Records are stored in locked rooms, cabinets, and in computer storage devices protected by computer system software. Access to computerized data is restricted by use of Common Access Cards (CACs) and is accessible only by users with an authorized account. USA safety mishap and occupational injury records, both physical and digital will be retained for 50 year(s) after the event and until no longer needed for business use, in accordance with the approved records schedule. Travel assessments generated by the TRiPS are maintained based on the component's disposition schedules for local supervisory/counseling records.

The DoD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or via the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division website at https://dpcld.defense.gov.

The proposed systems reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on December 30, 2019, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 211, Describing Agency Needs, and Related Clause at 252.211; OMB Control Number 0704-0398.

Type of Request: Revision and extension.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Number of Respondents: 256.

Responses per Respondent: About 254.

Annual Responses: 65,000.

Average Burden per Response: .25 hours, approximately.

Annual Burden Hours: 16,250.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Needs and Uses: This information collection pertains to DFARS clause 252.211-7007, Reporting of Government-Furnished Property, which requires contractors to report to the Item Unique Identification (IUID) Registry all Government-furnished property (GFP), as well as contractor receipt of non-serially managed items. “Serially managed item” means an item designated by DoD to be uniquely tracked, controlled, or managed in maintenance, repair, and/or supply systems by means of its serial number. The clause provides a list of specific data elements contractors are to report to the IUID registry, as well as procedures for updating the registry. DoD needs this information to strengthen the accountability and end-to-end traceability of GFP within DoD. Through electronic notification of physical receipt, DoD is made aware that GFP has arrived at the contractor's facility. The DoD logistics community uses the information as a data source of available DoD equipment. In addition, the DoD organization responsible for contract administration uses the data to test the adequacy of the contractor's property management system.

Title and OMB Number: Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Part 205, Publicizing Contract Actions, and DFARS 252-205-7000, Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreement Holders; OMB Control Number 0704-0286.

Needs and Uses: DFARS 205.470 prescribes the use of the clause at DFARS 252.205-7000, Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreement Holders, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, which are expected to exceed $1,000,000. This clause implements 10 U.S.C. 2416, by requiring contractors to provide cooperative agreement holders, upon request, with a list of the contractor's employees or offices responsible for entering into subcontracts under Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The Contractor need not provide the listing to a particular cooperative agreement holder more frequently than once a year. Upon receipt of a contractor's list, the cooperative agreement holder utilizes the information to help businesses identify and pursue contracting opportunities with DoD and expand the number of businesses capable of participating in Government contracts.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 7,027.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 7,027.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1.1 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 7,730.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

DFARS 205.470 prescribes the use of the clause at DFARS 252.205-7000, Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreement Holders, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, which are expected to exceed $1,000,000. The clause requires contractors to provide cooperative agreement holders, upon request, with a list of the contractor's employees or offices responsible for entering into subcontracts under DoD contracts. The list must include the business address, telephone number, and area of responsibility of each employee or office.

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Part 204, Administrative Matters and Related Clause at 252.204; OMB Control Number 0704-0225.

Type of Request: Revision and extension.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Number of Respondents: 545.

Responses per Respondent: Approximately 5.57.

Annual Responses: 3,036.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately 3 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 9,108.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Needs and Uses: DFARS 204.404-70(a) prescribes use of DFARS Clause 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information, in contracts that require the contractor to access or generate unclassified information that may be sensitive and inappropriate for release to the public. The clause requires the contractor to obtain approval of the contracting officer before release of any unclassified contract-related information outside the contractor's organization, unless the information is already in the public domain. In requesting this approval, the contractor must identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the purpose for the release. Upon receipt of a contractor's request, the Government reviews the information provided by the contractor to determine if it is sensitive or otherwise inappropriate for release for the stated purpose.

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part 225, Foreign Acquisition, and Related Clauses at 252.225; DD Form 2139; OMB Control Number 0704-0229.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 39,221.

Responses per Respondent: 10, approximately.

Annual Responses: 382,876.

Average Burden per Response: .28 hours, approximately.

Annual Burden Hours: 106,730 (106,995 reporting hours and recordkeeping hours).

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Needs and Uses: DoD needs this information to ensure compliance with restrictions on the acquisition of foreign products imposed by statute or policy to protect the industrial base; to ensure compliance with U.S. trade agreements and memoranda of understanding that promote reciprocal trade with the U.S. allies; and to prepare reports for submission to the Department of Commerce on the Balance of Payments Program. This information collection includes requirements related to foreign acquisition in DFARS Part 225, Foreign Acquisition, and the related clauses at DFARS 252.225 as follows:

DFARS 252.225-7000, Buy American—Balance of Payments Program Certificate, as prescribed in 225.1101(1) and (1)(i), requires the offeror to identify in its proposal supplies that do not meet the definition of domestic end product, separately listing qualifying country and other foreign end products. The Buy American statute does not apply to acquisitions of commercial information technology.

DFARS 252.225-7003, Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada—Submission with Offer, and 252.225-7004, Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada—Submission after Award, as prescribed in DFARS 225.7204(a) and (b) respectively, require offerors and contractors to submit a Report of Contract Performance Outside the United States for subcontracts to be performed outside the United States. The reporting threshold is $750,000 for contracts that exceed $15 million. The contractor may submit the report on DD Form 2139, Report of Contract Performance Outside the United States, or a computer-generated report that contains all information required by DD Form 2139.

DFARS 252.225-7005, Identification of Expenditures in the United States, as prescribed in DFARS 225.1103(1), requires contractors incorporated or located in the United States to identify, on each request for payment under contracts for supplies to be used, or for construction or services to be performed, outside the United States, that part of the requested payment representing estimated expenditures in the United States.

DFARS 252.225-7010, Commercial Derivative Military Article—Specialty Metals Compliance Certificate, as prescribed at DFARS 225.7003-5(b), requires the offeror to certify that it will take certain actions with regard to specialty metals if the offeror chooses to use the alternative compliance approach when providing commercial derivative military articles to the Government.

DFARS 252.225-7013, Duty-Free Entry, prescribed at DFARS 225.1101(4), requires the contractor or an authorized agent to provide information on shipping documents and customs forms regarding those items that are eligible for duty-free entry.

DFARS 252.225-7018, Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate, as prescribed at DFARS 225.7017-4(b), requires offerors to certify that no photovoltaic devices with an estimated value exceeding the micro-purchase threshold will be utilized in performance of the contract or to specify the country of origin.

DFARS 252.225-7020, Trade Agreements Certificate, as prescribed in 225.1101(5) and (5)(i), only requires listing of nondesignated country end products. This provision is used in solicitations for all acquisitions subject to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement.

DFARS 252.225-7021, Alternate II, Trade Agreements, as prescribed in DFARS 225.1101(6) and (6)(ii), in order to comply with a condition of the waiver authority provided by the United States Trade Representative to the Secretary of Defense, requires contractors from a South Caucasus/Central or South Asian state to inform the government of its participation in the acquisition and also advise their governments that they generally will not have such opportunities in the future unless their governments provide reciprocal procurement opportunities to U.S. products and services and suppliers of such products and services.

DFARS 252.225-7023, Preference for Products or Services from Afghanistan, as prescribed in DFARS 225.7703-4(a), requires offerors to identify products or services that are not products or services from Afghanistan.

DFARS 252.225-7025, Restriction on Acquisition of Forgings, as prescribed in DFARS 225.7102-4, also requires contractor retention of records showing compliance with the restrictions until 3 years after final payment. The contractor agrees to make the records available to the contracting officer upon request. The contractor may request a waiver in accordance with DFARS 225.7102-3.

DFARS 252.225-7032, Waiver of United Kingdom Levies—Evaluation of Offers, and 252.225-7033, Waiver of United Kingdom Levies, as prescribed in DFARS 225.1101(7) and (8) respectively, require United Kingdom offerors and prime contractors, and offerors and prime contractors with subcontracts of a dollar value exceeding $1 million with United Kingdom firms, to provide certain information necessary for DoD to obtain a waiver of United kingdom levies.

DFARS 252.225-7035, Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program Certificate, as prescribed in 225.1101(9) and (9)(i), requires separate listing of qualifying country (except Canada), FTA country, or other foreign end products. Alternate I, as prescribed in 225.1101(9) and (9)(ii), requires listing of Canadian end products, rather than FTA country end products, in solicitations between $25,000 and the FTA threshold. The Buy American statute no longer applies to acquisitions of commercial information technology.

DFARS 252.225-7046, Exports of Approved Community Members in Response to the Solicitation, as prescribed at DFARS 225.7902-5(a), requires a representation whether exports or transfers of qualifying defense articles were made in preparing the response to the solicitation. If yes, the offeror represents that such exports or transfers complied with the requirements of the provision.

This System of Records was intended to assist DoDEA personnel with registering for professional development sessions which were planned to be provided over the summer months. However, the summer professional development sessions were cancelled prior to opening them up for registration. As such, no records were ever created by the system and thus this SORN can be deleted.

The OSD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division website at https://dpcld.defense.gov.

The proposed systems reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on December 6, 2019, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

The application was decommissioned in July 2012, and the records were subsequently destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration's approved records retention and disposition schedule. Therefore, this SORN can be deleted.

The OSD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division website at https://dpcld.defense.gov.

The proposed system reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on December 13, 2019, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

On November 19, 2013, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), published a new System of Records, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Enterprise Workforce System (EWS) (November 19, 2013, 78 FR 69393). All records previously covered by the NGA Vehicle Registration and Drivers Record Files are now covered by the Enterprise Workforce System, System of Records.

The DoD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division website at https://dpcld.defense.gov.

The proposed system reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on December 6, 2019, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

This system tracked personnel alcoholism and drug abuse records. All files were destroyed in accordance with the records disposition in the SORN and the system is no longer active.

The OSD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division website at https://dpcld.defense.gov.

The proposed systems reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on January 14, 2020, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

The DTMO never performed an internal workforce assessment and no records were ever placed in this system. Because no assessments were conducted by DTMO, the DTMO Workforce SORN is not required; therefore, the SORN can be rescinded.

The OSD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division website at https://dpcld.defense.gov.

The proposed system reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on December 6, 2020, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

This rescindment removes a duplicative system of records. The original personnel records continue to be maintained in accordance with the following SORNs: AF 036 AF PC C (Air Force), A0600-8 AHRC (Army) and N01070-3 (Navy and Marine Corps).

The DoD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division website at https://dpcld.defense.gov.

The proposed system reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on February 14, 2020, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

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: Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program Performance Report.

OMB Control Number: 1855-0010.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 60.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,500.

Abstract: The purpose of the Credit Enhancement program is to award grants to eligible entities that demonstrate innovative methods of helping charter schools address the cost of acquiring, constructing, and renovating facilities by enhancing the availability of loans and bond financing. This program provides grants to eligible entities to permit them to enhance the credit of charter schools so that the charter schools can access private-sector and other non-Federal capital in order to acquire, construct, and renovate facilities at a reasonable cost. The Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program and the Charter Schools Facilities Financing Demonstration Program have a statutory mandate for an annual report. This reporting is a requirement in order to obtain or retain benefits according to section 4304 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015. The information is collected in order to adhere to statutory requirements and to perform monitoring and evaluation of grantees.

1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission seeks comments on the potential benefits and risks associated with the use of virtualization and cloud computing services in association with bulk electric system operations. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether barriers exist in the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards, which are developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and approved by the Commission, that impede the voluntary adoption of virtualization or cloud computing services.

2. This NOI is an outgrowth of discussions concerning the potential benefits and risks associated with the adoption of virtualization and cloud computing services for bulk electric system operations at the Commission's June 27, 2019 Reliability Technical Conference and the March 28, 2019 Commission/Department of Energy (DOE) Security Investments for Energy Infrastructure Technical Conference. 1

3. The Commission intends to use the record developed in this proceeding to determine whether it would be appropriate, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act, to direct that NERC develop modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards to facilitate the voluntary adoption of virtualization and cloud computing services by registered entities. 2

4. Virtualization is the process of creating virtual, as opposed to physical, versions of computer hardware to minimize the amount of physical computer hardware resources required to perform various functions. 3 Virtualization is commonly used in business applications and is managed through centralized software, referred to as a hypervisor, that manages multiple virtual computer resources that can be used by different processes, customers, clients, and users. A virtual environment can be a single program and the operating system on which it executes; a combination of multiple programs and associated operating systems, networks, computing environments, storage devices, or other such digital environments.

5. Virtualization can be used on a stand-alone basis in a bulk electric system control center environment to reduce capital and operating costs, increase the efficiency of existing computing assets, and improve incident recovery, among other reasons. Virtualization offers the potential for cost savings in asset management, including minimizing the need for physical assets, which require building space and procuring and maintaining physical computer hardware. A virtualized system can also be more quickly recovered than physical systems in the event of a malfunction or compromise.

6. Virtualization is a necessary technical enabler if the functions of BES Cyber Systems are to be moved to a cloud computing environment since a customer choosing to migrate one or more on-premise systems to the cloud will need to virtualize those systems for use in the cloud. 4

7. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Information Technology Laboratory Computer Security Resource Center defines cloud computing as a “model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources ( e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.”  5

8. The primary cloud service models include Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS). These three cloud service models provide different levels of flexibility and control to organizations choosing to use cloud computing services. Entities may use cloud computing services for the simple storage of data or, as discussed above, to host and operate virtual systems used for bulk electric system operations. As a general matter, cloud computing enables entities to focus resources on providing core services, such as transmission or generation of electric energy, while outsourcing the IT infrastructure required to support them.

9. Leveraging cloud computing services in technology and business processes provides entities the opportunity to realize benefits in their IT operations, including greater scalability, greater flexibility and lower capital investment. Cloud computing services provide computing power and storage at a lower cost than maintaining in-house IT infrastructure while providing the capability for almost instantaneous expansion of services. Other potential benefits from the adoption of cloud computing services include enhanced access to data and applications due to the inherent redundancy and multiple pathways used to access cloud computing services.

10. On June 27, 2019, the Commission held its annual Reliability Technical Conference to discuss four fundamental topics, including the impact of cloud-based services and virtualization on bulk electric system operations, planning and security. 6 The technical conference addressed, among other things: (1) Evolution of cloud computing and virtualization of cloud computing and virtualization technologies; (2) outsourcing risk; (3) Reliability Standards modifications; (4) appropriate systems for a cloud environment; and (5) security and non-security related benefits.

11. In general, panelists at the Reliability Technical Conference acknowledged the emergence of virtualization and cloud computing services and indicated that the Commission should take some action to address the use of these technologies for bulk electric system data management. Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) recommended that the Commission further engage industry and cloud service providers in one or more technical conferences to clarify issues and direct timely industry action to establish a way forward with changes to CIP Reliability Standards specifically to accommodate the use of cloud computing services. 7 MISO explained that the benefits of virtualization include enhanced system recovery. In particular, MISO noted that during the past year it was able to recover virtual assets quicker than traditional computing assets when testing backup and recovery processes. American Public Power Association and Large Public Power Council, moreover, stated that if done with care, cloud computing solutions can reduce risk, increase flexibility and improve the security posture of the bulk electric system. 8

12. During the Commission/DOE Security Investments for Energy Infrastructure Technical Conference on March 28, 2019, Southwest Power Pool (SPP) urged more flexibility regarding the use of cloud computing. SPP stated that it evaluated a number of products that would enable it to do a better job of protecting system data. SPP asserted the view that the currently-effective CIP Reliability Standards do not allow cloud-based technologies despite the fact that the vast majority of new products from many of its vendors are cloud-based. As an example, SPP stated that it:

13. The concerns reflected in the comments from the two recent technical conferences have prompted the issuance of this NOI to seek additional comments on the benefits and risks associated with the use of virtualization and cloud computing services in association with bulk electric system operations. Further, to the extent that there are barriers in the currently-effective CIP Reliability Standards to their use, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is appropriate for the Commission to direct action to facilitate the voluntary adoption of virtualization and cloud computing services.

14. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks comments on the potential benefits and risks associated with the use of virtualization and cloud computing services, as well as whether barriers may exist in the CIP Reliability Standards that impede the adoption of virtualization or cloud computing. Specifically, the Commission seeks comments on four general topics as part of this inquiry: (A) Scope of potential use of virtualization and cloud computing services; (B) potential benefits and risks associated with virtualization and cloud computing services; (C) potential impediments to adopting virtualization and cloud computing services; and (D) potential use of new and emerging technologies in the current CIP standards framework.

15. In the following sections, we pose questions that commenters should address in their submissions. However, commenters need not address every topic or answer every question identified below.

16. As discussed above, virtualization and cloud computing services offer a wide variety of potential uses in the context of users, owners and operators of the bulk electric system. Some entities may choose to utilize the cloud simply for data storage. Other entities may rely on virtualization and cloud storage to operate systems that control one or more core functions. Potential uses may include one or more of the BES reliability operating services described in the Guidelines and Technical Basis section of Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a (Cyber Security—BES Cyber System Categorization). 10 Specifically, it is possible that either virtualization or cloud computing services could be leveraged for the following reliability operating services:

17. Using BES reliability operating services as a point of reference to distinguish among possible applications of virtualization and cloud computing services in bulk electric system operations:

18. The Commission seeks comment on the potential benefits and risks associated with virtualization and cloud computing services:

19. As discussed above, during the Commission's 2019 annual Reliability Technical Conference, several commenters alluded to the fact that cloud-based offerings continue to increase as vendors are moving more of their services to the cloud. 11 Commenters further asserted that there is uncertainty on how virtualization and cloud computing services can be leveraged within the existing CIP framework. Similarly, at the March 2019 Commission/DOE Security Investments for Energy Infrastructure Technical Conference, a panelist asserted that there is uncertainty among registered entities on whether the CIP Reliability Standards allow cloud-based technologies “despite the fact that the majority of new products from many vendors are cloud-based.”  12

20. In light of the concerns expressed at these technical conferences, the Commission seeks comment on potential challenges with how the implementation of virtualization and cloud computing technologies will fit into the framework of the CIP Reliability Standards, and possible solutions to those challenges:

21. The Commission seeks comment on potential new and emerging technologies beyond virtualization and cloud computing that responsible entities may be interested in adopting for the BES reliability operating services and if the CIP Reliability Standards would allow these technologies to be adopted.

22. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due April 27, 2020, and Reply Comments are due May 27, 2020. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM20-8-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.

23. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word-processing formats. Documents created electronically using word-processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

24. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

25. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

26. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

27. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

28. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft GFI #264 entitled “Standardized Medicated Feed Assay Limits.” This draft guidance recommends a standardized set of assay limits for medicated feeds. Standardized medicated feed assay limits allow predictability in the review process as the sponsor can determine early in the drug development process what assay limits they should expect to meet for medicated feeds used in Target Animal Safety, Effectiveness, Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls, Bioequivalence, and Human Food Safety residue chemistry studies. Assay limits are used pre-approval to ensure that medicated feeds in these studies contain the appropriate amount of drug, and post-approval for compliance and customer service purposes.

This Level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Standardized Assay Limits for Medicated Feeds.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in section 512(n)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(n)(1)) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0669. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/ GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

I. Background

In the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2012 (MDUFA III) Commitment Letter from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to Congress, FDA committed to streamlining review processes by moving beyond paper-based review (Ref. 1). Under section 745A(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379k-1), added by section 1136 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), an electronic copy (eCopy) is required for certain premarket submission types, including 510(k) submissions. FDA provided additional information about the submissions subject to the eCopy requirements in section 745A(b) of the FD&C Act and recommendations about the use of eCopy generally in a guidance initially issued in 2013 (Ref. 2), and subsequently published a final rule in the Federal Register of December 16, 2019 (84 FR 68334) amending FDA's regulations, where appropriate, to reflect the requirement of a single submission in electronic format, including the use of eCopy requirements.

In the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2017 (MDUFA IV) Commitment Letter from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to Congress (Ref. 3), FDA committed to developing “electronic submission templates that will serve as guided submission preparation tools for industry to improve submission consistency and enhance efficiency in the review process.” In addition, section 745A(b) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 207 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-52), also requires that presubmissions and submissions for devices, including 510(k) submissions, be submitted in such electronic format as specified in guidance by FDA.

eCopies are an electronic version of a medical device submission created and submitted on a CD, DVD, or flash drive. eSubmissions are submission packages produced by an electronic submission template ( e.g., eSubmitter, eSTAR) that contains all the structured and unstructured data of a complete submission. FDA considers both eCopies and eSubmissions to be submissions in electronic format.

As a first step in the transition to submissions solely in electronic format, FDA used the eSubmitter platform to develop an electronic submission template for 510(k) submissions. It is a free tool, and its use is optional. The eSubmitter application includes an electronic submission template that is a collection of questions, text, logic, and prompts that guides a user through preparation of a 510(k) submission. Upon completion, the resulting submission package contains all the structured and unstructured data of a complete 510(k) submission. This platform and submission process is currently being piloted through the “Quality in 510(k) Review Program Pilot” (Ref. 4) for the submission of traditional and abbreviated 510(k)s for devices that are reviewed by CDRH and fall under selected product codes.

Based on the experience with the eSubmitter platform, FDA has developed eSTAR, which includes similar benefits as eSubmitter, as well as additional benefits. Similar to eSubmitter, eSTAR includes the following benefits: Automation ( e.g., form construction, autofilling); content and structure that is complementary to CDRH internal review templates; integration of multiple resources ( e.g., guidances, databases); guided construction for each submission section; automatic verification ( i.e., FDA does not intend to conduct a Refuse to Accept (RTA) review (Ref. 5); and it is free to use. In comparison to eSubmitter, eSTAR contains the following additional benefits:

FDA is announcing and soliciting participation from 510(k) submitters for the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program. Data collected through the pilot program will help inform FDA on how to improve eSTAR.

FDA seeks participation in the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program beginning February 27, 2020. The voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program will select up to nine participants who provide a holistic representation of the medical device industry and meet the selection criteria.

Companies that may be eligible to participate in this voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program are limited to those firms following the procedures set out in section I.B and that also meet all the selection qualities that follow:

1. Intent to submit a traditional, special, or abbreviated 510(k) for a medical device (not a combination product) using eSTAR within 3 months of acceptance to the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program;

2. willing to provide feedback on eSTAR as outlined in section I.C. of this document; and

3. intent to submit at least one 510(k) for a device that contacts body tissue and includes software.

At its discretion, FDA may withdraw a manufacturer from the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program for not carrying out any of the commitments mentioned previously.

To be considered for the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program, a company should submit a statement of interest for participation to esubpilot@fda.hhs.gov. The statement of interest should include agreement to the selection qualities listed in section I.A. of this document, as well as a description of the device in enough detail to allow verification that it is not a combination product, and that it is a software enabled tissue contacting device.

The following captures the proposed process for the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program:

1. FDA will collect statements of interest for participation in the pilot program beginning February 27, 2020.

The statement of interest should include:

2. FDA will select no more than nine participants, who best meet the selection criteria and who reflect the broad spectrum of device manufacturers, including companies that develop a range of products. Enrollment in the pilot program will be ongoing throughout the duration of the program. FDA will apply lessons learned from the initial participants in the pilot program to refine the eSTAR tool with participants.

3. FDA intends to notify the manufacturer via email if the manufacturer is enrolled as a participant in the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program.

4. The enrolled manufacturer should download eSTAR from the following website: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-notification-510k/510k-program-pilots. Note: eSTAR should not be submitted to FDA unless the sponsor is a pilot participant.

5. Directions for preparing and submitting an eSTAR to FDA are in the final section of the eSTAR pdf. We recommend that you use Adobe Acrobat with eSTAR.

6. If eligible and enrolled as a participant, the manufacturer should submit a 510(k) submission prepared and verified using eSTAR within the timeframe identified in the selection criteria in section I.A. of this document.

7. Once the eSTAR-prepared 510(k) is received by FDA, FDA does not intend to conduct the RTA process. The remainder of the procedure will be conducted according to the FDA guidance “The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications” (Ref. 6) and the procedures identified in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E. However, if the contents of any attachment or text field are irrelevant to the purpose of the attachment or text field ( e.g., the Device Description attachment does not contain any descriptive information about the device) we may put your submission on hold, and request this particular information only, before beginning a comprehensive review.

8. Following completion of the review of 510(k)s in the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program, participating manufacturers will have the opportunity to provide individual feedback on the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program through the procedures outlined on the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program website. Non-pilot participants are welcome to submit feedback to the Docket (see ADDRESSES ).

During the voluntary eSTAR Pilot Program, CDRH staff intends to be available to answer questions or concerns that may arise.

FDA requests responses to the following questions about eSTAR from pilot program participants and stakeholders outside the pilot who want to submit comments to the docket.

(1) Is eSTAR able to integrate into your organization's business process?

(2) Are you able to open eSTAR, and are you able to add values to the structured data fields, as well as add attachments? Once entered and added, are the data retained after closing and reopening eSTAR?

(3) If you use Assistive Technology, are you able to navigate through and complete eSTAR?

(4) If eSTAR is not intuitive to use, why?

(5) Is the organization and content in eSTAR as expected, or do you have suggestions for improvement?

(6) Is eSTAR able to accommodate PDF attachments that are of the size you typically would provide in a submission?

(7) If all the required questions (indicated by red or green indicators) are provided values, and all the required attachments are added, does eSTAR properly indicate it is complete on the first page, and are all the sections listed in the “Completed” column in the final section?

(8) Do you have any suggestions to improve the effectiveness of eSTAR in its purpose, or suggestions to improve the usability?

This notice refers to previously approved FDA collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.

The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ), and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register , but websites are subject to change over time.

The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the United States Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition to the Secretary of HHS, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register .” Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on January 1, 2020, through January 31, 2020. This list provides the name of petitioner, city and state of vaccination (if unknown then city and state of person or attorney filing claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or

b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the United States Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, 08N146B, Rockville, Maryland 20857. The Court's caption ( Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of HHS ) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.