Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade. The CCFICS is responsible for:

(a) Developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems, with a view to harmonizing methods and procedures that protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trading practices, and facilitate international trade in foodstuffs;

(b) Developing principles and guidelines for the application of measures by the competent authorities of exporting and importing countries to provide assurance, where necessary, that foodstuffs comply with requirements, especially statutory health requirements;

(c) Developing guidelines for the utilization, as and when appropriate, of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform with requirements and to promote the recognition of these systems in facilitating trade in food products under bilateral/multilateral arrangements by countries;

(d) Developing guidelines and criteria with respect to format, declarations and language of such official certificates as countries may require with a view towards international harmonization;

(e) Making recommendations for information exchange in relation to food import/export control;

(f) Consulting as necessary with other international groups working on matters related to food inspection and certification systems; and

(g) Considering other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to food inspection and certification systems.

The CCFICS is hosted by Australia, and the meeting is attended by the United States as a member country of the Codex Alimentarius.

The following items on the Agenda for the 25th Session of the CCFICS will be discussed during the public meeting:

Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed by the Codex Secretariat before the Committee meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents from the U.S. Codex Office or on the internet (see ADDRESSES ).

At the March 25, 2020 public meeting, the draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Mary Stanley. Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 25th Session of the CCFICS.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the USDA Codex web page located at: http://www.usda.gov/codex, a link that also offers an email subscription service providing access to information related to Codex. Customers can add or delete their subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative. Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email.

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442, Email: program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-877-260-1479 and conference call ID number: 1929821. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator may ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-877-260-1479 and conference call ID number: 1929821.

Members of the public are invited to make statements during the Public Comments section of the meeting or to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, May 4, 2020. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at ero@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at 202-376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at: https://gsageo.force.com/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzlKAAQ. Please click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10, the Director of the Census Bureau is seeking nominations for the CSAC. The CSAC will operate under the provisions of the FACA and will report to the Secretary of the Department of Commerce through the Director of the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau's Census Scientific Advisory Committee will advise the Director of the Census Bureau on the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities. The Advisory Committee will provide scientific and technical expertise from the following disciplines: demographics, economics, geography, psychology, statistics, survey methodology, social and behavioral sciences, information technology and computing, marketing and other fields of expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives.

1. The CSAC advises the Director of the Census Bureau (Director) on the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities including communications, decennial, demographic, economic, field operations, geographic, information technology, and statisics.

2. The CSAC will address census policies, research and methodology, tests, operations, communications/messaging, and other activities to ascertain needs and best practices to improve censuses, surveys, operations, and programs.

3. The CSAC will provide formal review and feedback on internal and external working papers, reports, and other documents related to the design and implementation of census programs and surveys.

4. The CSAC will function solely as an advisory body and shall comply fully with the provisions of the FACA.

1. The CSAC consists of up to 21 members who serve at the discretion of the Director. The Census Bureau is seeking four qualified candidates to be considered for appointment.

2. The CSAC aims to have a balanced representation among its members, considering such factors as geography, age, sex, race, ethnicity, technical expertise, community involvement, and knowledge of census programs and/or activities. Individuals will be selected based on their expertise in or represenation of specific areas as needed by the Census Bureau.

3. The CSAC members will serve for a three-year term. All members will be reevaluated at the conclusion of each term with the prospect of renewal, pending the committee needs. Active attendance and participation in meetings and activities ( e.g., conference calls and assignments) will be factors considered when determining term renewal or membership continuance. Members may be appointed for a second three-year term at the discretion of the Director.

4. Membership is open to persons who are not seated on other Census Bureau stakeholder entities ( i.e., State Data Centers, Census Information Centers, Federal State Cooperative on Populations Estimates Program, other advisory committees, etc.). Members who have served on one Census Bureau Advisory committee may not be reappointed or serve on the CSAC until at least three years have passed from the termination of previous service.

5. Members will serve as “Special Government Employees (SGEs). SGEs will be subject to the ethics rules applicable to SGEs. Members will be individually advised of the capacity in which they will serve through their appointment letters. Committee members are selected from academia, public and private enterprise, and nonprofit organizations, which are further diversified by business type or industry, geography, and other factors.

1. Members of the CSAC serve without compensation, but receive reimbursement for committee-related travel and lodging expenses.

2. The CSAC meets at least twice a year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Census Bureau Director or Designated Federal Officer. All CSAC meetings are open to the public in accordance with the FACA.

1. Nominations should satisfy the requirements described in the Membership section above.

2. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of candidates. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (resume´ or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the committee, including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, committee meeting discussant responsibilities, review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and/or special committee activities.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse CSAC membership.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10, the Director of the Census Bureau is seeking nominations for the NAC. The NAC will operate under the provisions of FACA and will report to the Secretary of the Department of Commerce through the Director of the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau's National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations will advise the Director of the Census Bureau on the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities. The Advisory Committee will provide race, ethnic, and other population expertise from the following disciplines: Economic, housing, demographic, socioeconomic, linguistic, technological, methodological, geographic, and behavioral and operational variables affecting the cost, accuracy, and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys, including the decennial census.

1. The NAC advises the Director of the Census Bureau (the Director) on the full range of economic, housing, demographic, socioeconomic, linguistic, technological, methodological, geographic, behavioral, and operational variables affecting the cost, accuracy, and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys, including the decennial census.

2. The NAC advises the Census Bureau on the identification of new strategies for improved census operations, and survey and data collection methods, including identifying cost efficient ways to increase response rates.

3. The NAC provides guidance on census policies, research and methodology, tests, operations, communications/messaging, and other activities to ascertain needs and best practices to improve censuses, surveys, operations, and programs.

4. The NAC reviews and provides formal recommendations and feedback on working papers, reports, and other documents related to the design and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys.

5. In providing insight, perspectives, and expertise on the full spectrum of Census Bureau surveys and programs, the NAC examines such areas as hidden households, language barriers, students and youth, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, poverty, race/ethnic distribution, privacy and confidentiality, rural populations and businesses, individuals and households with limited access to information and communications technologies, the dynamic nature of new businesses, minority ownership of businesses, as well as other concerns impacting Census Bureau survey design and implementation.

6. The NAC uses formal advisory committee meetings, webinars, web conferences, working groups, and other methods to accomplish its goals, consistent with the requirements of the FACA. The NAC will consult with regional office staff to help identify regional, local, tribal and grass roots issues, trends and perspectives related to Census Bureau surveys and programs.

7. The NAC functions solely as an advisory body under the FACA.

1. The NAC consists of up to 32 members who serve at the discretion of the Director. The Census Bureau is seeking eight qualified candidates to be considered for appointment.

2. The NAC aims to have a balanced representation among its members, considering such factors as geography, age, sex, race, ethnicity, technical expertise, community involvement, and knowledge of census programs and/or activities.

3. The NAC aims to include members from diverse backgrounds, including state, local and tribal governments; academia; research, national and community-based organizations; and, the private sector.

4. Members will be selected from the public and private sectors. Members may serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) or representatives who are selected to represent specific organizations.

5. SGEs and representatives will be selected based on their expertise in or representation of specific areas to include: Diverse populations (including race and ethnic populations); national, state, local, and tribal interest organizations serving hard-to-count populations; researchers; community-based organizations; academia; business interests; marketing and media professionals; researchers; and, members of professional associations. Members will be individually advised of the capacity in which they will serve through their appointment letters.

6. Membership is open to persons who are not seated on other Census Bureau stakeholder entities ( i.e., State Data Centers, Census Information Centers, Federal State Cooperative on Populations Estimates Program, other Census Advisory Committees, etc.). People who have already served one full-term on a Census Bureau Advisory Committee may not serve on any other Census Bureau Advisory Committee for three years from the termination of previous service. No employee of the federal government can serve as a member of the NAC.

7. Members will serve for a three-year term. All members will be reevaluated at the conclusion of each term with the prospect of renewal, pending the committee needs. Active attendance and participation in meetings and activities ( e.g., conference calls and assignments) will be factors considered when determining term renewal or membership continuance. Members may be appointed for a second three-year term at the discretion of the Director.

8. Members will be selected on a standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.

1. Members of the NAC serve without compensation, but receive reimbursement for committee-related travel and lodging expenses.

2. The NAC meets at least twice a year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Census Bureau Director or Designated Federal Officer. All NAC meetings are open to the public in accordance with the FACA.

1. Nominations should satisfy the requirements described in the Membership section above.

2. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of candidates. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (resume´ or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the committee, including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, committee meeting discussant responsibilities, review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and/or special committee activities.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse NAC membership.

The members of the CSAC are appointed by the Director, Census Bureau. The Committee provides scientific and technical expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10).

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Provide and update members on scientific and technical activities; and

2. address Census Bureau program needs and objectives.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make oral statements should request in writing by Wednesday, March 18, 2020, to be scheduled on the agenda. Requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to: census.scientific.advisory.committee@census.gov. Please place in the subject line “March 2020 CSAC Meeting Public Comment.” Anyone who would like to bring extensive related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments must be sent to: Kimberly Leonard, External Stakeholder Program Manager, Office of Program, Performance and Stakeholder Integrations, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 2K137, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233 or or by phone at 301-763-7281, or via email at: census.scientific.advisory.committee@census.gov.

If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests two weeks in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation by contacting 301-763-7281. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact 301-763-9906 on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.

Background

On January 22, 2020, Commerce published the Final Results of the 2017-2018 administrative review in the Federal Register . 1 Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan), a mandatory respondent in this administrative review, timely filed a ministerial error allegation concerning the Final Results and requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224, that Commerce correct the alleged ministerial error. 2 On January 22, 2020, Borusan filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging the Final Results. On February 3, 2020, Commerce sought leave from the CIT to address the ministerial error allegation involving the Final Results. On February 4, 2020, the CIT granted Commerce's request.

The products covered by this order are welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more but not over 16 inches of any wall thickness, and are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. These products, commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipe or tube, are produced to various ASTM specifications, most notably A-120, A-53 or A-135.

Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), defines “ministerial errors” as including “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.”  3 With respect to final results of an administrative review, 19 CFR 351.224(e) provides that Commerce “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any ministerial error by amending . . . the final results of review . . . .”

In its ministerial error allegation, Borusan argues that Commerce set the incorrect beginning window period for matching home market and U.S. sales in Commerce's margin program. 4 Accordingly, Borusan argues Commerce should correct the beginning window period date to three months preceding the earliest U.S. date of sale for merchandise entering the United States during the POR, consistent with 19 CFR 351.414(f). 5

We agree with Borusan that Commerce committed an inadvertent error within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f) when setting the beginning window period date for U.S. sales in our margin program. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.414(f), we intended to set the beginning window period date to three months preceding the earliest U.S. date of sale for merchandise entering the United States during the POR.

After analyzing Borusan's comments, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), that we made a ministerial error in the Final Results with respect to Borusan's margin programming. 6 For a detailed discussion of this ministerial error, as well as Commerce's analysis of this error, see the Ministerial Error Memorandum.

In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of this administrative review of pipes and tubes from Turkey. As a result of correcting the ministerial error, we determined that the dumping margin calculated for Borusan and the non-selected companies  7 in these amended final results is as follows:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The ministerial error corrections resulted in an 8.48 percent margin for the companies not individually examined: Kale Baglanti Teknolojileri San. ve Tic., Noksel Selik Boru Sanayi A.S., and Cinar Boru Profil San. ve Tic. As. Accordingly, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries at the non-individually examined rate, i.e., 8.48 percent.

In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate, i.e., 14.74 percent, from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation as modified by the section 129 determination, 8 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9

On January 23, 2020, the CIT issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the assessment of duties on entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Borusan starting January 23, 2020. Accordingly, Commerce will not order CBP to assess antidumping duties on entries of that merchandise while the preliminary injunction is in place.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective retroactively for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the January 22, 2020, the date of publication of the Final Results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the amended final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or another completed segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the all-others rate of 14.74 percent established in the LTFV investigation. 10

These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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 duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

These amended final results and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

On May 2, 2019, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from China, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 1 The administrative review covers one mandatory respondent, Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. (Shantou RGFP), 2 and 87 other companies that were not selected for individual examination. For details regarding the events that occurred subsequent to the initiation of the review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce determined that it was not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the 245 days and postponed the preliminary results by 120 days. 4 The revised deadline for the preliminary results in this review is February 28, 2020.

The scope of the order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild caught (ocean harvested) or farm raised (produced by aquaculture), head on or head off, shell on or peeled, tail on or tail off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. The products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes; the written product description of the scope of the order remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We calculated export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included in Appendix I to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Commerce preliminarily determines that information placed on the record by Shantou RGFP demonstrates that this entity is entitled to separate rate status. 6 For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Three companies that received a separate rate in previous segments of this proceeding and are subject to this review reported that they did not have any exports of subject merchandise during the POR. 7 To date, we have not received any contrary information from either U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in response to our inquiry or any other sources that these companies had any shipments of the subject merchandise sold to the United States during the POR. 8 Further, consistent with our practice in NME cases, we find that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to these companies but, rather, to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of review. 9

Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review. 10 Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in this review, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate is not subject to change ( i.e., 112.81 percent). 11 Aside from the no-shipment and separate rate companies discussed above, Commerce considers all other companies for which a review was requested (none of which filed a separate rate application) to be part of the China-wide entity. 12 This includes Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company (SYEC), a company that is under review that had previously been granted a separate rate  13 but that failed to submit either a no-shipment certification or a separate rate certification in this review. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that SYEC, as well as the additional companies identified in Appendix II, should be treated as part of the China-wide entity.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019:

As provided in section 782(i)(3)(B) of the Act, if possible, Commerce intends to verify certain information relied upon in making its final results, because we find that good cause exists to verify the questionnaire responses of Shantou RGFP. 14

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Commerce will establish a deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs at a later date. 15 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), 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.

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. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. 16 If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined. 17 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If Shantou RGFP's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, Commerce will calculate importer-specific assessment rates, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 18 For Shantou RGFP, Commerce intends to calculate an importer-specific per-unit assessment rate by dividing the amount of dumping for reviewed sales to the importer by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. If Shantou RGFP's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review where applicable.

For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by companies individually examined during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the rate for the China-wide entity. 19 Additionally, if Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number ( i.e., at that exporter's cash deposit rate) will be liquidated at the rate for the China-wide entity. 20 We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 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 finals results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Shantou RGFP will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the ad valorem rate is de minimis, then the cash deposit rate will be zero); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that have received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific cash deposit rate published for the most recently completed period; (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 the China-wide entity; and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).

Background

On May 2, 2019, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing (CDMT) from India. 1 On October 8, 2019, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the preliminary results of this review. 2 The revised deadline for these preliminary results is now February 28, 2020.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included at the appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at 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 directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The merchandise covered by the order is certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 4 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.525, we calculated individual subsidy rates for Goodluck and TII. For the period September 25, 2017 through December 31, 2018, we preliminarily determine that the following net subsidy rates exist:

Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results. 5 Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 7

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system. 8 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date of the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. 9 Issues addressed during the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs. 10 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Parties are reminded that all briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

On January 30, 2018, we published a final rule to list the oceanic whitetip shark ( Carcharhinus longimanus ) as a threatened species under the ESA (83 FR 4153). Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrently with making a determination to list a species as threatened or endangered unless it is not determinable at that time, in which case the Secretary may extend the deadline for this designation by 1 year. In our proposal to list the species as threatened (81 FR 96304, Dec. 29, 2016), we requested relevant information from interested persons to help us identify and describe the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the oceanic whitetip shark, and assess the economic impacts of designating critical habitat for the species. We solicited input from the public, other governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, environmental groups, and any other interested parties on features and areas that may meet the definition of critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark within U.S. waters. However, at the time of listing, and based on comments provided and the best available scientific information, we concluded that critical habitat was not determinable because: (1) Sufficient information was not available to assess the impacts of designation; and (2) sufficient information was not available regarding the physical and biological features essential to conservation. We again requested interested persons to submit relevant information related to the identification of critical habitat and essential physical or biological features for this species, as well as economic or other relevant impacts of designation of critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark. Though we did not receive any information relevant to the designation of critical habitat in response to this request, we used the best available scientific data to evaluate whether critical habitat could be identified for the oceanic whitetip shark. As discussed below, we still find that there are no identifiable physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the oceanic whitetip shark within areas under U.S. jurisdiction, or unoccupied areas under U.S. jurisdiction that are essential to the conservation of the species. Therefore, at this time we find no areas within U.S. jurisdiction that meet the definition of critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark.

This finding describes information on the biology, distribution, and habitat use of the oceanic whitetip shark and the methods used to identify areas that may meet the definition of critical habitat. In this determination, we focus on information directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for oceanic whitetip sharks.

The following discussion of the life history and status of the oceanic whitetip shark is based on the best scientific data available, including the “Endangered Species Act Status Review Report: Oceanic Whitetip Shark ( Carcharhinus longimanus )” (Young et al. 2017).

The oceanic whitetip shark is a large, pelagic species of shark, described historically as one of the most abundant shark species in tropical waters worldwide (Mather and Day 1954; Backus et al. 1956; Compagno 1984). The oceanic whitetip shark belongs to the family Carcharhinidae and is a member of the genus Carcharhinus, which includes other pelagic species of sharks, such as the silky shark ( C. falciformis ) and dusky shark ( C. obscuras ).

The oceanic whitetip shark is globally distributed and can be found in all ocean basins in epipelagic tropical and subtropical waters. The species can be found offshore, along the edges of continental shelves, or around oceanic islands in deep water (Backus et al. 1956; Strasburg 1958; Compagno 1984; Bonfil et al. 2008) and appears to be thermally sensitive, exhibiting a strong preference for the surface mixed layer in warm waters above 20 °C (Bass et al. 1973; Bonfil et al. 2008). Several archival satellite tagging studies from various regions of the species' range indicate that oceanic whitetip sharks spend most of their time at depths of less than 200 m (above the thermocline) (Musyl et al. 2011; Carlson and Gulak 2012; Howey-Jordan et al. 2013; Tolotti et al. 2017). The oceanic whitetip is generally thought to be a long-lived species, ranging from 12 to 18 years in the North Pacific and Western and Central Pacific, respectively (Joung et al. 2016; D'Alberto et al. 2017), and 13 to 19 years in the South Atlantic (Seki et al. 1998; Lessa et al. 1999; Rodrigues et al. 2015), with relatively low reproductive output.

Similar to other carcharhinid species, the oceanic whitetip shark is viviparous ( i.e., gives birth to live young) with placental embryonic development. Reproductive periodicity is thought to be biennial, with individuals giving birth on alternate years after a 10-12 month gestation period (Backus et al. 1956; Seki et al. 1998; Tambourgi et al. 2013). However, recent unpublished data obtained via ultrasonography of pregnant females over multiple years suggests that at least for a proportion of the population, reproduction could be annual (James Gelsleichter, University of North Florida, unpublished data). Litter sizes range from 1 to 14 (average of 6), and there is a positive correlation between female size and number of pups per litter, with larger sharks producing more offspring (Backus et al. 1956; Strasburg 1958; Bass et al. 1973).

In terms of movement, the oceanic whitetip shark is considered to be a highly migratory species, with several satellite tracking studies measuring long distance movements of up to 4,285 km (Musyl et al. 2011) and over 6,000 km in the open ocean (Filmalter et al. 2012). Although the species is considered highly migratory and capable of making long distance movements, data from pop-off satellite archival tags provides evidence that this species also exhibits a high degree of philopatry in some locations ( e.g., Cat Island, Bahamas and Northeast Brazil) (Howey-Jordan et al. 2013; Tolotti et al. 2015). Overall, oceanic whitetip sharks are highly mobile and can travel great distances in the open ocean (Filmalter et al. 2012), with excursion estimates of several thousand kilometers demonstrated in multiple studies. However, information on potential migratory corridors and seasonality is lacking.

As discussed in the proposed rule (81 FR 96304, December 29, 2016) and final rule (83 FR 4153, January 30, 2018) to list the oceanic whitetip shark, the most significant threat to the species is overutilization for commercial purposes. Although oceanic whitetip sharks are not necessarily a targeted species, they are caught as bycatch in a number of fisheries throughout their range, and are most susceptible to industrial longline fisheries. Oceanic whitetip shark fins are also prevalent in the international fin trade, which has likely contributed to the significant declines of the species throughout its range. Given the relatively low reproductive output and overall productivity of the oceanic whitetip shark, it is inherently vulnerable to threats that would deplete its abundance, with a low likelihood of recovery. Therefore, while there is considerable uncertainty regarding the current abundance of oceanic whitetip sharks throughout its entire range, the best available information indicates that the species is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future due to overutilization.

Critical habitat is defined by section 3 of the ESA as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. This definition provides a step-wise approach to identifying areas that may qualify as critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark: (1) Determine the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing; (2) identify physical or biological habitat features essential to the conservation of the species; (3) delineate specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found the physical or biological features; (4) determine whether the features in a specific area may require special management considerations or protection; and (5) determine whether any unoccupied areas are essential for conservation. Our evaluation and conclusions as we worked through this step-wise process are described in detail in the following sections.

The “geographical area occupied by the species” is defined in our regulations as an area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary ( i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis ( e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals). (50 CFR 424.02). Further, our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) state that the Secretary will not designate critical habitat within foreign countries or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. As such, we cannot designate critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip outside of U.S. waters and will focus the following discussion on the U.S. jurisdictions where the oceanic whitetip shark is known to occur.

The geographic range of the oceanic whitetip shark in the Northwest Atlantic and Caribbean is reportedly very broad, occurring from Maine to Florida on the East Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico and in U.S. Territorial waters within the Caribbean (U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) (Compagno 1984). However, the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) describes this species as “uncommon” in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (NMFS 2017). Essential fish habitat (EFH; defined under the MSA as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity (16 U.S.C. 1802(10))), has been designated for the oceanic whitetip shark in waters greater than 200 m in depth from offshore of the North Carolina/Virginia border to the Blake Plateau, which is a broad, relatively flat portion of the upper continental slope that extends from the coast of North Carolina to central Florida. Essential fish habitat was not designated north of Virginia (NMFS 2017). Designated EFH in the Gulf of Mexico includes offshore habitats of the northern Gulf of Mexico at the Alabama/Florida border ( e.g., the Mississippi plume shows high occurrence of juveniles and adults) to offshore habitats of the western Gulf of Mexico south of eastern Texas. Additionally, the entire U.S. Caribbean (waters of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) is considered to be EFH for the oceanic whitetip shark (NMFS 2017). These designations were based on high encounters of the species in fisheries observer data from the U.S. pelagic longline fishery as well as recent movement data from archival satellite tags (NMFS 2017), which confirms the historical and current presence of oceanic whitetip sharks in these waters. Areas of high occurrence are also off the east coast of Florida, Charleston Bump off the southeast United States, and between Florida, Cuba and the Yucatan Peninsula (J. Carlson, unpublished analysis, 2019). However, while we can confirm that the geographical areas occupied by the oceanic whitetip include U.S. waters, there is no information regarding the specific habitat use of oceanic whitetip sharks in any of these areas (J. Carlson, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center pers. comm. to C. Young, NMFS OPR, 2017), and nurseries and pupping grounds have not been identified in U.S. waters (NMFS 2017; CITES 2013).

In the eastern Pacific, the oceanic whitetip shark reportedly occurs from southern California to Peru, including the Gulf of California and Clipperton Island (Compagno 1984). While its eastern Pacific range reportedly extends as far north as southern California, this is likely due to warm water incursions that allow the species to venture into waters far beyond its normal range (Compagno 1984). Ebert et al. (2017) notes that oceanic whitetip sharks are “rare” in southern California waters, usually observed around the Channel Islands during warm water years. Observer data of the West Coast-based U.S. fisheries further confirm this finding, with oceanic whitetip sharks not observed in the catches. For example, in the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery, which operates off the U.S. Pacific coast from the U.S./Mexican border to waters off of Oregon, observers recorded zero oceanic whitetip sharks in 8,698 sets conducted over the past 25 years (from 1990-2015; Young et al. 2017). We have no other information to suggest that oceanic whitetip sharks regularly occupy the waters of southern California or elsewhere along the U.S. West Coast. Based on the best available data, the distribution of the species appears to be concentrated in areas farther south in foreign waters or the high seas. For example, fisheries data from the eastern Pacific tuna purse seine fishery shows catches of oceanic whitetip are concentrated in the area between 10° North and 10° South, despite sets in more northerly waters (Hall and Roman 2013). Other fisheries data confirm the presence of oceanic whitetip sharks in waters off of Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru (Arauz 2017; Martinez-Ortiz et al. 2015; Gonzalez-Pestana et al. 2014). Although areas of southern California seem to be outside of the core tropical distribution of oceanic whitetip sharks and are used only during rare weather events that cause warm water incursions, we still consider this area to be part of the species' range. However, given the extremely limited data and seemingly limited use of this part of their range, we are unable to identify any features of the area that are essential to the conservation of the oceanic whitetip shark.

The range of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Western and Central Pacific is broad, occurring throughout the region between 30° N to 35° S, with catches of the species most frequently occurring in the central North Pacific south of 20° N latitude and some individuals occurring in more northerly locations (Clarke 2011; Clarke et al. 2011a). This range encompasses U.S. waters of Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and the Pacific Remote Island Areas. Fisheries data from a number of sources confirm the occurrence of the oceanic whitetip shark in all of these waters under U.S. jurisdiction (Brodziak et al. 2013; Clarke et al. 2011a; Clarke et al. 2011b; Lawson 2011; Walsh and Clarke 2011). As such, we conclude that waters under the aforementioned U.S. jurisdictions throughout the Western and Central Pacific are geographical areas occupied by the species, though we are unable to identify any features of the area that are essential to the conservation of the oceanic whitetip shark.

In summary, based on the information above, we consider the geographical areas occupied by the oceanic whitetip shark in the Atlantic at the time of listing to include waters under U.S. jurisdiction off the U.S. East Coast, Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. We consider the geographical areas occupied by the oceanic whitetip shark in the Pacific to include waters under U.S. jurisdiction off southern California, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas.

Within the geographical area occupied by an endangered or threatened species at the time of listing, critical habitat consists of specific areas upon which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. The ESA does not specifically define physical or biological features; however, court decisions and joint NMFS-USFWS regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 provide guidance on how physical or biological features are expressed. Specifically, these regulations state that the physical and biological features are those that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species, including but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. (50 CFR 424.02).

Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) defines the terms “conserve,” “conserving,” and “conservation” to mean: To use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary. For oceanic whitetip sharks, we consider conservation to include the use of all methods and procedures necessary to bring oceanic whitetip sharks to the point at which factors related to population ecology and vital rates indicate that the species is recovered in accordance with the definition of recovery in 50 CFR 402.02. Important factors related to population ecology and vital rates include population size and trends, range, distribution, age structure, gender ratios, age-specific survival, age-specific reproduction, and lifetime reproductive success. Based on the available knowledge of oceanic whitetip shark population ecology and life history, we have identified four biological behaviors that are critical to the goal of increasing survival and population growth: (1) Foraging, (2) pupping, (3) breeding, and (4) migration. In the following section, we evaluate whether there are physical and biological features of the habitat areas known or thought to be used for these behaviors that are essential to the species' conservation because they facilitate or are intimately tied to these behaviors and, hence, support the life-history needs of the species. Because these behaviors are essential to the species' conservation, facilitating or protecting each one is considered a key conservation objective for any critical habitat designation for this species.

Oceanic whitetip sharks are top-level predators in pelagic ecosystems and feed primarily on pelagic teleosts (bony fish) and cephalopods (mostly squids), but are also known to consume sea birds, marine mammals, other sharks and rays, molluscs, crustaceans, large sportfish, and even garbage (Madigan et al. 2015; Bonfil et al. 2008; Cortés 1999; Backus et al. 1956). Based on the species' diet, the oceanic whitetip shark has a high trophic level, scoring 4.2 out of a maximum 5.0 (Cortés 1999). Although typically solitary, oceanic whitetip sharks have been observed aggregating around food sources (Bonfil et al. 2008). Historically, oceanic whitetip sharks were described as pests to pelagic longline fisheries for tuna, as the sharks would persistently follow boats and cause significant damage to the catches (Compagno 1984). Oceanic whitetips have also been observed scavenging off dead marine mammal carcasses off South Africa (Bass et al. 1973) and feeding opportunistically on recreationally caught sportfish in the Bahamas (Madigan et al. 2015). In fact, Madigan et al. (2015) suggested that abundance and availability of large pelagic teleosts in waters off Cat Island, Bahamas might be a possible mechanism driving site-fidelity and aggregation of oceanic whitetip sharks in the region. Additionally, results showed spatiotemporal variation in feeding habits of the species, with short-term ( i.e., near Cat Island) diets comprised mostly of larger pelagic teleosts, and long-term diets (>1 year) comprised mostly of squid, teleosts, and small foraging fish (Madigan et al. 2015). However, although site fidelity to Cat Island has been demonstrated via satellite tracking data (Howey-Jordan et al. 2013) the reasons driving this site fidelity ( e.g., foraging, navigation, pupping, mating, etc.) are unknown at this time. See The Physical and Biological Features of Migratory Habitat That Are Essential to the Conservation of the Species section below for more information. Based on the foregoing information, the oceanic whitetip shark appears to be an opportunistic predator that is not limited in its foraging habitats and feeds on whatever prey is available.

Aside from the observations described above, there is no information regarding established foraging grounds for the oceanic whitetip shark. Recent tracking studies from the Bahamas, Brazil, and the Indian Ocean have revealed complex vertical movements in the species and diel behavior changes (Papastamatiou et al. 2018; Tolotti et al. 2017; Howey et al. 2016). Based on tracking data from the Bahamas, oceanic whitetip sharks regularly exhibit mesopelagic excursions (defined as ≥5 consecutive depth records below the 200 m isobaths), particularly during dusk periods that may be related to foraging (Howey et al. 2016). Tolotti et al. (2017) noted that deep dives below 150 m were rare, but the variation seen in the shark's vertical movement patterns could be linked to prey distribution as well. Papastamatiou et al. (2018) further reaffirms this possibility with evidence from oceanic whitetip sharks outfitted with cameras. Potential prey (mackerel, scad and squid) were observed during dives (as opposed to when individuals were in shallow water) and at the apex of the dive when bursts of speed were common (Papastamatiou et al. 2018). Squid and other cephalopods are likely an important prey species for the oceanic whitetip shark; Cortes (1999) and Madigan et al. (2015) both reported that cephalopods comprise approximately 44 percent of the oceanic whitetip shark's regular diet. Additionally, oceanic whitetip sharks have been associated with short-finned pilot whales ( Globicephala macrorhynchus ) of which squid is a main prey source (Bester, n.d.). Although the reason for this behavior is unknown, it is thought to be prey-related, as pilot whales are extremely efficient at locating food sources (Migura and Meadows 2002). The diel vertical migrations of oceanic whitetip sharks are similar to and may overlap with the diel vertical migrations and/or distribution of many species of mesopelagic and bathypelagic squids (see original reference in Howey et al. 2016). As such, it is possible these mesopelagic excursions represent a foraging strategy for seeking out prey, such as squid. Although the species of squid consumed by oceanic whitetips are unknown, many species have a wide geographic distribution, moving throughout the deep waters of the ocean, and, therefore, it is difficult to link these prey species to any “specific” areas within the oceanic geographic areas occupied. Additionally, there was no site-specific correlation with the mesopelagic dives undertaken by oceanic whitetips tagged in the Bahamas. Individuals not only made consistent dives year-round near the aggregation site in the Bahamas, but also during migrations (Howey et al. 2016). Clear temporal or spatial patterns of vertical movements could also not be identified in individuals tagged in Brazil or the Indian Ocean, as behaviors alternated regularly and there was no evident pattern across the time series of the study (Tolotti et al. 2017). Overall, although it is hypothesized that these mesopelagic excursions are for purposes of foraging, this theory has not been confirmed.

Overall, the best available information indicates that oceanic whitetip sharks are opportunistic feeders and may exhibit behavioral plasticity when encountering different prey types (Papastamatiou et al. 2018). The species does not appear to be associated with any specific foraging grounds, adapting to its present habitat by feeding on whatever prey are available and even scavenging on whale carcasses when available. There does not appear to be a specific prey species that is required to be present in a habitat for successful foraging to occur, nor are there any specific habitat characteristics that appear to be intimately tied with feeding behavior. As such, we are unable to identify any particular physical or biological features of areas that facilitate successful foraging. Further, no oceanic whitetip sharks have been observed foraging in the geographic areas under U.S. jurisdiction, aside from opportunistic depredation on the catch of pelagic longline fisheries. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to identify any specific areas within waters under U.S. jurisdiction with physical or biological features related to foraging that are essential to the conservation of the species.

Because the oceanic whitetip shark is a pelagic species that spends most of its time offshore in the open ocean (Compagno 1984) and is one of the few species that may complete its entire life cycle in open water, there is limited information regarding the species' life history and biology. Studies from the Northwest Atlantic and Indian Ocean estimate that oceanic whitetip sharks give birth from late spring to summer (Backus et al. 1956; Bass et al. 1973, Compagno 1984; Bonfil et al. 2008). Based on ultrasonography, Gelsleichter (unpublished) suggests pupping occurs in the Bahamas in May and June. In contrast, Seki et al. (1998) found no apparent parturition period in the North Pacific, as embryos were observed in almost every month in which data was collected. In the Southwest Atlantic, oceanic whitetips likely give birth in the latter half of the year, potentially from September to November (Tambourgi et al. 2013) although Amorim (1998) found full-term embryos from July to November, which may indicate a relatively extended pupping period for this species, as was observed in the North Pacific by Seki et al. (1998) (Tambourgi et al. 2013). Additionally, recent conflicting results regarding the species' reproductive periodicity ( i.e., whether oceanic whitetip sharks give birth annually or biannually), may indicate the possibility of non-specific pupping seasons for this species (Clarke et al. 2015). Clarke et al. (2015) notes that pregnant females are often found close to shore, particularly around oceanic Caribbean Islands, which suggests that females may come close to shore to pup. However, the specific locations of pupping grounds and nurseries have not been identified for the oceanic whitetip shark, and habitat requisites of these areas, such as temperature, depth, and substrate, are unknown.

To date, neither pupping grounds nor nursery areas have been identified definitively in the Atlantic for the oceanic whitetip shark. Only generalized descriptions of “potential” pupping and nursery areas are available, based largely on observations of young of the year (YOY) and juvenile sharks in fisheries catch data. For example, observations of YOY oceanic whitetips in fisheries catches off Northwest Cuba (Valdés et al. 2016) and observations of very small juveniles in the waters off Haiti (Jamie Aquino, Haiti Ocean Project, pers. comm. to C. Young, NMFS OPR, 2019) may indicate potential pupping/nursery areas in these regions. However, these areas are outside U.S. jurisdiction and cannot be designated as critical habitat for the species. In addition, while the available information suggests that there are several regions outside U.S. jurisdiction with potential pupping grounds, there is insufficient information to identify the essential physical or biological features for pupping grounds. Within U.S. waters, an area of pelagic waters over the continental shelf running along the southeastern coast of the United States has been described as a potential nursery area based solely on observations of young oceanic whitetip sharks offshore in this general area (NMFS 2017). In determining the revised EFH designation for the oceanic whitetip shark, which was based on fisheries observer and archival satellite tagging data (NMFS 2017), high encounters of YOY seem to occur over the continental shelf from North Carolina to Florida, and in other pockets in the central Gulf of Mexico and north of the U.S. Virgin Islands (J. Carlson, NMFS SEFSC, pers. comm. to C. Young, NMFS OPR, 2019). High juvenile encounters seem to occur in similar areas along the U.S. East Coast, with another area of occurrence to the north of Puerto Rico and moderate usage of waters north and south of the U.S. Virgin Islands (J. Carlson, NMFS SEFSC, pers. comm. to C. Young, NMFS OPR, 2019). Although these areas could represent nursery grounds for the oceanic whitetip shark, oceanic whitetip sharks have not been observed pupping in these areas and more importantly, we are unable to determine the physical or biological features that are essential for pupping. Using the nursery area identification criteria proposed by Heupel et al. (2007) and validated by Froeschke et al. (2010), areas described above meet the first criteria (newborn or YOY sharks are more commonly encountered in the area than in other areas), though data regarding the second two criteria (newborn or YOY sharks have a tendency to remain or return for extended periods; the area or habitat is repeatedly used across years, whereas others are not) are insufficient for a complete analysis. Further, in the EFH designation for oceanic whitetip sharks in the Atlantic, insufficient information prevented any differentiation between EFH areas for neonate/juvenile and adult size classes, resulting in a combined EFH designation for all size classes (NMFS 2017). This emphasizes the lack of information regarding any potential pupping and nursery habitat for the species in U.S. waters of the Atlantic.

As described previously, oceanic whitetip sharks in the Western and Central Pacific are distributed throughout the region from 30° N and 30° S, but are concentrated in warm equatorial waters between 10° N and 10° S. Although limited information suggests there are some areas that may serve as potential pupping grounds, descriptions are fairly general and whether these areas occur in waters under U.S. jurisdiction is uncertain. Records of pregnant females and newborns are concentrated between the equator and 20° N, and between 170° E to 140° W, with higher concentrations in the central part of this distribution just north of 10° N (Bonfil et al. 2008; CITES 2013). This area is a large swath of ocean that partially overlaps the EEZs of Hawaii and several of the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas (Johnston Atoll, Palmyra, Jarvis Island, Howland & Baker Islands, and potentially Wake Island). Seki et al. (1998) observed small neonates (<60 cm precaudal length) in a narrow band between 10°N and 20° N, including waters south of Hawaii, and concluded that there is an oceanic whitetip nursery ground in the “oceanic region” of the North Pacific. Bonfil et al. (2008) reaffirmed that newborn oceanic whitetips occur mainly in a narrow strip in the central Pacific slightly north of 10° N. This, coupled with higher concentrations of pregnant females, suggest a pupping ground for oceanic whitetip may exist in the central Pacific between 150° W and 180° W and just above 10° N, but a more refined definition of the area is not possible due to incomplete sampling (Bonfil et al. 2008). More recent analyses of fisheries catch data determined that juveniles tend to occur in waters near the equator to the west, just north of the northeastern islands of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands (Clarke 2011; Clarke et al. 2011a). As in the Atlantic areas, though YOY oceanic whitetip sharks have been more commonly encountered in these areas, there is insufficient data to apply Heupel et al.' s (2007) second and third criteria for identifying pupping areas in the Pacific. Other than generalized descriptions of potential nursery area locations, which are based on fisheries encounters of neonates, juveniles, and pregnant females, there is inadequate information to identify any physical or biological features of these areas that would be necessary to facilitate successful pupping behavior for the species.

Overall, while some waters under U.S. jurisdiction may overlap with general areas identified as potential pupping or nursery grounds for the species, the descriptions of these areas are fairly vague ( e.g., pelagic waters over continental shelves, oceanic areas, etc.) and are based solely on high encounters with various size classes of the species. We have no other information to specify the locations of these areas within U.S. waters or identify any physical or biological features within these areas that are essential to support the life-history needs of the oceanic whitetip shark. As such, we cannot identify any specific essential features that define pupping habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark in U.S. waters.

Little information exists on the reproductive ecology of the oceanic whitetip shark, as mating behavior is rarely observed in the wild and has not been formally documented. Important areas for mating are also unknown for oceanic whitetip sharks and information regarding their reproductive periodicity and specific mating seasons is limited. To identify potential sites as mating grounds, we looked for the presence of both mature females and males. Aside from one established aggregation location in foreign waters (Cat Island, Bahamas), which may be due to availability of food as opposed to reproductive purposes (Madigan et al. 2015), there are no known aggregation sites of mature oceanic whitetip sharks. In examining fisheries observer data and tagging data for revising the EFH designation for the oceanic whitetip shark (NMFS 2017), high encounters of oceanic whitetip adults have been observed in pockets along the U.S. East Coast from South Carolina to Florida in waters greater than 200 m, with potential hotspots off the eastern central coast of Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico south of Louisiana and Texas (J. Carlson, NMFS SEFSC, pers. comm. to C. Young, NMFS OPR, 2019). Based on this limited information, we can cautiously confirm that male and female adult oceanic whitetip sharks co-occupy waters under U.S. jurisdiction in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Nonetheless, we have no evidence to confirm that these individuals are mating in these waters, nor can we identify any physical or biological features that would facilitate successful breeding in these geographical areas and thus be essential to the conservation of the species.

In the U.S. western Pacific, including Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI, EFH for adult and juvenile oceanic whitetip sharks is broadly defined as the water column down to a depth of 1,000 m from the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ (WPFMC 2009). Thus, similar to EFH in the Atlantic, EFH in the Pacific is designated the same for all size classes in this region. It should also be noted that this is a generic EFH designation for all pelagic species, and not specific to the oceanic whitetip shark.

A tagging study in Hawaiian waters, conducted from March 2001 through November 2006, involved the capture and tagging of both mature males and females in the general vicinity that has been identified as a potential pupping ground ( i.e., the area between 150° W and 180° W and just above 10° N; Bonfil et al. 2008). However, only 11 of the 16 tagged sharks were measured and only four were likely mature (3 males and 1 female), with the remaining likely immature juveniles. Adults of both sexes have also been caught in the pelagic longline fishery operating in the Hawaiian EEZ and in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Based on an assessment of interactions with the Hawaii pelagic longline fishery from 2004-2018, adults of both sexes occur in Hawaiian waters, and the majority of interactions occur on the north side of the Hawaiian Islands in a linear band stretching southeast to northwest within the limits of the EEZ, both inside and outside of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (NMFS 2019). One area of high occurrence of interactions is on the south-westernmost portion of the EEZ, within the limits of the Monument (NMFS 2019). Adults of both sexes have also been caught off Kona, Hawaii (M. Hutchinson, NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, pers. comm. to Chelsey Young, NMFS OPR, 2017). Other analyses of fisheries catch data from across the Western and Central Pacific indicate that adults appear to predominate more to the southwest near the identified center of abundance (10° S, 190° E; refer to Figure 3 in Clarke 2011) and may overlap with waters of American Samoa. However, while adults of both sexes likely co-occur in waters under U.S. jurisdiction in both Hawaii and American Samoa, we have no additional information to confirm that these areas represent mating grounds for the species, or identify the physical and biological features that would be necessary for mating to occur in these areas.

Overall, the areas where oceanic whitetip shark mating occurs remain unknown. Additionally, there has not been any systematic evaluation of the particular physical or biological features that facilitate successful mating behavior. As such, we cannot identify physical or biological features of breeding habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species.

Although small and large-scale migratory movements have been observed for the oceanic whitetip shark, information regarding movement patterns or possible migration paths is fairly limited (Bonfil et al. 2008). During longline fishing surveys in the Central Pacific Ocean, Strasburg (1958) noted that oceanic whitetip sharks did not exhibit any specific migratory pattern. Since then, several tagging studies have been conducted on oceanic whitetip sharks to determine horizontal and vertical movement patterns of the species, confirming the species' strong thermal preference for temperatures above 20 °C, highly migratory nature, and site fidelity to certain locations (Tolotti et al. 2017; Howey et al. 2016; Tolotti et al. 2015; Howey-Jordan et al. 2013; Carlson and Gulak 2012; Musyl et al. 2011).

In the Atlantic, limited tagging data from the NMFS Cooperative Tagging Program (Kohler et al. 1998; NMFS unpublished data) from eight oceanic whitetip sharks do not elucidate any migratory paths or corridors for the oceanic whitetip shark. The tagging data largely reveal the movements of some juveniles from the northeastern Gulf of Mexico to the East Coast of Florida, from the Mid-Atlantic Bight to southern Cuba, from the Lesser Antilles west into the central Caribbean Sea, from east to west along the equatorial Atlantic, and from southern Brazil to farther offshore in a northeasterly direction (Bonfil et al. 2008). Only one adult of unknown sex was both tagged and recaptured near Cat Island, Bahamas (NMFS unpublished data). In another tagging study at Cat Island, 11 mature oceanic whitetip sharks (10 females, 1 male) were tagged in May of 2011. After remaining within 500 km of the tagging site for approximately 30 days, individuals dispersed across a vast area of the western North Atlantic and to several different locations, with many of the sharks returning to the Bahamas approximately 150 days later (Howey-Jordan et al. 2013). However, unlike other pelagic animals in the North Atlantic that exhibit more uniform movement patterns within a single demographic group, mature oceanic whitetip females tagged were not uniform in their movement patterns in the months after they were tagged (Howey-Jordan et al. 2013). Some individuals remained within the Bahamas' EEZ for their entire track while others made long-distance movements outside of the EEZ (Howey-Jordan et al. 2013). This may be attributed to the oceanic whitetip's presumed biennial reproduction cycle (Backus et al. 1956; Seki et al. 1998), resulting in differences between individuals in particular stages of the reproductive cycle; thus, variation in individual movements may correspond to migrations by gravid and non-gravid females to disjunct pupping and mating areas (Howey-Jordan et al. 2013). However, this has yet to be confirmed, and more information is needed to determine why these sharks are moving to particular locations ( e.g., northern Lesser Antilles, northern Bahamas, and north of the Windward Passage). Moreover, none of these locations are within U.S. waters.

In Hawaiian waters, tagging data from 13 oceanic whitetip sharks revealed a complex pattern, where nine individuals showed a meandering swimming behavior and three individuals made more straight-line movements (Musyl et al. 2011). The three individuals that made more straight-line movements were all males, whereas the sharks that followed the meandering swimming pattern and remained relatively close to the tagging area were a mix of both males and females (Musyl et al. 2011). Aside from confirming the epipelagic niche these sharks occupy and their strong thermal preference of temperatures above 20 °C, there were no obvious reasons underpinning the movements undertaken by the tagged individuals.

Although the available information suggests that these sharks do undergo short and long-distance migrations, the space or migratory corridor used by oceanic whitetip sharks during these migrations remains unknown. In addition, the migratory tracking studies that have been conducted in waters under U.S. jurisdiction have not elucidated any information on any potential migratory corridors or habitats that may exist within waters under U.S. jurisdiction for the oceanic whitetip shark. Until such time that the movements and migrations of the species throughout its life cycle are better understood, the importance of physical features ( e.g., salinity and temperature) to the oceanic whitetip shark's distribution cannot be clearly established (Bass et al. 1973). As such, we cannot identify any specific essential features that define migratory habitat for oceanic whitetip sharks.

Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the ESA defines critical habitat to include specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a threatened or endangered species at the time it is listed if the areas are determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) address designation of unoccupied area as critical habitat and the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) state that critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of United States jurisdiction.

Because we are unable to identify any physical or biological features of oceanic whitetip shark habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species, we cannot identify any unoccupied habitat that contains such features. Furthermore, due to the limited understanding of habitat use by the oceanic whitetip shark, we cannot identify any unoccupied areas that have a reasonable certainty of contributing to the conservation of the species or are essential to the conservation of the species.

Given the best available information and the above analysis of this information, we find that there are no identifiable occupied areas under the jurisdiction of the United States that contain physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of the species. Thus, we conclude there are no specific areas within the oceanic whitetip shark's respective range and under U.S. jurisdiction that meet the definition of critical habitat; and therefore, we have determined that a critical habitat designation for oceanic whitetip sharks is not prudent.

Although we have made this “not prudent” determination, the areas occupied by oceanic whitetip sharks under U.S. jurisdiction will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, as well as consultations pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA for Federal activities that may affect the oceanic whitetip shark, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. Through the consultation process, we will continue to assess effects of Federal actions on the species and its habitat.

Additionally, we remain committed to promoting the recovery of the oceanic whitetip shark through both domestic and international efforts. As noted in the proposed and final rules (81 FR 96304, December 29, 2016; 83 FR 4153, January 30, 2018, respectively), the most significant threat to the oceanic whitetip shark is overutilization by commercial fisheries, primarily in areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Oceanic whitetip sharks are caught as bycatch in a number of fisheries throughout their range, and they are still a prevalent species in the international fin trade despite retention prohibitions in tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix II listing. Therefore, efforts to address overutilization of the species through regulatory measures appear inadequate (Young et al. 2017). Thus, recovery of the oceanic whitetip shark is highly dependent upon international conservation efforts. To address this, we have developed a recovery plan outline that provides our preliminary strategy for the conservation of the oceanic whitetip shark. This outline can be found on our website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/oceanic-whitetip-shark#resources and provides an interim recovery action plan as well as preliminary steps we will take towards the development of a full recovery plan. We also conducted two recovery planning workshops: One in Honolulu, Hawaii (April 23-24, 2019) that focused on the Indo-Pacific portion of the species' range, and one in Miami, Florida (November 13-14, 2019) that focused on the Atlantic/Caribbean portion of the species' range. These workshops brought together numerous experts and various stakeholders to collect information, facts, and perspectives on how to recover the oceanic whitetip shark. Input received from these workshops, including ideas and recommendations regarding recovery criteria and actions, will help inform the development of the forthcoming recovery plan for the species.

We will continue to work towards the conservation and recovery of oceanic whitetip sharks, both on a domestic and global level, including with our international partners and within regional fisheries management organizations and other international bodies to promote the adoption of conservation and management measures for the threatened oceanic whitetip shark.

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. On the basis of such reviews, we determine under section 4(c)(2)(B) whether a species should be delisted or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered.

We will undertake reviews for the southern DPS of eulachon, the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio, and the southern DPS of green sturgeon. Information about these four DPSs can be found at our West Coast regional website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast .

Our regulations for periodic reviews at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our active reviews of the DPSs listed above. Any change in listing classification would require a separate rulemaking process.

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4(b) also requires that our determination be made on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, to protect such species.

NMFS is responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or DPSs of marine and anadromous species are threatened or endangered under the ESA. For these four species, NMFS applies the joint US Fish and Wildlife Service-NMFS DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) in identifying the appropriate taxonomic unit for listing consideration. Under this policy, a DPS must be discrete from other conspecific populations, and it must be significant to its taxon. A group of organisms is discrete if it is “markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors.” Under the DPS Policy, if a population group is determined to be discrete, the agency must then consider whether it is significant to the taxon to which it belongs. Considerations in evaluating the significance of a discrete population include: (1) Persistence of the discrete population in an unusual or unique ecological setting for the taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment would cause a significant gap in the taxon's range; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere outside its historical geographic range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population has marked genetic differences from other populations of the species.

The 5-year reviews will consider the best scientific and commercial data available and new information that has become available since the species' previous status review. Our Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers will assist the West Coast Region in gathering and analyzing this information. To ensure that the 5-year reviews are complete and based on the best available information, we are soliciting new information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties regarding the status of the southern DPS of eulachon, the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio, and the southern DPS of green sturgeon.

Specifically, we are seeking new information (generated since 2015) on: (1) Population abundance; (2) population productivity; (3) changes in species distribution or population spatial structure; (4) genetics or other measures of diversity; (5) changes in habitat conditions; (6) conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species—including monitoring data demonstrating the effectiveness of such measures in addressing identified limiting factors or threats; (7) the status and trends of identified limiting factors or threats; and (8) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information in the previous listing determination, and improved analytical methods.

With respect to the southern DPS of eulachon, we request any new information concerning (1) the species' spatial distribution and abundance in freshwater and marine environments, (2) the species' genetics, (3) the effects of climate variability and how anthropogenic-forced climate drivers affect eulachon and their freshwater and marine habitats, (4) the effects of ocean acidification on eulachon, (5) eulachon bycatch in the ocean shrimp fisheries, (6) predation on eulachon, and (7) the effects of dams and channel-spanning water control structures on estuary-plume environments.

With respect to Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs of yelloweye and bocaccio, we request any new information concerning (1) the species' spatial distribution and habitat associations among larval, young-of-the-year, and adult fish in nearshore and deep-water environments; (2) the effectiveness of regulations in protecting and restoring rockfish habitats; (3) the species' genetics; (4) the effects of contaminants on species productivity, growth, and survival; (5) the effects of climate change and ocean acidification; on these rockfish species; (6) catch or bycatch of these species in specific fisheries, including information on the ability of anglers to properly identify rockfish by species; (7) the effectiveness of fisheries management with respect to reducing impacts on these rockfish species; (8) efforts to remove and prevent derelict fishing gear; (9) enumeration of bycatch by derelict fishing gear; and (10) the use and effectiveness of devices designed to reduce the effects of barotrauma in rockfish bycatch.

With respect to the southern DPS of green sturgeon, we request any new information concerning (1) the species' biology—including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat conditions—including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability; (3) conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species; (4) status and trends of threats; (5) other new information, data, or improved analytical methods; and (6) corrections—including but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes.

If you wish to provide information for these 5-year reviews, you may submit your information and materials to Rob Markle (see ADDRESSES ).

The current IATTC conservation measures for tropical tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in Resolution C-17-02 (“Conservation Measures for Tropical Tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean During 2018-2020 and Amendment to Resolution C-17-01”) are set to expire at the end of the 2020 calendar year. Therefore, conservation measures for tropical tuna are expected to be a central issue at the 95th meeting of the IATTC that will be held from August 10 to August 14, 2020, in La Jolla, California. This call will provide NMFS an additional opportunity to hear public input on tropical tuna management in the IATTC after stock assessment information is presented at the IATTC Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) in May 2020 and in advance of the General Advisory Committee (GAC) meeting on June 18, 2020. In accordance with the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. ), the GAC advises the U.S. Section with respect to U.S. participation in the work of the IATTC, focusing on the development of U.S. policies, positions, and negotiating tactics. For more information on IATTC meetings, please visit the IATTC's website: https://www.iattc.org/MeetingsENG.htm.

The agenda for conference call will include, but is not limited to, the topics below:

1. Review results of stock assessments for bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean that are presented at the IATTC SAC meeting in May 2020;

2. Review analyses for tropical tuna presented at the IATTC SAC meeting;

3. Review management options for tropical tuna presented at the IATTC SAC meeting;

4. Opportunity for stakeholder input on potential tropical tuna management options; and

5. Next steps and other opportunities for stakeholder input at the GAC meeting.

The conference call is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to William Stahnke (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) by April 27, 2020.

In accordance with the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. ), the U.S. Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of State (the State Department), appoints a GAC to the U.S. Section to the IATTC, and a SAS that advises the GAC. The U.S. Section consists of the four U.S. Commissioners to the IATTC and representatives of the State Department, NOAA, Department of Commerce, other U.S. Government agencies, and stakeholders. The GAC advises the U.S. Section with respect to U.S. participation in the work of the IATTC, focusing on the development of U.S. policies, positions, and negotiating tactics. The purpose of the SAS is to advise the GAC on scientific matters. NMFS West Coast Region staff provide administrative support for the GAC and SAS. The meetings of the GAC and SAS are open to the public, unless in executive session. The time and manner of public comment will be at the discretion of the Chairs for the GAC and SAS.

The 95th meeting of the IATTC, the 41st Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), and IATTC and AIDCP working group meetings are scheduled to be held from August 3 to August 15, 2020, in La Jolla, California. For more information on these meetings, please visit the IATTC's website: https://www.iattc.org/MeetingsENG.htm .

The SAS meeting agenda will include, but is not limited to, the following topics:

(1) Outcomes of the 2020 meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to the IATTC ( e.g., stock status updates for tuna, tuna-like species, and other species caught in association with those fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean);

(2) Evaluation of the IATTC staff's recommended conservation measures for 2020;

(3) Issues related to non-target species, such as sharks, seabirds, sea turtles;

(4) Evaluation of U.S. proposals for the 95th meeting of the IATTC and proposals from other IATTC members; and

(5) Other issues as they arise.

The GAC meeting agenda will include, but is not limited to, the following topics:

(1) Outcomes of the 2020 meeting of the SAC to the IATTC ( e.g., stock status updates for tuna, tuna-like species, and other species caught in association with those fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean);

(2) Issues related to non-target species, such as sharks, seabirds, sea turtles;

(3) Recommendations and evaluations by the SAS;

(4) Recommendations to the U.S. Section on issues that may arise at the 95th meeting of the IATTC, including the IATTC staff's recommended conservation measures, U.S. proposals, and proposals from other IATTC members; and

(5) Other issues as they arise.

The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to William Stahnke (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) by May 29, 2020.

On December 21, 1999, NMFS published a Federal Register document (64 FR 71396) proposing regulations to implement an industry fee system for repaying the reduction loan. The final rule was effective and fees were first due on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 5278, February 3, 2000). Interested persons should review these for further program details.

The BSAI AFA Pollock Capacity Reduction (Buyback) loan in the amount of $75,000,000 will be repaid in full upon receipt of buyback fees on landings through February 29, 2020. Based on buyback fees received to date, landings after February 29, 2020, will not be subject to the buyback fee. Therefore, buyback loan fees will no longer be collected in the BS/AI Pollock Fishery on future landings.

Buyback fees not yet forwarded to NMFS for AFA Pollock landings through February 29, 2020, should be forwarded to NMFS immediately. Any overpayment of buyback fees submitted to NMFS will be refunded on a pro-rata basis based upon best available fish ticket landings data. Any discrepancies in fees owed and fees paid must be resolved immediately. After the sub-loan is closed, no further adjustments to fees paid and fees received can be made.

Section 4(j) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2053(j)) requires the Commission to establish an agenda for action under the laws the Commission administers, and to the extent feasible, select priorities for action at least 30 days before the beginning of each fiscal year. Section 4(j) of the CPSA provides further that before establishing its agenda and priorities, the Commission shall conduct a public hearing and provide an opportunity for the submission of comments. The CPSC's programs will align with the strategic goals outlined in the CPSC's 2018-2022 Strategic Plan.

The CPSC's fiscal year 2021 Budget Request is based on four agency priorities: (1) Focusing the agency's resources on the highest-priority consumer product safety risks; (2) continuing to support import surveillance by operating, maintaining, and developing the Risk Assessment Methodology (RAM) system to identify and stop noncompliant imported products from entering the U.S. marketplace; (3) emphasizing collaboration, outreach, and education by engaging all stakeholders through forums, advisory groups, seminars, webinars, technical stakeholder-to-government discussions, and workshops; and (4) expanding the utility of the agency's data assets, data analysis tools, sources, and types of data analysis used to identify and assess hazards and inform solutions to address identified hazards. The Commission requests comments on the priorities as presented in the FY 2021 Budget Request. The CPSC's Budget Request for fiscal year 2021 can be found at: www.cpsc.gov/about-cpsc/agency-reports/performance-and-budget.

The Commission is preparing the agency's fiscal year 2021 Operating Plan and fiscal year 2022 Congressional Budget Request. Fiscal year 2021 begins on October 1, 2020, and fiscal year 2022 begins on October 1, 2021. Through this notice, the Commission invites the public to comment on the following questions:

1. What are the priorities the Commission should consider emphasizing and dedicating resources toward in the fiscal year 2021 Operating Plan and/or the fiscal year 2022 Congressional Budget Request?

2. What activities should the Commission consider deemphasizing in the fiscal year 2021 Operating Plan and/or the fiscal year 2022 Congressional Budget Request?

3. What retrospective review of rules should the Commission consider in the fiscal year 2021 Operating Plan and/or the fiscal year 2022 Congressional Budget Request?

4. Should the Commission consider making any changes or adjustments to the agency's proposed or ongoing safety standards activities, regulation, and enforcement efforts in fiscal years 2021 and 2022? Comments are welcome on whether particular action items should be higher priority than others, should not be included, or should be added to the fiscal year 2021 and/or fiscal year 2022 agendas.

Persons who desire to make oral presentations at the hearing on April 15, 2020, should send an email, call, or write Alberta E. Mills, Division of the Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; email: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov; telephone: (301) 504-7479; facsimile (301) 504-0127, not later than 5 p.m. EDT on April 1, 2020. Requests to make oral presentations and texts of the presentation must be received not later than 5 p.m. EDT on April 1, 2020. Presentations should be limited to approximately 10 minutes. The Commission reserves the right to impose further time limitations on all presentations and other restrictions to avoid duplication of presentations.

If you do not want to make an oral presentation, but would like to provide written comments, you may do so. Please submit written comments in the manner described in the previous paragraph. Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. EDT on April 1, 2020.

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: 2016/20 Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B:16/20) Full-Scale Study.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0926.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 34,682.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,435.

Abstract: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducts the Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B) studies. The B&B studies of the education, work, financial, and personal experiences of individuals who have completed a bachelor's degree at a given point in time are a series of longitudinal studies. Every 8 years, students are identified as bachelor's degree recipients through the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). B&B:16/20 is the second follow-up of a panel of baccalaureate degree recipients identified in the 2015-16 NPSAS, and part of the fourth cohort (B&B:16) of the B&B series. NPSAS:16 is the base year for B&B:16 follow-up interviews in 2017, 2020, and 2026 (anticipated). B&B cohorts prior to B&B:16 were approved under OMB# 1850-0729. The B&B:16 cohort is submitted and reviewed under OMB# 1850-0926. The primary purposes of the B&B studies are to describe the post-baccalaureate paths of new college graduates, with a focus on their experiences in the labor market and post-baccalaureate education, and their education-related debt. B&B also focuses on the continuing education paths of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates, as well as the experiences of those who have begun careers in education of students through the 12th grade. Since graduating from college in 2014-15 for the field test, and 2015-16 for the full-scale study, members of this B&B:16 cohort will begin moving into and out of the workforce, enrolling in additional undergraduate and graduate education, forming families, and repaying undergraduate education-related debt. Documenting these choices and pathways, along with individual, institutional, and employment characteristics that may be related to those choices, provides critical information on the costs and benefits of a bachelor's degree in today's workforce. B&B studies include both traditional-age and non-traditional-age college graduates, whose education options and choices often diverge considerably, and allow study of the paths taken by these different graduates. B&B:16/20 panel maintenance activities were cleared in July 2019 and are currently scheduled to continue through February 2020. This request is for the full-scale study student interview data collection scheduled to take place from July 2020 through March 2021.

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

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

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling David Borak at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: https://energy.gov/em/listings/chairs-meetings .

Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).

Tentative Agenda: Receive STEAB Task Force updates on action items and revised objectives for FY 2020, discuss follow-up opportunities and engagement with EERE and other DOE staff as needed to keep Task Force work moving forward, continue engagement with DOE, EERE and EPSA staff regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and initiatives, and receive updates on member activities within their states.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Jay Nathwani at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB website at: http://www.energy.gov/eere/steab/state-energy-advisory-board.

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

Abstract: Under Section 206(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521), on-highway engine and vehicle manufacturers may not legally introduce their products into U.S. commerce unless EPA has certified that their production complies with applicable emission standards. Per section 207(a), original vehicle manufacturers must warrant that vehicles are free from defects in materials and workmanship that would cause the vehicle not to comply with emission regulations during its useful life. Section 207(a) directs EPA to provide certification to those manufacturers or builders of automotive aftermarket parts that demonstrate that the installation and use of their products will not cause failure of the engine or vehicle to comply with emission standards. An aftermarket part is any part offered for sale for installation in or on a motor vehicle after such vehicle has left the vehicle manufacturer's production line (40 CFR 85.2113(b)). Participation in the aftermarket certification program is voluntary. Aftermarket part manufacturers or builders (manufacturers) electing to participate conduct emission and durability testing as described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart V, and submit data about their products and testing procedures. Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to policies set forth in CFR title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2).

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers or builders of automotive aftermarket parts.

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

Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 547 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $19,063 (per year), which includes $1,955 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are subject to the requirements for radionuclide NESHAPs found in 40 CFR part 61, subpart H. This subpart applies to Department of Energy (DOE or Department) facilities.

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0050. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B 102, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA website under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

3. EPA website. You may download the CAP88-PC model and documentation from the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/radiation/cap-88-pc.

On December 15, 1989, the EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act to control radionuclide emissions to the ambient air from a number of different source categories [54 FR 51654, December 15, 1989 (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0050-0028)]. Subpart H of 40 CFR part 61 is one of the source categories covered in the 1989 final rule. Facilities owned and operated by the DOE are regulated under subpart H. The Department administers many facilities across the country, including government-owned, contractor-operated facilities. Some of these facilities handle significant amounts of radioactive material that could potentially be emitted into the air in various chemical and physical states. The purpose of subpart H is to limit radionuclide emissions (not including radon) from the stacks and vents at DOE facilities so that no member of the public receives an effective dose equivalent of more than 10 millirems per year (mrem/yr) or, in SI units, 0.1 millisievert per year (mSv/yr).

The EPA is today announcing the availability of Version 4.1 of the CAP88-PC model for use in demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart H. CAP88 (Clean Air Act Assessment Package-1988) is a set of computer programs, databases and associated utility programs for estimation of dose and risk from radionuclide emissions to the air. CAP88-PC implements, on the personal computer platform, modified versions of the AIRDOS-EPA and DARTAB codes that were written in FORTRAN 77 and executed in a mainframe computing environment. CAP88-PC provides for dose and risk assessments of collective populations, maximally-exposed individuals and selected individuals.

The original CAP88-PC software package, Version 1.0 allowed users to perform full-featured dose and risk assessments in a DOS environment for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 61.93(a); it was approved for compliance demonstration in February 1992.

CAP88-PC Version 2.0 provided a framework for developing inputs to perform full-featured dose and risk assessments in a Windows environment for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 61.93(a). Version 2.0 was approved for compliance demonstration in 1999. Version 2.1 included some additional changes compared to the DOS version and the previous Windows Version 2.0. The changes included the addition of more decay chains, improvements in the Windows code error handling and a modified nuclide data input form. The CAP88-PC User Guide provides a summary of the changes incorporated into Version 2.1 relative to Version 2.0.

CAP88-PC Version 3.0, released in 2006 (71 FR 8854, February 21, 2006), was a significant update to Version 2.1. Version 3 incorporated dose and risk factors from Federal Guidance Report 13, “Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides” (FGR 13) in place of the RADRISK data that was used in previous versions. In addition, the CAP88-PC database, the user interface, input files and output files were modified to accommodate the FGR 13 data formats and nomenclature. Page 9 of the CAP88-PC Version 3 User's Guide describes the modifications incorporated into Version 3 relative to Version 2.1.

CAP88-PC Version 4, released in 2015 (80 FR 7461, February 10, 2015), was a significant update to Version 3. While keeping the fundamental model unchanged, modifications were made to add flexibility, enhance stability of the code, and make it easier for the user to use while also improving the quality assurance of the modeling. The most significant of these changes from a user perspective were the incorporation of age-dependent radionuclide dose and risk factors for ingestion and inhalation (the use of which is specified by the user), the increase in the number of included radionuclides, and a change in the file management system used by the program. Those modifications produced a significant improvement in speed and stability for Version 4 relative to Version 3 and eliminated the solution approximations used in Version 3. The EPA also implemented an extensive testing and documentation program for CAP88-PC Version 4 to address user concerns with past versions. This enhanced documentation allowed for greater compatibility with user software quality assurance programs. The total number of nuclides available in Version 4 was increased from the 825 in Version 3 to 1,252. The maximum number of nuclides that can be included in any single case was increased from the 256 in Version 3 to 500 in Version 4.

CAP88-PC Version 4.1 incorporates the following changes to Version 4.0:

(1) Dose and risk coefficient data have been updated to the values supplied by Oak Ridge National Laboratory with the Dose Coefficient Data File Package (DCFPAK) Version 3.02 (addition of internal dose information for 151 isotopes; updated information for isotopes in vapor or gas forms; and additional risk information for many isotopes);

(2) The ability to print from the Reports tab has been removed because of incompatibility of certain characters in the reports with some printer drivers. Printing reports can be done by opening the report files in any word processor or text editor. The new button opens the location of the report files;

(3) The synopsis file now provides the adjusted fractions of milk, meat, and/or vegetables produced in the assessment area, if CAP88-PC adjusted them to account for population;

(4) Enhancements to the user interface code have been made to increase performance and/or maintain compatibility with the DCFPAK Version 3 data;

(5) The installer system has been updated for better compatibility with Windows;

(6) Migration utility updates have been made to migrate data from Version 3 to Version 4.1 formats; and

(7) The user interface has been updated to provide automatic conversion of Version 4.0 datasets to Version 4.1.

In summary, Version 4.1 enhances and completes the updates initiated under CAP88-PC Version 4.0 and incorporates compatibility for newer operating systems.

All versions of CAP88-PC use a modified Gaussian plume equation to estimate the average dispersion of radionuclides released from up to six sources. The sources may be either elevated stacks, such as a smokestack, or uniform area sources, such as a pile of uranium mill tailings. “Plume rise” can be calculated assuming either a momentum or buoyant-driven plume. Assessments are made for a circular grid of distances and directions for a radius of up to 80 kilometers (50 miles) around the source. The Gaussian plume model produces results that agree with experimental data as well as any model, is fairly easy to work with and is consistent with the random nature of turbulence. Site-specific information on population location and meteorological conditions is provided to CAP88-PC as input files developed by the user. The formats for these input files have not changed from the original mainframe version of the CAP88 code package.

CAP88-PC Version 4.1 is a modification intended to improve usability, enhance the modeling methodology, update the dataset formats, and provide a more maintainable code base and documentation set for the future. Version 4.1 provides age-dependent dose conversion factors and lifetime risk factors and uses a code architecture that conforms to more recent coding standards and data formats. The data updates include adoption of the ingestion and inhalation age and particle size dependent dose and risk factor data supplied by Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the DCFPAK Version 3.02 model, 1 and age-dependent ingestion and inhalation rates from the EPA.

The CAP88-PC Version 4.1 software was developed using a structured software engineering methodology that included adoption of a defined software architecture, rigorous source control, independent verification of source code as it was being implemented, multiple phases of testing, and configuration control of the documentation and the code as development progressed.

To conform to Windows 10 security requirements, and to improve usability, case-specific input and output data files are now stored by default in the user's Windows profile folders, rather than in the application's Program Files folder.

CAP88-PC Version 4.1 input datasets can be stored in their own folders, as subfolders of the Datasets folder. As an example, for the Modtest dataset included with the Version 4.1 distribution set, the folder holding the dataset and all associated data files and reports would be located at c:\Users\xxxx\Documents\CAP88\Datasets\Modtest . Datasets are recommended to be put into their own folders, because using this data storage structure will simplify use of the code and management of case data. Reports are always stored in the same folder as the dataset. Population and wind files can be stored with the dataset or in the default Population/Wind folders. However, CAP88-PC Version 4.1 will preferentially use the population and wind files located in the dataset. This improves sharing of dataset information between organizations and simplifies configuration management of cases because all pertinent case records (input and report files) are stored together. A user can send a dataset, its population and wind files, and its reports to another user, who can open them, using CAP88-PC Version 4.1 or any text editor, confident that the proper files are being used.

As was the case with Versions 3 and 4.0, Version 4.1 is not backward compatible, and datasets generated using Versions 3 and 4.0 cannot be used directly by Version 4.1. This is the result of many factors, including the addition of age-specific data and the inclusion of many more nuclides than in previous versions. However, both Versions 4.0 and 4.1 include a dataset migration utility that upgrades many Version 3 datasets to the applicable Version 4.0 or 4.1 format. The migration utility runs on first use and is also available on demand from the Tools>Options drop-down menu. The migration utility will move Version 3 database files, input dataset files, population files, and wind files from the format used with the 9 December 2007 release of Version 3 to their respective Version 4 formats. The folder locations of the Version 3 files being migrated and the locations for the Version 4 files being generated are selectable by the user or the utility will select the default locations for those files.

The overall principle of the Version 4 architecture was to optimize the code by performing data manipulation in the user interface and computational functions in FORTRAN. CAP88-PC Versions 4.0 and 4.1 have accomplished this by having the user interface collect the user input data, read the associated databases, generate the dose and risk factors from the DCFPAK data, then build and write the case dataset. The user interface also handles all program interactions with the file system. The FORTRAN computational sub-system now performs all decay and ground surface buildup calculations along with all the air dispersion, deposition, intake, dose, and risk calculations. The only file manipulation performed by the FORTRAN sub-system is reading the dataset files and writing report files. The data system used in CAP88-PC Version 4.1 has access to information for all 1,252 radionuclides, including those for which internal dose and risk factors have been added in to DCFPAK Version 3.02.

The CAP88-PC Version 4.1 program is a well-established and validated code for the purpose of making comprehensive dose and risk assessments. The Gaussian plume model used in CAP88-PC to estimate dispersion in air is one of the most commonly used models for dispersion modeling. It produces results that agree with experimental data as well as any model, is fairly easy to work with, and is consistent with the random nature of turbulence. Version 4.1 has not modified the basic Gaussian plume algorithm used by the AIRDOS module of CAP88-PC, and comparison cases between Versions 4.0 and 4.1 have been run.

The EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) has reviewed the testing report submitted by the contractor and verified the results through independent testing. The report can be found at https://www.epa.gov/radiation/cap-88-pc.

As part of the software testing, the user interface was extensively tested. The testing verified that the interface only accepted:

(1) Positive distances less than or equal to 80 kilometers (km) for receptor distances;

(2) Non-negative release rates;

(3) Annual precipitation amounts between 0.01 and 500 centimeters per year (cm/yr);

(4) Annual ambient temperatures between −100 and 100 degrees Celsius (°C);

(5) Lid heights between 25 and 10,000 meters (m);

(6) Non-negative source heights, and positive source diameters or areas;

(7) Non-negative heat release rates, exit velocities and fixed plume rises; and

(8) Agricultural fractions that summed to unity.

All issues identified with the interface have been resolved and closed. Seven test cases were developed to test the capabilities of CAP88-PC Version 4.1. Six of these cases involve the calculation of dose and risk to an individual or population at the location identified by the model as that of the maximally exposed individual (MEI) or specified by the user. The testing objectives for these six cases include the following verifications:

(1) Dose factors agree with those calculated using the DCFPAK 3.02 from Oak Ridge National Laboratory to 1% or less;

(2) Values of Chi-over-Q (χ/Q) agree within 1% with those calculated using CAP88-PC Version 4.0, including but not limited to the direction of the MEI (the calculated values for χ/Q showed good agreement between Versions 4.0 and 4.1 in all directions);

(3) Air concentrations and deposition rates (where applicable) agree within 1% with those calculated using CAP88-PC Version 4.0; and

(4) Results for dose rates and risks agree within 5% of independent calculations; the 5% criterion was used here to allow for differences caused by different modeling methods.

The objective of Test Case 7 was to verify the CAP88-PC Version 4.1 calculations of the air concentrations and working levels for radon-only are consistent with Version 4.0.

Like all models, there are some limitations in the CAP88-PC system. While up to six stacks or six area sources can be modeled, all the sources are modeled as if located at the same point; that is, stacks cannot be located in different areas of a facility. The same plume rise mechanism (buoyant or momentum) is used for each source. Also, area sources are treated as uniform. Variation in radionuclide concentrations due to complex terrain cannot be modeled. Errors arising from these assumptions will have a negligible effect for assessments where the distance of exposed individuals is large compared to the stack height, area or facility emissions.

In the same manner as CAP88-PC Version 4.0, Version 4.1 allows the user to incorporate the age-specific dose conversion factors and intake rates contained in DCFPAK Version 3.02. The code allows the user to select the ingestion and inhalation dose conversion and intake rates from the age groups modeled in DCFPAK Version 3.02: infant (100 days old), one-year old, five-year old, ten-year old, fifteen-year old, and adult. However, the addition of this capability does not change the requirements for compliance to the NESHAPS Subpart H requirements. These are clearly stated in 40 CFR part 61 Subpart H. The ability to allow the code base to include age-dependency does not impact or imply changes to the compliance demonstration.

Version 4.1 of CAP88-PC is an update from Version 4.0, and a significant upgrade from earlier versions. CAP88-PC Versions 4.0 and 4.1 not only added significant features, but also redesigned the interface to give the user a more standard experience. The entire user interface module was re-written for Version 4 using VB.Net, the Microsoft.Net Framework Version 4, and the Visual Studio 2010 development environment, in order to better comply with updated code standards in Windows 7, Windows 8.1. and Windows 10. Specific changes from Version 4.0 visible to the user in Version 4.1 include:

(1) The Print button on the Reports tab has been replaced with a button that opens the folder holding the report files which may then be printed using a word processing program;

(2) Some labels in the user interface have been modified for clarity;

(3) The capabilities for migrating datasets from previous versions of CAP88-PC have been improved, including automatic conversion of Version 4.0 datasets to Version 4.1.

(1) Some report headers have been modified for clarity;

(2) The Agricultural Data in the Synopsis report now prints the values for the fractions of vegetables, milk, and meat from the assessment area used in the calculation, which may have been adjusted by CAP88-PC from the input values.

(1) The dose and risk coefficients have been updated from DCFPAK 2.2 to those in DCFPAK 3.02 provided by Oak Ridge National Laboratory;

(2) Internal dose and risk coefficient factors for 151 more radionuclides have been added;

(3) Additional risk coefficient data has been added for more radionuclides and chemical forms beyond the additional 151;

(4) Inhalation coefficients for radionuclides with special chemical forms, such as iodine, have been added.

CAP88-PC Versions 4.0 and 4.1 contain an internal error logging and tracking system. In the case of internal code errors, the code will write errors to a file in the Message Log folder located in the same folder set as the folder containing the datasets. Sending this file to the EPA representative will facilitate troubleshooting.

CAP88-PC Version 4.1 includes a context-sensitive help system that is accessible during operation. The on-line help system is a hypertext version of the traditional user manual; the traditional user manual is included as part of the release distribution package in pdf format.

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

Abstract: The EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 8, Environmental Impact Assessment of Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica (Rule), were promulgated pursuant to the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996 (Act), 16 U.S.C. 2401 et seq., as amended, 16 U.S.C. 2403a, which implements the Protocol on Environmental Protection (Protocol) to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 (Treaty). The Rule provides for assessment of the environmental impacts of nongovernmental activities in Antarctica, including tourism, for which the United States is required to give advance notice under Paragraph 5 of Article VII of the Treaty, and for coordination of the review of information regarding environmental impact assessments received from other Parties under the Protocol. The requirements of the Rule apply to operators of nongovernmental expeditions organized or proceeding from the territory of the United States to Antarctica and include commercial and non-commercial expeditions. Expeditions may include ship-based tours; yacht, skiing or mountaineering expeditions; privately funded research expeditions; and other nongovernmental activities. The Rule does not apply to individual U.S. citizens or groups of citizens planning travel to Antarctica on an expedition for which they are not acting as an operator. (Operators, for example, typically acquire use of vessels or aircraft, hire expedition staff, plan itineraries, and undertake other organizational responsibilities.) The rule provides nongovernmental operators with the specific requirements they need to meet in order to comply with the requirements of Article 8 and Annex I to the Protocol. The provisions of the Rule are intended to ensure that potential environmental effects of nongovernmental activities undertaken in Antarctica are appropriately identified and considered by the operator during the planning process and that to the extent practicable appropriate environmental safeguards which would mitigate or prevent adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment are identified by the operator.

Persons subject to the Rule must prepare environmental documentation to support the operator's determination regarding the level of environmental impact of the proposed expedition. The environmental document is submitted to the Office of Federal Activities (OFA). If the operator determines that an expedition may have: (1) Less than a minor or transitory impact, a Preliminary Environmental Review Memorandum (PERM) needs to be submitted no later than 180 days before the proposed departure to Antarctica; (2) no more than minor or transitory impacts, an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) needs to be submitted no later than 90 days before the proposed departure; or (3) more than minor or transitory impacts, a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) needs to be submitted.

Environmental documents are reviewed by OFA, in consultation with the National Science Foundation and other interested Federal agencies. OFA notifies the public of document availability at: https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/receipt-environmental-impact-assessments-eias-regarding-nongovernmental. The types of nongovernmental activities currently being carried out are typically unlikely to have impacts that are more than minor or transitory, thus an IEE is the typical level of environmental documentation submitted.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Operators of nongovernmental expeditions organized or proceeding from the territory of the United States to Antarctica.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 8).

Estimated number of respondents: 25 (total).

Frequency of response: Annual.

Total estimated burden: 1,544 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $133,780 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 327 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is the result of a change to the number of operators that the EPA anticipates will submit environmental documentation as well as the inclusion of a potential PERM, CEE and Emergency Report submitted by every three years.

The Export-Import Bank has made changes to the form to reflect an application process decoupled from the SBA's export working capital program. EXIM will also be moving forward to an electronic application submission process, which results in a stand-alone application versus the previous joint application with the SBA. Therefore, all references and information previously required from the SBA have been removed. There is one material change in the application to reflect EXIM's local cost support on short-term transactions, including working capital. Local costs are costs incurred in the buyer's country ( i.e., local delivery, installation, taxes), eligible for EXIM cover, provided that: U.S. content requirements are met; included within the contracts; do not exceed 15% of export contract; and no local goods are included. Therefore, three questions are added to the application: Are local costs to be included under the working capital loan facility; if yes, how much in terms of USD or percentage per contract or invoice; and what is the nature of the local costs to be supported?

The application tool can be reviewed at: https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib84-01.pdf.

Title and Form Number: EIB 84-01 Application for Export Working Capital Guarantee.

OMB Number: 3048-0003.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Need and Use: This form provides EXIM Bank staff with the information necessary to determine if the application and transaction is eligible for EXIM Bank assistance under their export working capital guarantee program.

Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

Annual Number of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 2 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 400 hours.

Frequency of Reporting of Use: Annually.

Government Expenses:

Reviewing time per year: 300 hours.

Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

Average Cost per Year (time * wages): $12,750.00.

Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

Total Government Cost: $15,300.00.

This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). Please send an email to VisitorRequest@FCA.gov at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

At the March 24th meeting, the FCC Technological Advisory Council will hear presentations from its four working groups: 5G/IOT/V-RAN, Future of Unlicensed Operations, Artificial Intelligence, and 5G Radio Access Network Technology. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. However, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Meetings are also broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live/. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to: Michael Ha, the FCC's Designated Federal Officer for Technological Advisory Council by email: michael.ha@fcc.gov or U.S. Postal Service Mail (Michael Ha, Federal Communications Commission, Room 2-A665, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554). Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Office of Engineering and Technology at 202-418-2470 (voice), (202) 418-1944 (fax). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include your contact information. Please allow at least five days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.

This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will accommodate as many participants as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The FCC will also provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the internet from the FCC's web page at www.fcc.gov/live. Oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the Task Force will be permitted to the extent time permits, at the discretion of the Task Force Chair and the Designated Federal Officer. Members of the public may submit comments to the Task Force in the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, ECFS, at www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Comments to the Task Force should be filed in GN Docket No. 19-329.

Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.

Proposed Agenda: At this meeting, the Task Force will provide updates on its working groups; review FCC data, programs, and policies relevant to the Task Force's duties; and discuss recent agricultural industry-wide events related to broadband deployment and precision agriculture technologies. This agenda may be modified at the discretion of the Task Force Chair and the Designated Federal Officer.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-0548.

Title: Sections 76.1709 and 76.1620, Availability of Signals; Section 76.56, Signal Carriage Obligations; Section 76.1614, Identification of Must-Carry Signals.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,103 respondents; 49,236 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-1.0 hour.

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

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 4(i), 614 and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 24,618 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: On January 31, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (Public Inspection File R&O) in MB Docket No. 16-161, FCC 17-3, In the Matter of Revisions to Public Inspection File Requirements—Broadcaster Correspondence File and Cable Principal Headend Location which eliminated the requirement in former 47 CFR 76.1708 that cable operators maintain for public inspection the designation and location of the cable system's principal headend. The Public Inspection File R&O removed and reserved 47 CFR.76.1708.

This collection is being revised to reflect the removal of 47 CFR 76.1708 made in the Public Inspection File R&O.

The other information collection requirements contained under this collection and have not changed are as follows:

47 CFR 76.56 requires cable television systems to carry signals of all qualified local commercial and Noncommercial Educational (NCE) stations requesting carriage. As a result of this requirement, the following information collection requirements are needed for this collection:

47 CFR 76.1709(a) states that the operator of every cable television system shall maintain for public inspection a file containing a list of all broadcast television stations carried by its system in fulfillment of the must-carry requirements pursuant to 47 CFR 76.56. Such list shall include the call sign; community of license, broadcast channel number, cable channel number, and in the case of a noncommercial educational broadcast station, whether that station was carried by the cable system on March 29, 1990.

47 CFR 76.1709(c) states that a cable operator shall respond in writing within 30 days to any written request by any person for the identification of the signals carried on its system in fulfillment of the requirements of 47 CFR 76.56.

47 CFR 76.1614 states that a cable operator shall respond in writing within 30 days to any written request by any person for the identification of the signals carried on its system in fulfillment of the requirements of 47 CFR 76.56. The required written response may be delivered by email, if the consumer used email to make the request or complaint directly to the cable operator, or if the consumer specifies email as the preferred delivery method in the request or complaint.

Additionally, 47 CFR 76.1620 states that if a cable operator authorizes subscribers to install additional receiver connections, but does not provide the subscriber with such connections, or with the equipment and materials for such connections, the operator shall notify such subscribers of all broadcast stations carried on the cable system which cannot be viewed via cable without a converter box and shall offer to sell or lease such a converter box to such subscribers. Such notification must be provided by June 2, 1993, and annually thereafter and to each new subscriber upon initial installation. The notice, which may be included in routine billing statements, shall identify the signals that are unavailable without an additional connection, the manner for obtaining such additional connection and instructions for installation.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0704.

Title: Sections 42.10, 42.11, 64.1900 and Section 254(g): Policies and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently-approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 700 respondents; 2,800 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .50-2 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirements and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 2,450 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that the respondents submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The four information collection requirements under this OMB Control Number are information disclosure requirements, internet posting requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and annual certification requirements. These requirements are necessary to provide consumers ready access to information concerning the rates, terms, and conditions governing the provision of interstate, domestic, interexchange services offered by nondominant interexchange carriers (IXCs) in a detariffed and increasingly competitive environment. The information collected under the information disclosure requirement and the internet posting requirement must be disclosed to the public to ensure that consumers have access to the information they need to select a telecommunications carrier and to bring to the Commission's attention to possible violations of the Communications Act without a specific public disclosure requirement. The information collected under the recordkeeping and certification requirements will be used by the Commission to ensure that affected interexchange carriers fulfill their obligations under the Communications Act, as amended.

Invitation to Comment: HHS invites comments regarding the questions included in this notice. To ensure that your comments are clearly stated, please identify the specific question, or other section of this notice, that your comments address.

A key responsibility of all parents is to economically support their children, whether or not they live with them. Parents are better able to fulfill this responsibility when they are working regularly. While the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program has encouraged parents receiving government assistance (who are typically custodial mothers) to pursue employment, increasing work among nonresident parents (who are typically fathers and not receiving assistance) remains a challenge. An analysis by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) estimates that in 2015, 13% of noncustodial parents had been out of work for at least a year.

ACF recently issued three Information Memorandums to encourage states to provide employment services to noncustodial parents. TANF-ACF-IM-18-01 reminded states that they may use federal TANF funds and state maintenance-of-effort funds to provide employment services to noncustodial parents (please see https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-acf-im-2018-01the-use-of-tanf-funds-to-promote-employment-programs-for-noncustodial-parents ). OCSE-ACF-IM- 18-02 encouraged states to use IV-D incentive funds to promote noncustodial parent work activities (please see https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource/use-of-iv-d-incentive-funds-for-ncp-work-activities ). OCSE-ACF-IM-19-04 conveys that HHS is prepared to review requests for demonstration waivers that would allow states and tribes to fund employment programs for noncustodial parents, under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (please see https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource/availability-of-section-1115-waivers-to-fund-ncp-work-activities ).

Child support programs typically refer to parents in the program who live apart from their children and are expected to pay child support as “noncustodial parents.” We use a broader term—nonresident parents—to reflect ACF's interest in soliciting information about and recommendations of employment programs that target all parents who live apart from one or more of their children, regardless of their participation in the child support program.

Prior research has found that employment programs for nonresident parents can be successful at improving employment opportunities for parents. OCSE sponsored the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration, which tested the effectiveness of child support-led employment programs. The evaluation found that this program increased the employment and earnings of noncustodial parents, satisfaction with the child support program, and parent-child contact. Other recent evidence is from the Parents and Children Together Evaluation, which examined the effectiveness of four Responsible Fatherhood programs funded by ACF's Office of Family Assistance. The evaluation found that the programs improved aspects of fathers' parenting behavior, employment, and knowledge of the child support program. Two additional demonstrations, the Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration and the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration, examined the effectiveness of subsidized employment. Four sites in the demonstrations focused on serving noncustodial parents. The evaluation found that subsidized employment programs in the study increased the earnings of noncustodial parents and increased the consistency of paying formal child support during the final year of the 30-month follow-up period.

Through this RFI, ACF is soliciting ideas and information from a broad array of stakeholders on improving nonresident parents' employment outcomes, including how to create a comprehensive, multi-system approach that addresses multiple barriers that nonresident parents face when trying to support their children. Although the primary aim of this RFI is to understand further how employment programs can increase nonresident parents' ability to economically support their children, we recognize that nonresident parents are parents first and may also face barriers to supporting their children emotionally. Consequently, we are not only interested in information and recommendations on programs that focus exclusively on employment services, but we are also interested in programs that provide employment services combined with parenting or other activities aimed at promoting father involvement and healthy relationships in children's lives.

The Evidence Act (Pub. L. 115-435) requires federal agencies to develop evidence-building plans to identify and address policy questions relevant to programs, policies, and regulations of the agency. Responses to this RFI will inform ACF's ongoing development of a learning and action agenda on employment programs for nonresident parents. This RFI is for information and planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of ACF or HHS.

We ask respondents to address the following questions. You do not need to address every question, and should focus on those where you have relevant expertise or experience. In your response, please provide a brief description of yourself or your organization before addressing the questions.

3.1  In your opinion, what are the core components necessary for an employment program to be effective for nonresident parents? Please provide evidence that supports your opinion.

3.2  In your opinion, what factors have either facilitated or hindered the implementation of employment programs for nonresident parents?

3.3  Please describe existing, promising employment programs/services for nonresident parents that may include, but are not limited to, work readiness training, occupational/sector-based training, job search assistance, subsidized employment, or other employment services. When describing the program, please include the following:

a. Target population,

b. Structure and organizational context of the program,

c. Roles and responsibilities of the lead agency and any partner agency,

d. Services provided, and

e. Any evidence of the program's effectiveness.

3.4  What role has job training, both in the classroom and on-the-job, played in effective employment programs for nonresident parents?

3.5  What role has activities aimed at parenting and promoting father involvement and healthy relationships in children's lives played in effective employment programs for nonresident parents?

3.6  To what extent do services need to vary depending on the subpopulation of nonresident parents being served? Please explain what services you believe are better suited for which subpopulations. Subpopulations could include, but are not limited to, noncustodial parents, parents with criminal records and/or a history of incarceration, young/teen parents, and parents with children by multiple partners, etc.

3.7  What are the key barriers that nonresident parents face when trying to secure or maintain employment to support their children financially? We are interested in hearing about both individual- and system-level barriers that nonresident parents may face to financially supporting their children, such as those related to transportation, education, housing, employment history, child access, child support debt, criminal record, fees/fines/restitution debt, substance use or mental health disorders, etc.

3.8  In your experience, what types of agencies or organizations should be active partners in an employment program for nonresident parents? Which type of agency is most successful in the lead role?

3.9  Please describe ways to create more systematic relationships between child support agencies and employment service providers that might increase the take-up of employment services among nonresidential parents or increase child support compliance among noncustodial parents in employment programs, etc.

3.10  If you are a government official or a practitioner, what additional information would you like to have about approaches to providing or implementing employment programs for nonresident parents?

3.11  What aspects of employment programs for nonresident parents would benefit from further evaluation?

3.12  What suggestions do you have for how federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments could support the development of high-quality employment programs for nonresident parents and/or address gaps in current efforts?

FDA announced the completion of the first phase of the enhancement of the “Purple Book: Database of FDA-Licensed Biological Products” (Purple Book) on February 24, 2020, transitioning the current table format “Lists of Licensed Biological Products with Reference Product Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability Evaluations” to a searchable, public-facing online database (available on the FDA website at https://purplebooksearch.fda.gov/ ).

As part of FDA's commitment to encouraging innovation and competition among biological products and the development of biosimilars, and to fulfill goals described in the letter entitled “Biosimilar Biological Product Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2018 Through 2022,” (available on the FDA website at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/BiosimilarUserFeeActBsUFA/UCM521121.pdf ) and commitments described in the Biosimilar Action Plan (available on the FDA website at https://www.fda.gov/media/114574/download ), FDA has created the Purple Book database. The new database provides the public with timely information about FDA-licensed biological products, including biosimilar and interchangeable products, through a dynamic, accessible, easy-to-use online search engine. This expanded Purple Book will offer more information about approved biological products, including information about whether a biological product is a reference product for a licensed biosimilar or interchangeable product, in a user-friendly format to help users quickly identify FDA-approved biosimilar and interchangeable products.

The initial Purple Book Version 1.0 announced on February 24, 2020 contains a limited data set that includes all approved biosimilars products and their related reference products, with simple search and advanced search functionality. The goal of the initial release is to gather stakeholder feedback and conduct user testing on the new database to inform the next phases of development. FDA intends to release additional phased enhancements to the database. Taking user testing and stakeholder input into consideration, the enhanced Purple Book is expected ultimately to include all Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) regulated biological products, including transition products, in addition to enhanced functionality. A later release of the enhanced Purple Book will include determinations that have been made pertaining to exclusivity.

The new Purple Book database is intended to improve transparency and functionality for stakeholders by providing a complete view of biological product options, including biosimilar and interchangeable products, and to advance public awareness about licensed biological products.

FDA is committed to making the Purple Book database interactive, user-friendly, and functional for multiple stakeholders with varying information needs. FDA is publishing this Federal Register notice and opening a docket to gather public comment on this version of the database. At the close of the comment period, the Agency will collect this feedback for consideration as additional functionality and improvements are developed and implemented.

FDA welcomes any relevant information that stakeholders and other members of the public wish to share. FDA is particularly interested in input on how the Agency can improve the Purple Book database in future releases, including on the questions set forth below.

1. How user-friendly is the information in the new Purple Book database?

a. Are navigation resources and instructions user-friendly?

b. Do the definitions and hover overs (information available when a person positions a computer cursor over an image or icon without selecting it) assist in your understanding?

2. Does the new Purple Book database help improve understanding of available biological product options among patients, payors, clinicians, and other parties?

a. What additional information or modifications could improve understanding about available biological product options?

3. Which functionalities of the new database are most useful to patients, payors, clinicians, and other parties ( e.g., simple search results, advanced search results, hover over definitions, monthly historical data change reports, data download capabilities)?

a. Which aspects of the simple search functionality are most useful for navigating the database and which need improvement?

b. Which aspects of the advanced search functionality are most useful for navigating the database and which need improvement?

c. What other modifications or enhancements could improve the new database's functionality or usability?

4. Are there other types of information or functionalities that would be useful to include in the Purple Book database?

Persons with access to the internet may access the Purple Book at https://purplebooksearch.fda.gov/.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, INGREZZA (valbenazine tosylate) indicated for the treatment of adults with tardive dyskinesia. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for INGREZZA (U.S. Patent No. 8,039,627) from Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated February 6, 2018, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of INGREZZA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for INGREZZA is 2,071 days. Of this time, 1,827 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 244 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: August 12, 2011. The applicant claims August 16, 2011, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was August 12, 2011, which was the first date after receipt of the IND that the investigational studies were allowed to proceed.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505 of the FD&C Act: August 11, 2016. The applicant claims August 10, 2016, as the date the new drug application (NDA) for INGREZZA (NDA 209241) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NDA 209241 was submitted on August 11, 2016.

3. The date the application was approved: April 11, 2017. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 209241 was approved on April 11, 2017.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 552 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES ). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see DATES ), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “The `Deemed to be a License' Provision of the BPCI Act: Questions and Answers.” This guidance is intended to provide answers to common questions about FDA's implementation of the “transition” provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) under which an application for a biological product approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355) as of March 23, 2020, will be deemed to be a license for the biological product under section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262) on March 23, 2020 (“the transition date”). This guidance also describes FDA's compliance policy for the labeling of biological products that will be the subject of deemed BLAs. This guidance is intended to facilitate planning for the transition date and provide further clarity regarding the Agency's implementation of this statutory provision.

Although the majority of therapeutic biological products have been licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, some protein products historically have been approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act. On March 23, 2010, the BPCI Act was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148). The BPCI Act clarified the statutory authority under which certain protein products will be regulated by amending the definition of a “biological product” in section 351(i) of the PHS Act to include a “protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide),” and describing procedures for submission of a marketing application for certain “biological products.” Section 605 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94), further amended the definition of a “biological product” in section 351(i) of the PHS Act to remove the parenthetical “(except any chemically synthesized polypeptide)” from the statutory category of “protein.” In the Federal Register of February 21, 2020, FDA issued a final rule that amends its regulation that defines “biological product” to incorporate changes made by the BPCI Act and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and to provide its interpretation of the statutory term “protein” (85 FR 10057). This rule is effective on March 23, 2020. FDA also has previously stated its interpretation of the statutory term “protein” in the amended definition of “biological product” (see FDA's draft guidance for industry entitled “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 2)” (December 2018), available on FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs (“Biosimilar Q&A Draft Guidance”)). 1

The BPCI Act requires that a marketing application for a “biological product” (that previously could have been submitted under section 505 of the FD&C Act) must be submitted under section 351 of the PHS Act; this requirement is subject to certain exceptions during a 10-year transition period ending on March 23, 2020 (see section 7002(e)(1) to (3) and (e)(5) of the BPCI Act). On March 23, 2020, an approved application for a biological product under section 505 of the FD&C Act shall be deemed to be a license for the biological product under section 351 of the PHS Act (see section 7002(e)(4) of the BPCI Act). 2

In the Federal Register of December 12, 2018 (83 FR 63894), FDA invited comment on the preliminary list of approved applications for biological products under the FD&C Act that will be affected by the transition provision (“Preliminary List”) (available on FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/deemed-be-license-provision-bpci-act ). FDA explained that if an application holder or other person believes that an approved new drug application (NDA) should be added to the list or should not be included on the list, the application holder or other person should submit a comment to the public docket established for this Q&A guidance and the list. FDA posted updates to the Preliminary List on September 23, 2019, and January 15, 2020.

In the Federal Register of December 12, 2018, FDA also invited comment on the factors that FDA should consider in determining whether a combination product composed of a biological product constituent part and a drug constituent part will be subject to the transition provision. However, FDA did not receive any substantive comments on this topic. The current Preliminary List includes a small number of drug-biologic combination products and complex mixtures assigned to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which reflects the Agency's current thinking that the approved NDAs for these products are appropriately subject to the transition provision. FDA's evaluation of each of these approved NDAs for drug-biologic combination products or complex mixtures was informed by a general consideration of the factors used to determine the appropriate marketing application type for antibody-drug conjugates (see FDA's guidance for industry entitled “Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act” (December 2018), available on FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs ).

To ensure that the Agency considers any additional comments on the list before the statutory transition date, the January 2020 update to the Preliminary List recommended that application holders or other interested persons submit either electronic or written comments no later than February 19, 2020.

This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “The `Deemed to be a License' Provision of the BPCI Act: Questions and Answers” issued on December 12, 2018 (83 FR 63894). FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the final guidance include: (1) Providing information on updating the listing information for the biological product in FDA's electronic Drug Registration and Listing System between March 23, 2020, and June 30, 2020; (2) clarifying that, in the absence of other changes made by the application holder that would require a new National Drug Code (NDC) number, biological products approved under the FD&C Act will retain their current NDC number after the NDA is deemed to be a BLA; (3) providing information on establishment standards for “non-specified biological products” that are the subject of deemed BLAs; (4) clarifying the process for submitting followup reports on or after March 23, 2020, for any initial field alert report submitted before March 23, 2020; and (5) clarifying certain aspects of FDA's compliance policy for the labeling of biological products that are the subject of deemed BLAs. In addition, technical changes were made for consistency with the revisions to the PHS Act and the BPCI Act enacted in sections 605 and 607 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and editorial changes were made to improve clarity.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “The `Deemed To Be a License' Provision of the BPCI Act: Questions and Answers.” 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 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 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under 0910-0001; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 601 and 610 have been approved under 0910-0338; the collections of information in 21 CFR 600.80 through 600.90 have been approved under 0910-0308; and the collections of information in 21 CFR 201.56, 201.57, and 201.80 have been approved under 0910-0572. In addition, the collections of information for applications submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act have been approved under 0910-0719.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs or https://www.regulations.gov.

FDA is withdrawing the guidance for industry entitled “Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency Drug Products—Submitting NDAs,” which was issued in 2006 (see 71 FR 19524 (April 14, 2006)). The guidance described FDA's thinking regarding the data and information that may support submission of NDAs, including submission of NDAs pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2)), for products that contain the ingredients pancreatin or pancrelipase and are used to treat EPI.

Pancreatic enzyme preparations of porcine or bovine origin that contain the ingredients pancreatin or pancrelipase have a long history of use for the treatment of EPI in children and adults with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis. These products have been available in the United States for decades, largely marketed as unapproved drugs. On April 28, 2004 (69 FR 23410), however, FDA announced that all orally administered PEPs are new drugs that must be approved via a marketing application for prescription use only, and explained the conditions for continued marketing of these drug products. The guidance explained FDA's thinking regarding ways in which sponsors of products containing pancreatin and pancrelipase could design drug development programs to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of their products and satisfy the requirements for approval of an NDA, including an NDA submitted pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act.

Although most therapeutic biological products have been licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS) (42 U.S.C. 262), some protein products historically have been approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355). On March 23, 2010, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148). The BPCI Act clarified the statutory authority under which certain protein products will be regulated by amending the definition of a “biological product” in section 351(i) of the PHS Act to include a “protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide),” and describing procedures for submission of a marketing application for certain biological products. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94) further amended the definition of a “biological product” in section 351(i) of the PHS Act to remove the parenthetical exception for “any chemically synthesized polypeptide” from the statutory category of “protein” (see Division N, section 605, of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020). Products containing pancreatin or pancrelipase fall within FDA's interpretation of the term “protein” in the statutory definition of a biological product (for additional information, see the final rule entitled “Definition of the Term `Biological Product' (85 FR 10057, February 21, 2020)

The BPCI Act requires that a marketing application for a “biological product” (that previously could have been submitted under section 505 of the FD&C Act) must be submitted under section 351 of the PHS Act; this requirement is subject to certain exceptions during a 10-year transition period ending on March 23, 2020 (see section 7002(e)(1) to (3) and (e)(5) of the BPCI Act). On March 23, 2020 ( i.e., the transition date), an approved application for a biological product under section 505 of the FD&C Act shall be deemed to be a license for the biological product under section 351 of the PHS Act (see section 7002(e)(4)(A) of the BPCI Act; see also section 7002(e)(4)(B) of the BPCI Act). After March 23, 2020, all sponsors seeking approval of a biological product (that previously could have been submitted under section 505 of the FD&C Act) will need to submit a BLA under the PHS Act (see section 7002(e) of the BPCI Act). (For additional information, see FDA's guidance for industry entitled “Interpretation of the `Deemed to be a License' Provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009” (December 2018), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/119272/download .)

FDA is withdrawing the guidance because a marketing application for a proposed PEP that contains the ingredients pancreatin or pancrelipase may not be submitted under section 505 of the FD&C Act after March 23, 2020. The guidance included a description of data and information that may support submission of NDAs, including 505(b)(2) applications, for these products. FDA anticipates that there will be different considerations that may inform development of proposed PEPs intended for submission in BLAs under section 351 of the PHS Act. FDA intends to issue guidance regarding how the concepts described in the withdrawn guidance would apply to proposed pancreatic enzyme products submitted under the PHS Act, including the extent of integration of various types of data and information about the use of PEPs into BLAs. In the interim, the Agency encourages sponsors interested in submitting a BLA for a PEP to contact the relevant review division in the Office of New Drugs in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research with any questions.

The ACHDNC provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on policy, program development, and other matters of significance concerning certain activities described in section 1111 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 300b-10), as further described below. The ACHDNC will fulfill the functions previously undertaken by the former Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, which was established under the PHS Act, Title XI § 1111(a) (42 U.S.C. 300b-10(a)). The ACHDNC is also governed by the provisions of the FACA, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The ACHDNC advises the Secretary of HHS about aspects of newborn and childhood screening and technical information for the development of policies and priorities that will enhance the ability of the state and local health agencies to provide for newborn and child screening, counseling and health care services for newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders. The ACHDNC will review and report regularly on newborn and childhood screening practices, recommend improvements in the national newborn and childhood screening programs, as well as fulfill the list of requirements stated in the original authorizing legislation. The ACHDNC charter authorizes the committee to operate until March 20, 2022. A copy of the ACHDNC charter is available on the ACHDNC website at https://www.hrsa.gov/advisory-committees/heritable-disorders/index.html . A copy of the charter also can be obtained by accessing the FACA database that is maintained by the Committee Management Secretariat under the General Services Administration. The website address for the FACA database is http://www.facadatabase.gov/ .

Technology description follows:

Prion diseases are neurodegenerative diseases of great public concern as humans may either develop disease spontaneously or, more rarely, due to mutations in their prion protein gene or exposures to external sources of infection. Prion disease is caused by the accumulation in the nervous system of abnormal aggregates of prion protein. This technology enables rapid, economical, and ultrasensitive detection of disease-associated forms of prion protein. Specifically, prion aggregates (contained in a biological sample) seed the polymerization of recombinant, monomeric prion protein (rPrP-sen) and the polymerized product is detected as a highly amplified indicator of infectious prions in the sample. This assay differs from the protein-misfolding cyclic amplification assay (PMCA) because it enables the effective use of bacterially expressed rPrP-sen and does not require multiple amplification rounds. In its current embodiment, this assay can be used to detect prions in tissues or fluids from humans (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD)), sheep (scrapie), cattle (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), and deer (chronic wasting disease (CWD)). For example, analyses of cerebrospinal fluid and/or nasal brushings from living sporadic CJD patients has allowed for nearly 100% accurate diagnosis.

This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

Inventors: Ryuichiro Atarashi (NIAID), Roger Moore (NIAID), Byron Caughey (NIAID).

Publications: Atarashi, Ryuichiro et al. “Simplified ultrasensitive prion detection by recombinant PrP conversion with shaking.” Nature Methods 5, pages 211-212 (2008).

Licensing Contact: To license this technology, please contact Jeffrey Thruston at 301-594-5179 or jeffrey.thruston@nih.gov, and reference E-109-2007-0.

Technology description follows:

Description of Technology:

Tauopathies are a category of neurodegenerative diseases defined by the abnormal accumulation of misfolded tau protein aggregates (often in the form of amyloid filaments) within the brain. Tau proteins exist in six isoforms, three of which contain three microtubule binding regions (3R), and the remainder contain four microtubule binding regions (4R). Tauopathies are characterized, in part, based on the ratio of 3R/4R misfolded tau proteins that make up the aggregates. This technology enables rapid, ultrasensitive and economical differentiation of self-propagating tau aggregates associated with tauopathies in crude biospecimens. The assays use recombinant, truncated 3R, 4R, or 3R+4R tau protein substrates as indicators of tau aggregates. Specifically, misfolded tau aggregates (contained in a biological sample) seed the polymerization of either 3R, 4R, or 3R+4R tau substrates, and the polymers (amyloid fibrils) are detected as an amplified indicator of even extremely low concentrations of tau aggregates within the biological sample and aid in identification of the tauopathy. In its current embodiment, this assay has been used to detect tau seeds in brain tissue from patients with Alzheimer's disease, Pick disease, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, corticobasal degeneration, progressive supranuclear palsy, certain frontotemporal dementias, and other tauopathies. For several of these diseases, tau RT-QuIC assays have also detected tau seeding activity in patients' cerebrospinal fluid.

This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

Potential Commercial Applications:

Competitive Advantages:

Development Stage:

Inventors: Byron Caughey (NIAID), Eri Saijo (NIAID), Allison Kraus (NIAID), Michael Metrick II (NIAID).

Publications:

Licensing Contact: To license this technology, please contact Jeffrey Thruston at 301-594-5179 or jeffrey.thruston@nih.gov, and reference E-015-2017-0.

Technology description follows:

Description of Technology: Synucleinopathies are a category of neurodegenerative diseases defined by the abnormal aggregation and accumulation of misfolded alpha-synuclein protein molecules within the brain. These aggregates are of particular concern to humans as they are a primary cause of Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and other neurological disorders. This technology enables rapid, economical and ultrasensitive detection of disease-associated forms of alpha-synuclein as biomarkers or indicators of synucleinopathy in a biological sample. Specifically, alpha-synuclein aggregates (contained in a biological sample) seed the polymerization of vast stoichiometric excesses of recombinant, normally folded alpha-synuclein into amyloid fibrils that are then detectable by an amyloid-sensitive fluorescent dye. This reaction can thereby amplify the seeds in a biospecimen by many orders of magnitude. For example, in its current embodiment, this assay has been used to detect alpha-synuclein seeds in cerebral spinal fluid from living patients with Parkinson's disease and Lewy-body dementia, giving high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with unprecedented speed.

This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

Potential Commercial Applications:

Competitive Advantages:

Development Stage:

Inventors: Byron Caughey (NIAID), Bradley Groveman (NIAID), Christina Orru (NIAID), Lynne Raymond (NIAID)

Publications: Groveman, Bradley R et al. “Rapid and ultra-sensitive quantitation of disease-associated α-synuclein seeds in brain and cerebrospinal fluid by αSyn RT-QuIC.” Acta Neuropathologica Communications vol. 6(1):7, 9 Feb. 2018.

Licensing Contact: To license this technology, please contact Jeffrey Thruston at 301-594-5179 or jeffrey.thruston@nih.gov, and reference E-233-2017-0.

The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was established under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1411, in part, to develop the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), the planned successor to the Automated Commercial System (ACS), as the electronic data interchange (EDI) system authorized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). ACE is an automated and electronic system for commercial trade processing, which is intended to streamline business processes, facilitate growth in trade, ensure cargo security, and foster participation in global commerce, while ensuring compliance with U.S. laws and regulations and reducing costs for CBP and all of its communities of interest. The ability to meet these objectives depends on successfully modernizing CBP's business functions and the information technology that supports those functions.

CBP's modernization efforts are accomplished through phased releases of ACE component functionality designed to replace specific legacy ACS functions and add new functionality. Section 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)) provides for the testing of NCAP components. See T.D. 95-21, 60 FR 14211 (March 16, 1995).

On May 5, 2016, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 27149) announcing an NCAP test concerning the electronic submission of certain import data and documents for commodities regulated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This original test notice provided that test participants would electronically submit data contained in FWS's “Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish and Wildlife” (“Declaration” or “FWS Form 3-177”) to ACE using the Partner Government Agency (PGA) Message Set, and any required original permits or certificates, and copies of any other documents required under the FWS regulations ( see 50 CFR part 14) to ACE via the Digital Image System (DIS). For more information and the general rules, procedures, technical requirements and terms and conditions applicable to the PGA Message Set and the DIS, please see prior Federal Register notices at 78 FR 75931 (December 13, 2013) and 80 FR 62082 (October 15, 2015).

Under the original test, ACE replaced FWS's internet-based filing system (“eDecs”) that was used for the electronic submission of the Declaration and accompanying documents. After receipt in ACE, the data and electronic documents were to be sent to FWS for processing. The original test notice further provided that original “Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora” (“CITES”) permits and certificates, and foreign-law paper documents were to be submitted directly to the FWS office at the applicable CBP port. On January 12, 2017, the PGA Message Set test for FWS was suspended due to concerns raised by the industry regarding the design of the message set. See Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS) Message 17-000015. 1 On January 18, 2017, CBP issued a subsequent CSMS message to advise the public that, as a result of the suspension of the PGA Message Set for FWS, the FWS pilot was suspended pending further review and stakeholder collaboration to enhance the implementation. See CSMS Message 17-000023.

On April 23, 2018, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 17669), announcing the reopening and modification of the original test from 2016. The notice announced a new email address for applications to participate in the modified test and information to be included in the email, instructions for discontinuation of participation in the test, as well as four new filing options for the submission of data and documents. The notice also announced two restrictions to the initial participation in the modified test. The modified test became operational on May 23, 2018. See also CSMS Message 18-000298.

On May 25, 2018, CBP issued CSMS Message 18-000364, summarizing the requirements for the modified test and specifying additional technical steps for test participation. The message also advised that ninety days after the opening of the modified test for public participation, CBP and FWS would suspend it in order to review the results before extending it. Accordingly, the modified test was suspended and, after review and evaluation of the modified test results, CBP determined as follows: Additional technical programming needed to be completed by FWS; additional modifications to the programming instructions in the CBP Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (CATAIR) for the applicable PGA Message Set would be required; and, greater and more diverse trade participation would be required to ensure success before the modified test would be reopened. Following the suspension of the modified test, CBP worked closely with FWS and members of the trade to improve the design of the FWS test. Consequently, CBP is now prepared to reopen the FWS test for public participation, with the additional modifications described below.

This document announces the reopening of the FWS test with two further modifications to streamline the PGA Message Set for FWS by limiting information provided to only data that is currently provided in FWS's eDecs system. To implement the modifications, CBP modified the programming in ACE to remove several record identifiers and other data elements. In addition, other technical programming changes have created efficiencies, i.e., all FWS-staffed designated ports are now consolidated under the subheading “Wildlife Ports” in the CATAIR guidelines for FWS to align with the requirements in 50 CFR part 14.12 of the FWS regulations. The updated ACE programming instructions for the PGA Message Set for FWS are available in the supplemental CATAIR document entitled FWS Implementation Guide. See https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair (the FWS Implementation Guide is available under the PGA Message Set chapter of the CATAIR). Finally, CBP made other minor modifications for the administration of the FWS test, specifically updating the contact information for both comments and questions to CBP and FWS, as well as for participation in and discontinuation of the test.

The remainder of this notice provides a more detailed description of the two modifications to streamline the submission process, followed by a comprehensive restatement of the entire FWS test, with all past and new modifications incorporated therein. 2 These modifications affect certain filing options (specifically, filing options 2 and 4) of the FWS test. Before elaborating, and by way of background, it should be noted that the FWS test was designed to provide test participants with four different filing options when submitting import data, disclaimers, or documents in ACE: Participants could either file FWS Form 3-177 data in ACE, using the PGA Message Set and DIS (option 1), file FWS Form 3-177 and required documents directly with FWS (option 2), file in the PGA Message Set using Disclaimer code “C” to indicate that they would file with FWS through eDecs at a later time (option 3), or file in the PGA Message Set using Disclaimer code “E” when a Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States code (hereinafter referred to as the HTS code) was flagged as “FW1”, but the commodity did not contain fish or wildlife (option 4).

Previously, test participants selecting filing option 2 for the FWS test could file the FWS Form 3-177 and required documents with FWS, and then either file the applicable eDecs confirmation number in the PGA Message Set (if FWS clearance was already received via eDecs) or use Disclaimer code “D” (“data filed through paper”) to file in the PGA Message Set (if FWS clearance was already received via paper).

This notice announces that filing option 2 is modified to be more efficient by adding a Limited Data Set (LDS) FWS processing code under filing option 2 for test participants to use, to indicate that the entire data set and required documents have already been filed directly with FWS. Thus, only limited data needs to be submitted in ACE, including the eDecs confirmation number or Disclaimer code “D”.

Previously, under filing option 4, when an HTS code was flagged as “FW1” (meaning tariff codes in which the commodities are likely to contain animals or animal products that require FWS declaration and clearance), but the commodity did not contain fish or wildlife, participants would file in the PGA Message Set using Disclaimer code “E” (“product does not contain fish or wildlife, including live, dead, parts or products thereof, except as specifically exempted from declaration requirements under 50 CFR part 14”) to disclaim the need to file FWS Form 3-177 and required documents. However, if a commodity contained both FWS-regulated and non-FWS regulated animal components, the filer was required to use Disclaimer code “E” in conjunction with one of the other options.

This notice announces that filing option 4 is modified to alleviate the unnecessary burden on the filer. Specifically, if a commodity contains both FWS-regulated and non-FWS-regulated animal components, the filer should submit a PGA Message Set only for the FWS-regulated animal component, using options 1-4. The Disclaimer code “E” that was previously required for the non-FWS-regulated animal components under option 4 is no longer required.

Test participants will be required to:

(1) Transmit the Declaration data and Disclaimers electronically to ACE, when filing an entry in ACE, in the PGA Message Set, using one of the four filing options outlined below, at any time prior to the arrival of the merchandise on the conveyance transporting the cargo to the United States;

(2) Transmit required permits or documents using DIS;

(3) Submit original CITES and foreign-law paper documents directly to the FWS office at the applicable port;

(4) Use a software program that has completed ACE certification testing for the PGA Message Set; and

(5) Take part in a CBP-FWS evaluation of this test.

To be eligible to apply for this test, the applicant must:

(1) Be a self-filing importer who has the ability to file ACE entry/cargo release and ACE Entry Summaries certified for cargo release or a broker who has the ability to file ACE entry/cargo release and ACE Entry Summaries certified for cargo release;

(2) File Declarations and Disclaimers for FWS-regulated commodities; and

(3) Have an FWS eDecs filer account that contains the CBP filer code when filing under Option 1.

Test participants must meet all the eligibility criteria described in this document in order to participate in the test program.

Applications to participate in the test program should be submitted by email to FWS at lawenforcement@fws.gov, with the subject heading “Request to Participate in the FWS Test.” A copy of the application should be sent to the applicant's assigned CBP client representative, Trade Transformation Office, Office of Trade. Applicants without an assigned CBP client representative should submit their applications by email to CBP at FWS.Test.Participation@cbp.dhs.gov, with the subject heading “PGA Message Set FWS Test FRN-Request to Participate.” Applications must include the applicant's filer code, the commodities the applicant intends to import, and the intended ports of arrival. Any applicant to the original or modification test notice who wishes to participate in the reopening of the test should apply again pursuant to this notice.

Initially, participation in the test program will be restricted to certain FWS ports. FWS will notify participants of the ports they may use to enter commodities under the test procedures. In addition, initial participation in the test program will exclude entries of live and perishable commodities. Once FWS determines that a participant has fully tested its software for filing entries in ACE, FWS will notify the participant of its eligibility to file for entries of live and perishable commodities.

This test provides participants with four different filing options when submitting data, disclaimers or documents in ACE. Participants do not need to notify CBP or FWS about which option they plan on using. Participants may use different filing options for different entries.

(1) Option 1: Test participants will file FWS Form 3-177 data in ACE using the PGA Message Set and upload required FWS documents in DIS. This filing option replaces eDecs for those participants filing entries under the auspices of this test program. ACE will send the data and electronic documents to FWS for processing.

(2) Option 2: Test participants will file FWS Form 3-177 and required documents directly with FWS. Under this option, test participants will either file the applicable eDecs confirmation number in the PGA Message Set, using the Government Agency Processing Code “LDS” (Limited Data Set) (if FWS clearance was already received via eDecs), or use Disclaimer code “D” (“data filed through paper”) to file in the PGA Message Set (if FWS clearance was already received via paper). DIS will not be used under this option unless further information is requested by CBP or FWS to substantiate a disclaimer on a case-by-case basis.

(3) Option 3: Test participants will file in the PGA Message Set using Disclaimer code “C” (“data filed through other agency means”) to indicate that they will follow up with FWS and file in eDecs at a later time. DIS will not be used under this option unless further information is requested by CBP or FWS to substantiate a disclaimer on a case-by-case basis.

(4) Option 4: When an HTS code is flagged as “FW1”, participants may file in the PGA Message Set using Disclaimer code “E” (“product does not contain fish or wildlife, including live, dead, parts or products thereof, except as specifically exempted from declaration requirements under 50 CFR part 14”) to disclaim the need to file FWS Form 3-177 and required documents because the commodity does not contain fish or wildlife. If a commodity contains both FWS-regulated and non-FWS regulated animal components, the filer should submit a PGA Message Set for only the FWS-regulated animal component, using options 1-4. No Disclaimer code “E” is required for the non-FWS regulated animal component.

Requests to discontinue participation in the test program should be submitted by email to FWS at lawenforcement@fws.gov with the subject heading “Request to Discontinue Participation in the FWS Test.” This process ensures that any future entries submitted by an importer who wishes to discontinue participation will not be rejected by the business rules operating in the test due to missing Declaration data and accompanying documents. A copy of the request to discontinue should be sent to the participant's CBP client representative, Trade Transformation Office, Office of Trade. The request should include the date the participant wishes to end the participation.

As of March 5, 2020, FWS will accept applications throughout the duration of the test. FWS will notify the selected applicants by an email message of their selection and the starting date of their participation. Selected participants may have different starting dates. Anyone providing incomplete information, or otherwise not meeting participation requirements, will be notified by an email message and given the opportunity to resubmit the application. There is no limit on the number of participants.

The test program and modifications announced in this notice will become operational on April 6, 2020. At the conclusion of the test program, an evaluation will be conducted to assess the effect that the PGA Message Set has on expediting the submission of FWS importation-related data elements and the processing of FWS-related entries. The final results of the evaluation will be published in the Federal Register as required by section 101.9(b)(2) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)(2)). Any modifications to this test will be announced via a separate Federal Register notice.

A test participant may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, administrative sanctions, liquidated damages, or discontinuance from participation in this test for any of the following:

(1) Failure to follow the terms and conditions of this test;

(2) Failure to exercise reasonable care in the execution of participant obligations;

(3) Failure to abide by applicable laws and regulations that have not been waived; or

(4) Failure to deposit duties or fees in a timely manner.

If the Director, Interagency Collaboration Division, Trade Policy and Programs (TPP), Office of Trade, finds that there is a basis for discontinuance of test participation privileges, the test participant will be provided a written notice proposing the discontinuance with a description of the facts or conduct warranting the action. The test participant will be offered the opportunity to appeal the Director's decision in writing within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the written notice. The appeal must be submitted to the Executive Director, Trade Transformation Office (TTO), Office of Trade, by emailing TTO.Executive.Director@cbp.dhs.gov.

The Executive Director will issue a decision in writing on the proposed action within thirty (30) working days after receiving a timely filed appeal from the test participant. If no timely appeal is received, the proposed notice becomes the final decision of the Agency as of the date that the appeal period expires. A proposed discontinuance of a test participant's privileges will not take effect unless the appeal process under this paragraph has been concluded with a written decision adverse to the test participant.

In instances of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or safety so requires, the Director, Interagency Collaboration Division, TPP, Office of Trade, may immediately discontinue the test participant's privileges upon written notice to the test participant. The notice will contain a description of the facts or conduct warranting the immediate action. The test participant will be offered the opportunity to appeal the Director's decision within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the written notice providing for immediate discontinuance. The appeal must be submitted to the Executive Director, TTO, Office of Trade, by emailing TTO.Executive.Director@cbp.dhs.gov. The immediate discontinuance will remain in effect during the appeal period. The Executive Director will issue a decision in writing on the discontinuance within fifteen (15) working days after receiving a timely filed appeal from the test participant. If no timely appeal is received, the notice becomes the final decision of the Agency as of the date that the appeal period expires.

For purposes of this test, those provisions of 19 CFR parts 10 and 12 that are inconsistent with the terms of this test are waived for the test participants only. See 19 CFR 101.9(b). This document does not waive any recordkeeping requirements found in 19 CFR part 163 and the Appendix to part 163 (commonly known as the “(a)(1)(A) list”). This test also does not waive any FWS requirements under 50 CFR part 14.

All interested parties are invited to comment on any aspect of this test at any time. CBP requests comments and feedback on all aspects of this test, including the design, conduct and implementation of the test, in order to determine whether to modify, alter, expand, limit, continue, end, or fully implement this program.

The collection of information contained in this FWS PGA Message Set test has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) and assigned OMB control number 1018-0012. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

All data submitted and entered into ACE may be subject to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) and is considered confidential by CBP, except to the extent as otherwise provided by law. As stated in previous notices, participation in these or any of the previous ACE tests is not confidential and upon a written Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, a name(s) of an approved participant(s) will be disclosed by CBP in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552.

The Board is an advisory committee established in accordance with the provision of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the Academy and advise the FEMA Administrator on the operation of the Academy and any improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine whether these programs further the basic missions that are approved by the FEMA Administrator, examines the physical plant of the Academy to determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits a written annual report through the United States Fire Administrator to the FEMA Administrator. The report provides detailed comments and recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.

Individuals who are interested in serving on the Board are invited to apply for consideration for appointment. There is no application form; however, a current resume and statement of interest will be required. The appointment shall be for a term of up to three years. Individuals selected for the appointment shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs), defined in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. The candidate selected for the appointment will be required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450).

The Board shall meet as often as needed to fulfill its mission, but not less than twice each fiscal year to address its objectives and duties. The Board will meet in person at least once each fiscal year with additional meetings held via teleconference. Board members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the Board. All travel for Board business must be approved in advance by the Designated Federal Officer. To the extent practical, Board members shall serve on any subcommittee that is established.

FEMA does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. FEMA strives to achieve a diverse candidate pool for all its recruitment actions.

Current DHS employees, contractors, and potential contractors will not be considered for membership. Federally registered lobbyists will not be considered for SGE appointments.

In the Federal Register of February 28, 2020, in FR Doc. 2020-04128, on page 12001, make the following corrections:

1. In the first column, correct the DATES caption to read as follows:

2. In the first column, under the ADDRESSES caption, correct the second paragraph to read as follows:

(1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2019-0004. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

3. In the third column, in the sixth paragraph, correct “$41,661” to read “$43,828”.

The Council reports to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations regarding the establishment and implementation of conservation endeavors that benefit wildlife resources; encourage partnership among the public, sporting conservation organizations, and Federal, State, Tribal, and territorial governments; and benefit recreational hunting and recreational shooting sports.

The Council conducts its operations in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. App.). It reports to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. The Council functions solely as an advisory body. The duties of the Council include:

(a) Assessing and quantifying implementation of Executive Order 13443 and Secretary's Orders 3347 and 3356 across relevant departments, agencies, and offices, and making recommendations to enhance and expand their implementation as identified; and

(b) Making recommendations regarding policies and programs that:

1. Conserve and restore wetlands, agricultural lands, grasslands, forests, and rangeland habitats;

2. Promote opportunities and expand access to hunting and shooting sports on public and private lands;

3. Encourage hunting and shooting safety by developing ranges on public lands;

4. Recruit and retain new shooters and hunters;

5. Increase public awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and the social and economic benefits of hunting and shooting; and

6. Encourage coordination among the public; hunting and shooting sports community; wildlife conservation groups; and Federal, State, Tribal, and territorial governments.

To obtain more information on Council duties and to see a copy of the Council's charter, visit the Council website at https://www.fws.gov/hsscc/.

We are requesting nominations to fill vacancies to represent the following organizations/entities:

• U.S. hunters actively engaged in domestic and/or international hunting conservation;

• Archery, hunting, and/or shooting sports industry;

• Tourism, outfitter, and/or guide industries related to hunting and/or shooting sports;

• Tribal resource management organizations;

• Agriculture industry;

• Ranching industry; and

• Veterans' service organizations.

Each nomination should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Council and allow the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member. Current members are eligible to be nominated for reappointment to the Council.

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: 2019-2021 Firearm Inquiry Statistics Program.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is FIST-1. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Through the Firearm Inquiry Statistics (FIST) Program, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) obtains information from state and local checking agencies responsible for maintaining records on the number of background checks for firearm transfers or permits that were issued, processed, tracked, or conducted during the calendar year. Specifically, state and local checking agencies are asked to provide information on the number of applications and denials for firearm transfers received or tracked by the agency and reasons why applications were denied. BJS combines these data with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) transaction data to produce comprehensive national statistics on firearm applications and denials resulting from the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and similar state laws governing background checks and firearm transfers. BJS also plans to collect information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) on denials screened and referred to ATF field offices for investigation and possible prosecution. BJS publishes FIST data on the BJS website in statistical tables and uses the information to respond to inquiries from Congress, federal, state, and local government officials, researchers, students, the media, and other members of the general public interested in criminal justice statistics.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: A projected 1,394 respondents will take part in the FIST data collection with an average of 25 minutes for each to complete the FIST survey form.

6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated public burden hours associated with this collection is 581 hours annually.

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

On October 9, 2019, President Trump issued Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents,” directing federal agencies to establish a single, searchable, website that contains all current guidance documents. The Department's guidance website is available at https://www.dol.gov/guidance .

As part of this process, the Department is undertaking a detailed and comprehensive review of guidance documents issued by Department agencies to determine whether such guidance aligns with the law and Administration policy and otherwise serves an appropriate and useful purpose. Guidance which is outdated, superseded, invalid, unhelpful, confusing, redundant, outside an agency's appropriate role, or contrary to law or policy is being rescinded or modified. This process is ongoing and the Department's guidance website collects decisions to retain guidance to date. The website is intended to provide transparency to the regulated community by creating a “one-stop shop” for locating guidance documents, which will also continue to be available on agency websites in their usual locations. The E.O. gives agencies until June 27, 2020, to add to the website any guidance missed during their initial review. Any documents still under review after February 28, 2020 will be added to the website when those decisions have been finalized.

Guidance documents that are not currently searchable through the search tool will continue to be available on the individual DOL agency websites. DOL will continue to refine its website as needed to enhance user accessibility and usability.

Agencies will continue to publish guidance documents on their own websites and all new guidance documents will be searchable from http://www.dol.gov/guidance . DOL welcomes input from the public regarding guidance that should be retained, rescinded, or modified. Comments should be submitted to TalkAboutGuidance@dol.gov .

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that SGS North America, Inc. (SGS) is applying for an expansion of current recognition as a NRTL. SGS requests the addition of twenty test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.

The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides a preliminary finding. In the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL, including SGS, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

SGS currently has nine facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with the headquarters located at: SGS North America, Inc., 620 Old Peachtree Road, Suwanee, Georgia 30024. A complete list of SGS's scope of recognition is available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/sgs.html.

SGS submitted four applications to OSHA to expand recognition as a NRTL to include twenty additional test standards. The first application was submitted to OSHA on February 14, 2018 (OSHA-2006-0040-0051). The second and third applications were submitted to OSHA on April 18, 2018 (OSHA-2006-0040-0052) and (OSHA-2006-0040-0053). The fourth application (which was a revision to the first application) was submitted to OSHA on July 18, 2019 (OSHA-2006-0040-0054). OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packets and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to these applications.

Table 1 lists the appropriate test standards found in SGS's applications for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.

The ACVETEO is a Congressionally mandated advisory committee authorized under Title 38, U.S. Code, Section 4110 and subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended. The ACVETEO is responsible for: Assessing employment and training needs of veterans; determining the extent to which the programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Labor meet these needs; assisting to conduct outreach to employers seeking to hire veterans; making recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training Service, with respect to outreach activities and employment and training needs of veterans; and carrying out such other activities necessary to make required reports and recommendations. The ACVETEO meets at least quarterly.

This notice of intent to grant a co-exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective co-exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at http://technology.nasa.gov.

Executive Order (“E.O.”) 13891 requires each agency to “establish or maintain on its website a single, searchable, indexed database that contains or links to all guidance documents” from that agency. This portal must also note that “guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.” NEH has established the website portal, and posted the requisite information about guidance documents, at www.neh.gov/guidance. At this time, NEH does not have in effect any guidance documents as defined by E.O. 13891. In accordance with E.O. 13891, however, NEH will not issue a guidance document without including it in the portal.

The ACRS is a part-time advisory group, which is statutorily mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The ACRS provides independent expert advice on matters related to the safety of existing and proposed nuclear reactor facilities and on the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards. Of primary importance are the safety issues associated with the operation of commercial nuclear power plants in the United States and regulatory initiatives, including risk-informed and performance-based regulation, license renewal, power uprates, and the use of mixed oxide and high burnup fuels. An increased emphasis is being given to safety issues associated with new reactor designs and technologies, including passive system reliability and thermal hydraulic phenomena, use of digital instrumentation and control, international codes and standards used in multinational design certifications, materials, and structural engineering, nuclear analysis and reactor core performance, and nuclear materials and radiation protection.

In addition, the ACRS may be requested to provide advice on radiation protection, radioactive waste management, and earth sciences in the agency's licensing reviews for fuel fabrication and enrichment facilities, and for waste disposal facilities. The ACRS also has some involvement in security matters related to the integration of safety and security of commercial reactors. See the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/advisory/acrs.html for additional information about the ACRS.

Criteria used to evaluate candidates include education and experience, demonstrated skills in nuclear reactor safety matters, the ability to solve complex technical problems, and the ability to work collegially on a board, panel, or committee. The Commission, in selecting its Committee members, also considers the need for specific expertise to accomplish the work expected to be before the ACRS. ACRS Committee members are appointed for four-year terms with no term limits. The Commission looks to fill two vacancies as a result of this request. Candidates for these positions must have extensive experience in (1) nuclear power plant operations or (2) risk analysis and the consideration of uncertainty in decision making. It would be useful if candidates with risk and uncertainty expertise also have experience in nuclear power plant systems design and operations, including emergency procedures. The candidates must also have at least 20 years of broad experience and a distinguished record of achievement in one or more areas of nuclear science and technology or related engineering disciplines. Candidates with pertinent graduate level experience will be given additional consideration.

Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Commission seeks candidates with diverse backgrounds, so that the membership on the Committee is fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and functions to be performed by the Committee. Candidates will undergo a thorough security background check to obtain the security clearance that is mandatory for all ACRS members. The security background check will involve the completion and submission of paperwork to the NRC. Candidates for ACRS appointments may be involved in or have financial interests related to NRC-regulated aspects of the nuclear industry.

However, because conflict-of-interest considerations may restrict the participation of a candidate in ACRS activities, the degree and nature of any such restriction on an individual's activities as a member will be considered in the selection process. Each qualified candidate's financial interests must be reconciled with applicable Federal and NRC rules and regulations prior to final appointment. This might require divestiture of securities or discontinuance of certain contracts or grants. Information regarding these restrictions will be provided upon request. As a part of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, which bans insider trading by members of Congress, their staff, and other high-level Federal employees, candidates for appointments will be required to disclose additional financial transactions.

A resume describing the educational and professional background of the candidate, including any special accomplishments, publications, and professional references should be provided. Candidates should provide their current address, telephone number, and email address. All candidates will receive careful consideration. Appointment will be made without regard to factors such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disabilities. Candidates must be citizens of the United States and be able to devote approximately 100 days per year to Committee business, but may not be compensated for more than 130 calendar days. Resumes will be accepted until April 6, 2020.

On December 26, 2019, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13901 (84 FR 72213), which implemented a pay adjustment required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-93, December 20, 2019). E.O. 13901 provides an overall average pay increase of 3.1 percent for the statutory pay systems. The pay rates in E.O. 13866 have been superseded.

The publication of this notice satisfies the requirement in Section 5(b) of E.O. 13901 that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publish appropriate notice of the 2020 locality payments in the Federal Register .

Schedule 1 of E.O. 13901 provides the rates for the 2020 General Schedule (GS) and reflects a 2.6 percent increase from 2019. Executive Order 13901 also includes the percentage amounts of the 2020 locality payments. (See Section 5 and Schedule 9 of Executive Order 13901.)

General Schedule employees receive locality payments under 5 U.S.C. 5304. Locality payments apply in the United States (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 5921(4)) and its territories and possessions. In 2020, locality payments ranging from 15.95 percent to 41.44 percent apply to GS employees in the 53 locality pay areas. The 2020 locality pay area definitions can be found at: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2020/locality-pay-area-definitions/.

The 2020 locality pay percentages became effective the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2020 (January 5, 2020). An employee's locality rate of pay is computed by increasing his or her scheduled annual rate of pay (as defined in 5 CFR 531.602) by the applicable locality pay percentage. (See 5 CFR 531.604 and 531.609.)

Executive Order 13901 establishes the new Executive Schedule (EX), which incorporates a 2.6 percent increase required under 5 U.S.C. 5318 (rounded to the nearest $100). By law, Executive Schedule officials are not authorized to receive locality payments.

Executive Order 13901 establishes the 2020 range of rates of basic pay for members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) under 5 U.S.C. 5382. The minimum rate of basic pay for the SES is $131,239 in 2020. The maximum rate of the SES rate range is $197,300 (level II of the Executive Schedule) for SES members who are covered by a certified SES performance appraisal system and $181,500 (level III of the Executive Schedule) for SES members who are not covered by a certified SES performance appraisal system.

The minimum rate of basic pay for the senior-level (SL) and scientific and professional (ST) rate range was increased by 2.6 percent ($131,239 in 2020), which is the amount of the across-the-board GS increase. The applicable maximum rate of the SL/ST rate range is $197,300 (level II of the Executive Schedule) for SL or ST employees who are covered by a certified SL/ST performance appraisal system and $181,500 (level III of the Executive Schedule) for SL or ST employees who are not covered by a certified SL/ST performance appraisal system. Agencies with certified performance appraisal systems for SES members and employees in SL and ST positions must also apply a higher aggregate limitation on pay—up to the Vice President's salary ($253,300 in 2020.)

Note that Section 749 of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, continues a pay freeze for certain senior political officials. The section 749 pay freeze extends through the last day of the last pay period that begins in calendar year 2020 ( i.e., January 2, 2021, for those on the standard biweekly payroll cycle). Future Congressional action will determine whether the pay freeze continues beyond that date. OPM guidance on the 2020 pay freeze for certain senior political officials can be found in CPM 2019-28 at https://www.chcoc.gov/content/continued-pay-freeze-certain-senior-political-officials-3.

Executive Order 13901 provides that the rates of basic pay for administrative law judges (ALJs) under 5 U.S.C. 5372 are increased by 2.6 percent (rounded to the nearest $100) in 2020. The rate of basic pay for AL-1 is $170,800 (equivalent to the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule). The rate of basic pay for AL-2 is $166,500. The rates of basic pay for AL-3/A through 3/F range from $114,000 to $157,800.

The rates of basic pay for members of Contract Appeals Boards are calculated as a percentage of the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule. (See 5 U.S.C. 5372a.) Therefore, these rates of basic pay are increased by 2.6 percent in 2020.

On November 19, 2019, OPM issued a memorandum on behalf of the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and OPM) that continues GS locality payments for ALJs and certain other non-GS employee categories in 2020. By law, EX officials, SES members, employees in SL/ST positions, and employees in certain other equivalent pay systems are not authorized to receive locality payments. ( Note: An exception applies to certain grandfathered SES, SL, and ST employees stationed in a nonforeign area on January 2, 2010. See CPM 2009-27 at https://www.chcoc.gov/content/nonforeign-area-retirement-equity-assurance-act. ) The memo is available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2019/continuation-of-locality-payments-for-non-general-schedule-employees-november-19-2019.pdf.

On December 26, 2019, OPM issued a memorandum (CPM 2019-25) on the 2020 pay adjustments. (See https://www.chcoc.gov/content/january-2020-pay-adjustments. ) The memorandum transmitted Executive Order 13901 and provided the 2020 salary tables, locality pay areas and percentages, and information on general pay administration matters and other related guidance. The “2020 Salary Tables” posted on OPM's website at http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/ are the official rates of pay for affected employees and are hereby incorporated as part of this notice.

In February of 2013, OSTP issued the memorandum Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research. The memorandum directed Federal agencies with more than $100M in research and development (R&D) expenditures to develop plans to make the results of federally funded unclassified research that are published in peer-reviewed publications, and digitally formatted scientific data, publicly available. Federal agency plans required that published work be made available following a twelve-month post-publication embargo period.

OSTP and the NSTC SOS continue to explore opportunities to make the knowledge, information and data generated by federally funded research more readily accessible to students, clinicians, businesses, entrepreneurs, researchers, technologists, and the general public who support these investments as a means to accelerate knowledge and innovation. Over the course of the last two years, OSTP has had nearly 100 meetings with stakeholders on open science, current policy on public access to the results of federally funded research, the evolution of scholarly communications, and access to data and code associated with published results. This RFI aims to expand on these consultations and provide all interested individuals and organizations with the opportunity to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring broad public access to the peer-reviewed scholarly publications, data and code that result from federally funded scientific research. OSTP is interested in perspectives on the following topics:

• What current limitations exist to the effective communication of research outputs (publications, data, and code) and how might communications evolve to accelerate public access while advancing the quality of scientific research? What are the barriers to and opportunities for change?

• What more can Federal agencies do to make tax-payer funded research results, including peer-reviewed author manuscripts, data, and code funded by the Federal Government, freely and publicly accessible in a way that minimizes delay, maximizes access, and enhances usability? How can the Federal Government engage with other sectors to achieve these goals?

• How would American science leadership and American competitiveness benefit from immediate access to these resources? What are potential challenges and effective approaches for overcoming them? Analyses that weigh the trade-offs of different approaches and models, especially those that provide data, will be particularly helpful.

• Any additional information that might be considered for Federal policies related to public access to peer-reviewed author manuscripts, data, and code resulting from federally supported research.

Background

The Subcommittee on Open Science (SOS) of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Science ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc/ ) convenes more than twenty Federal departments and agencies (hereafter “agencies”) that support research and development (R&D). It aims to advance open science and foster implementation of agency Public Access Plans that were developed in response to the 2013 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memorandum entitled “Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research” that called for improved access to data and publications resulting from Federally funded R&D. [For more information on agency Public Access Plans, see https://www.cendi.gov/projects/Public_Access_Plans_US_Fed_Agencies.html. For more explanation regarding Federally funded research data, see 2 CFR 200.315(e)(3).] One goal of the Subcommittee's efforts is to improve the consistency of guidelines and best practices that agencies provide about the long-term preservation of data from Federally funded research, including suitable repositories for preserving and providing access to such data, considering agency missions, best practices, and relevant standards. According to OMB Circular A-81, section 200.315, “Research data means the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings, but not any of the following: preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues.” [See: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/12/26/2013-30465/uniform-administrative-requirements-cost-principles-and-audit-requirements-for-federal-awards#sec-200-315. ] These efforts are consistent with and supportive of other Administration priorities, such as the Federal Data Strategy and its associated set of Practices to leverage data as a strategic asset [For more information on Federal Data Strategy Practices, see https://strategy.data.gov/practices/ ].

In support of its work, the SOS has developed a proposed set of desirable characteristics of data repositories for data resulting from Federally funded research. The proposed characteristics could apply to repositories operated by government or non-governmental entities. They draw from agency experience in developing and supporting data repositories and build on existing information for selecting repositories that agencies developed as part of their public access policies. Through public comment, the SOS aims to refine and develop a common set of characteristics that Federal R&D-funding agencies can use to support their Public Access and data sharing efforts.

These characteristics are not intended to be an exhaustive set of design features for data repositories. Federal agencies would not plan to use these characteristics to assess, evaluate, or certify the acceptability of a specific data repository, unless otherwise specified for a particular agency program, initiative, or funding opportunity. Rather, the set of characteristics is intended to be used as a tool for agencies and Federally funded investigators when, for example, they are:

• Assisting Federally funded investigators in identifying data repositories to use for storing and providing access to research data ( e.g., when funding agencies do not host the data and/or have not designated specific repositories for use);

• Identifying specific repositories that a Federal agency might designate for use for particular types of research data resulting from Federally funded research;

• Developing Federal agency repositories to store data resulting from Federally funded research;

• Informing external data repository developers and managers of the characteristics desired by Federal agencies for storing and preserving data resulting from Federally funded research;

• Evaluating data management plans that propose to deposit research data in a repository that is not operated by a Federal agency.

Consistent with their Public Access Plans, SOS member agencies have proposed characteristics to help support discoverability, management, and sharing of research data, in a user-friendly manner, consistent with principles becoming widely adopted in the research community to make data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). [For information on the FAIR principles, see https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles. ] The proposed characteristics are intended to be consistent with criteria that are increasingly used by non-Federal entities to certify data repositories, such as ISO16363 Standard for Trusted Digital Repositories and CoreTrustSeal Data Repositories Requirements, so that repositories with such certifications would generally exhibit these characteristics. SOS member agencies also anticipate that many repositories without such certifications would exhibit them as well. While the desirable characteristics are intended to be enduring, Federal agencies might update them periodically to reflect changing expectations, rapid evolution of research and technology, and practices related to data management and sharing.

This RFC, released on behalf of Federal agencies that are members of the SOS, aims to solicit public input on proposed characteristics for selecting or developing a repository for managing and sharing data that embody effective management and stewardship over data resulting from Federally funded research. Feedback obtained through this RFC will help to inform the development of coordinated Federal agency technical and policy guidance on repositories for research data.

Federal agencies are specifically requesting public comment on the Draft Desirable Characteristics of Repositories to Consider for Managing and Sharing Data Resulting from Federally Funded or Supported Research, found below. The proposed characteristics include “Desirable Characteristics for All Data Repositories” (Section I), as well as “Additional Considerations for Repositories Storing Human Data (even if de-identified)” (Section II), found below. Note that Federal agencies are subject to additional requirements that must be met for repositories they manage or support, such as considerations of security, privacy, and accessibility.

Response to this Notice is voluntary, and respondents are free to address any or all of the topics listed below and should not feel compelled to address all items:

A. Persistent Unique Identifiers: Assigns datasets a citable, persistent unique identifier (PUID), such as a digital object identifier (DOI) or accession number, to support data discovery, reporting ( e.g., of research progress), and research assessment ( e.g., identifying the outputs of Federally funded research). The PUID points to a persistent landing page that remains accessible even if the dataset is de-accessioned or no longer available.

B. Long-term sustainability: Has a long-term plan for managing data, including guaranteeing long-term integrity, authenticity, and availability of datasets; building on a stable technical infrastructure and funding plans; has contingency plans to ensure data are available and maintained during and after unforeseen events.

C. Metadata: Ensures datasets are accompanied by metadata sufficient to enable discovery, reuse, and citation of datasets, using a schema that is standard to the community the repository serves.

D. Curation & Quality Assurance: Provides, or has a mechanism for others to provide, expert curation and quality assurance to improve the accuracy and integrity of datasets and metadata.

E. Access: Provides broad, equitable, and maximally open access to datasets, as appropriate, consistent with legal and ethical limits required to maintain privacy and confidentiality.

F. Free & Easy to Access and Reuse: Makes datasets and their metadata accessible free of charge in a timely manner after submission and with broadest possible terms of reuse or documented as being in the public domain.

G. Reuse: Enables tracking of data reuse ( e.g., through assignment of adequate metadata and PUID).

H. Secure: Provides documentation of meeting accepted criteria for security to prevent unauthorized access or release of data, such as the criteria described in the International Standards Organization's ISO 27001 ( https://www.iso.org/isoiec-27001-information-security.html ) or the National Institute of Standards and Technology's 800-53 controls ( https://nvd.nist.gov/800-53 ).

I. Privacy: Provides documentation that administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are employed in compliance with applicable privacy, risk management, and continuous monitoring requirements.

J. Common Format: Allows datasets and metadata to be downloaded, accessed, or exported from the repository in a standards-compliant, and preferably non-proprietary, format.

K. Provenance: Maintains a detailed logfile of changes to datasets and metadata, including date and user, beginning with creation/upload of the dataset, to ensure data integrity.

A. Fidelity to Consent: Restricts dataset access to appropriate uses consistent with original consent (such as for use only within the context of research on a specific disease or condition).

B. Restricted Use Compliant: Enforces submitters' data use restrictions, such as preventing reidentification or redistribution to unauthorized users.

C. Privacy: Implements and provides documentation of security techniques appropriate for human subjects' data to protect from inappropriate access.

D. Plan for Breach: Has security measures that include a data breach response plan.

E. Download Control: Controls and audits access to and download of datasets.

F. Clear Use Guidance: Provides accompanying documentation describing restrictions on dataset access and use.

G. Retention Guidelines: Provides documentation on its guidelines for data retention.

H. Violations: Has plans for addressing violations of terms-of-use by users and data mismanagement by the repository.

I. Request Review: Has an established data access review or oversight group responsible for reviewing data use requests.

The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq. ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.

The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq. ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Correction

In the Federal Register of February 20, 2020, in FR Doc. 2020-03423, on page 9920, first column, correct DATES to read:

The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq. ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.

On June 28, 2005, the President, invoking the authority, inter alia, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (“IEEPA”), issued Executive Order 13382 (70 CFR 38567, July 1, 2005) (the “Order”), effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 30, 2005. In the Order the President took additional steps with respect to the national emergency described and declared in Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The persons listed in the Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to have engaged, or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery, including any efforts to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use such items, by any person or foreign country of proliferation concern; (3) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to have provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, any activity or transaction described in clause (2) above or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order; and (4) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order.

As a result of this action, all property and interests in property of AEOI and Ali Akbar Salehi that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. Information on the designees:

Entity: Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

AKA: AEOI.

Address: North Kargar Street, P.O. Box 14155-1339, Tehran, Iran.

Website: http://www.aeoi.orgjr .

Individual: Ali Akbar Salehi.

Date of Birth: March 25, 1949.

Place of Birth: Karbala.

Gender: Male.

Nationality: IRAN.

Country: IRAN.

The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq. ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2011-0378; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0071; FMCSA-2015-0072; FMCSA-2015-0344; FMCSA-2015-0345; FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2015-0348; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2015-0351; FMCSA-2017-0022; FMCSA-2017-0024; FMCSA-2017-0026; FMCSA-2017-0028; FMCSA-2018-0006), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2011-0378; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0071; FMCSA-2015-0072; FMCSA-2015-0344; FMCSA-2015-0345; FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2015-0348; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2015-0351; FMCSA-2017-0022; FMCSA-2017-0024; FMCSA-2017-0026; FMCSA-2017-0028; FMCSA-2018-0006, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2011-0378; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0071; FMCSA-2015-0072; FMCSA-2015-0344; FMCSA-2015-0345; FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2015-0348; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2015-0351; FMCSA-2017-0022; FMCSA-2017-0024; FMCSA-2017-0026; FMCSA-2017-0028; FMCSA-2018-0006, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.

The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.

The 95 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in § 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 95 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision standard (see 64 FR 54948; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 159; 65 FR 20251; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR 17102; 68 FR 61857; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 75715; 69 FR 8260; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 17267; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 61493; 70 FR 71884; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 644; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 4632; 71 FR 5105; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 6826; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 13450; 71 FR 16410; 71 FR 19600; 71 FR 19602; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52422; 72 FR 54971; 72 FR 71995; 73 FR 5259; 73 FR 6242; 73 FR 8392; 73 FR 9158; 73 FR 11989; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 16950; 74 FR 49069; 74 FR 65842; 74 FR 65847; 75 FR 1451; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 8184; 75 FR 9477; 75 FR 9480; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 9484; 75 FR 13653; 75 FR 20881; 75 FR 22176; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 53710; 76 FR 61143; 76 FR 62143; 76 FR 64164; 76 FR 70212; 76 FR 70213; 76 FR 75942; 76 FR 75943; 76 FR 79760; 77 FR 541; 77 FR 545; 77 FR 3547; 77 FR 3552; 77 FR 5874; 77 FR 7233; 77 FR 7657; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13689; 77 FR 13691; 77 FR 17107; 77 FR 17108; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 17117; 77 FR 17119; 77 FR 19749; 77 FR 22059; 77 FR 22838; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR 63302; 78 FR 64271; 78 FR 64274; 78 FR 67452; 78 FR 74223; 78 FR 76395; 78 FR 76705; 78 FR 77778; 78 FR 77780; 78 FR 78475; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 2247; 79 FR 2748; 79 FR 6993; 79 FR 10602; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 10607; 79 FR 10608; 79 FR 10609; 79 FR 10610; 79 FR 10611; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 12565; 79 FR 13085; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14331; 79 FR 14332; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 15794; 79 FR 17641; 79 FR 17643; 79 FR 18390; 79 FR 18391; 79 FR 22003; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 59225; 80 FR 63869; 80 FR 67472; 80 FR 67476; 80 FR 67481; 80 FR 70060; 80 FR 76345; 80 FR 79414; 80 FR 80443; 81 FR 1474; 81 FR 6573; 81 FR 11642; 81 FR 14190; 81 FR 15401; 81 FR 15404; 81 FR 16265; 81 FR 17237; 81 FR 20433; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 28136; 81 FR 28138; 81 FR 39100; 81 FR 44680; 81 FR 48493; 81 FR 52516; 81 FR 60117; 82 FR 33542; 82 FR 37504; 82 FR 47309; 82 FR 47312; 82 FR 58262; 83 FR 2311; 83 FR 6681; 83 FR 6694; 83 FR 6919; 83 FR 6922; 83 FR 6925; 83 FR 15195; 83 FR 15232; 83 FR 18648; 83 FR 24151; 83 FR 24571). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at § 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past 2 years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of April and are discussed below. As of April 1, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 25 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (70 FR 48797; 70 FR 61493; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 13450; 72 FR 54971; 73 FR 6242; 73 FR 9158; 73 FR 16950; 74 FR 49069; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 9477; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 9484; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 53710; 76 FR 62143; 76 FR 70212; 76 FR 75943; 77 FR 3552; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13689; 77 FR 13691; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 64271; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 2748; 79 FR 6993; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 12565; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14331; 79 FR 14333; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 59225; 80 FR 63869; 80 FR 70060; 80 FR 76345; 80 FR 80443; 81 FR 1474; 81 FR 16265; 81 FR 20433; 81 FR 48493; 81 FR 60117; 82 FR 33542; 82 FR 37504; 82 FR 47309; 82 FR 47312; 82 FR 58262; 83 FR 2311; 83 FR 6681; 83 FR 6694; 83 FR 6919; 83 FR 6922; 83 FR 6925; 83 FR 15232; 83 FR 18648; 83 FR 24151; 83 FR 24571):

The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2015-0072; FMCSA-2015-0344; FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2017-0022; FMCSA-2017-0024; FMCSA-2017-0026; FMCSA-2017-0026; FMCSA-2017-0028; FMCSA-2017-0028; FMCSA-2017-0028; FMCSA-2017-0028; and FMCSA-2018-0006. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 1, 2020, and will expire on April 1, 2022.

As of April 12, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 35 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (68 FR 61857; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 75715; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 10503; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 71884; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 644; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 4632; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 13450; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52422; 72 FR 71995; 73 FR 5259; 73 FR 8392; 73 FR 9158; 74 FR 49069; 74 FR 65842; 74 FR 65847; 75 FR 1451; 75 FR 8184; 75 FR 9477; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 9484; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 61143; 76 FR 64164; 76 FR 70213; 76 FR 75942; 76 FR 79760; 77 FR 541; 77 FR 545; 77 FR 3547; 77 FR 3552; 77 FR 5874; 77 FR 7233; 77 FR 7657; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13689; 77 FR 13691; 77 FR 17117; 77 FR 17119; 77 FR 22059; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR 63302; 78 FR 64271; 78 FR 64274; 78 FR 67452; 78 FR 74223; 78 FR 76395; 78 FR 76705; 78 FR 77778; 78 FR 77780; 78 FR 78475; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 2247; 79 FR 2748; 79 FR 10602; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 12565; 79 FR 13085; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14331; 79 FR 14332; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 18390; 80 FR 67472; 80 FR 67476; 80 FR 67481; 80 FR 70060; 80 FR 76345; 80 FR 79414; 80 FR 80443; 81 FR 6573; 81 FR 11642; 81 FR 15401; 81 FR 15404; 81 FR 16265; 81 FR 20433; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 28136; 81 FR 44680; 81 FR 60117; 83 FR 15195):

The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0071; FMCSA-2015-0072; FMCSA-2015-0344; FMCSA-2015-0344; FMCSA-2015-0345; and FMCSA-2015-0348. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 12, 2020, and will expire on April 12, 2022.

As of April 14, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR 54948; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 159; 65 FR 20251; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR 17102; 69 FR 8260; 69 FR 17267; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 5105; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 6826; 71 FR 13450; 71 FR 16410; 71 FR 19600; 71 FR 19602; 73 FR 11989; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 13653; 77 FR 17107; 79 FR 18391; 81 FR 20435; 83 FR 15195):

The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; and FMCSA-2009-0321. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 14, 2020, and will expire on April 14, 2022.

As of April 16, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (81 FR 14190; 81 FR 39100; 83 FR 15195):

The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0350. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 16, 2020, and will expire on April 16, 2022.

As of April 17, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (77 FR 19749; 77 FR 22838; 79 FR 15794; 81 FR 20435; 83 FR 15195):

The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0378. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 17, 2020, and will expire on April 17, 2022.

As of April 18, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (79 FR 10606; 79 FR 22003; 81 FR 28138; 83 FR 15195):

The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0002. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 18, 2020, and will expire on April 18, 2022.

As of April 23, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (68 FR 74699; 69 FR 10503; 71 FR 6829; 73 FR 6242; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 16950; 75 FR 20881; 77 FR 17115; 79 FR 17641; 81 FR 20435; 83 FR 15195):

The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2003-16564; and FMCSA-2007-0071. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 23, 2020, and will expire on April 23, 2022.

As of April 27, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (75 FR 9480; 75 FR 22176; 77 FR 17108; 79 FR 17643; 81 FR 20435; 83 FR 15195):

The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0011. The exemption is applicable as of April 27, 2020, and will expire on April 27, 2022.

As of April 28, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (81 FR 17237; 81 FR 52516; 83 FR 15195):

The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0351. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 28, 2020, and will expire on April 28, 2022.

The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified medical examiner (ME), as defined by § 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under § 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.

Based upon its evaluation of the 95 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in § 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0112 and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy .

On January 15, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from eight individuals requesting an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR2483). The public comment period ended on February 14, 2020, and no comments were received.

FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(11).

The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.

This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.

The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008 Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.” The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System, for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. Each applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they do not pose a risk to public safety.

Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the hearing standard in § 391.41(b)(11) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in § 390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements.

During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.

Based upon its evaluation of the eight exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, § 391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2012-0332, FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2016-0003, or FMCSA-2017-0058, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

On January 15, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR 2484). The public comment period ended on February 14, 2020, and no comments were received.

FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(11).

The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.

This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Based upon its evaluation of the 11 renewal exemption applications, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the hearing requirement in § 391.41 (b)(11).

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of January and are discussed below:

As of January 6, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (85 FR 2484):

The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2015-0326, and FMCSA-2017-0058. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 6, 2020, and will expire on January 6, 2022.

As of January 8, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (85 FR 2484):

The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0332 and FMCSA-2016-0003. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 8, 2020, and will expire on January 8, 2022.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

Each section of this Notice contains information and instructions relevant to the application process for these Marine Highway Grants, and all applicants should read this Notice in its entirety so that they have the information they need to submit eligible and competitive applications. Applications received after the deadline will not be considered except in the case of unforeseen technical difficulties as outlined below in Section D.4.

The Secretary, in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 55601, established a short sea transportation grant program to implement projects or components of designated Marine Highway Projects. The grant funds currently available are for projects related to documented vessels and port and landside infrastructure.

The America's Marine Highway Program Office (Program Office) follows a three-step approach when supporting investment opportunities for Marine Highway services. The first step is designation of a Marine Highway Route by the Secretary. The Department accepts Marine Highway Route Designation requests at any time from Route Sponsors. Once a Route is designated, the second step is designation as a Marine Highway Project by the Secretary. Marine Highway Projects represent concepts for new services or expansions of existing marine highway services on designated Marine Highway Routes that use documented vessels and mitigate land congestion or promote short sea transportation. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) will announce by notice in the Federal Register open season periods to allow Project Applicants opportunities to submit Marine Highway Project Designation applications. A Project Applicant must receive a Project Designation for that project to then become eligible for Marine Highway Grant funding, the third step referenced above. Marine Highway Grant funding (the subject of this NOFO) is provided to successful public and private sector applicants as funds are appropriated by Congress.

The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94) appropriated $9,775,000 for Marine Highway Grants.

The total funding available for awards under this NOFO is $9,481,750, after $293,250 is set aside for MARAD grant administration and oversight.

MARAD will seek to obtain the maximum benefit from the available funding by awarding grants to as many qualified projects as possible; however, in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 55601(g)(3), MARAD shall give preference to those projects or components that present the most financially viable transportation services and require the lowest percentage of Federal share of the costs. Depending on the characteristics of the pool of qualified applications, it is possible MARAD may award all funds to a single project. MARAD may also award grants supporting a portion of a project described in an application by selecting discrete components. The start date and period of performance for each award will be determined by mutual agreement of MARAD and each grant recipient. MARAD will administer each Marine Highway Grant pursuant to a grant agreement with the Marine Highway Grant recipient, and funds will be administered on a reimbursable basis.

Prior recipients of Marine Highway Grants may apply for funding to support additional phases of a designated project. However, to be competitive, the grant applicant should demonstrate the extent to which the previously funded project phase has met estimated project schedules and budget, as well as the ability to realize the benefits expected for the new award.

To be selected for a Marine Highway Grant, an applicant must be an Eligible Applicant, and the project must be an Eligible Project.

Eligible applicants for funding available under this Notice are an original Project Applicant of a project that the Secretary has previously designated as a Marine Highway Project or a substitute (which can be either a public entity or a private-sector entity who has been referred to the Program Office by the original Project Applicant, with a written explanation, as part of the application). Original Project Applicants are defined as those public entities named by the Secretary in the original designated project. Grant applicants must have operational, or administrative areas of responsibility, that are adjacent to or near the relevant designated Marine Highway Project. Eligible grant applicants include State governments (including State departments of transportation), metropolitan planning organizations, port authorities, and tribal governments, or private sector operators of marine highway services within designated Marine Highway Projects.

Grant applicants are encouraged to develop coalitions and public/private partnerships, which might include vessel owners and operators; third-party logistics providers; trucking companies; shippers; railroads; port authorities; state, regional, and local transportation planners; environmental organizations; impacted communities; or any combination of entities working in collaboration on a single grant application that can be submitted by the original Project Applicant or their designated substitute. All successful grant applicants, whether they are public or private entities, must comply with all Federal requirements.

If multiple applicants submit a joint grant application, they must identify a lead grant applicant as the primary point of contact. Joint grant applications must include a description of the roles and responsibilities of each applicant, including designating the one entity that will receive the Federal funds directly from MARAD, and must be signed by each applicant.

An applicant must provide at least 20 percent of project costs from non-Federal sources. The application should demonstrate, such as through a letter or other documentation, the sources of these funds. Preference will be given to those projects that provide a larger percentage of costs from non-Federal sources. Matching funds are subject to the same Federal requirements described in Section F.2 as Federally-awarded funds, including applicable Buy American requirements.

The purpose of this grant program is to create new marine highway services or to expand existing marine highway services. Only projects or their components that the Secretary has previously designated as Marine Highway Projects, are eligible for this round of grant funding. Projects proposed for funding must support the development and expansion of documented vessels or port and landside infrastructure. Grant funds may be requested for eligible project planning activities; however, market-related studies are ineligible to receive Marine Highway Grants.

The current list of designated Marine Highway Projects can be found on the Marine Highway website at: https://www.maritime.dot.gov/grants/marine-highways/marine-highway-project-description-pages.

Applications may be found at and must be submitted through Grants.gov . Applications must include the Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance), which is available on the Grants.gov website at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html.

In addition to the SF-424, the application should include the Project Narrative. MARAD recommends that the Project Narrative follows the basic outline below to address the program requirements and assist evaluators in locating relevant information.

The Project Narrative should include the information necessary for MARAD to determine that the project satisfies the requirements described in Sections B and C, and to assess the selection criteria specified in Section E.1. This includes a detailed project description, location, and budget. To the extent practicable, applicants should provide supporting data and documentation in a form that is directly verifiable by MARAD. Applicants are strongly encouraged to provide quantitative information, including baseline information, that demonstrates the project's merits and economic viability. MARAD may ask any applicant to supplement data in its application, but expects applications to be complete upon submission. Incomplete applications may not be considered for an award.

Consistent with the Department's R.O.U.T.E.S. Initiative ( https://www.transportation.gov/rural ), the Department encourages applicants to describe how activities proposed in their application would address the unique challenges facing rural transportation networks, regardless of the geographic location of those activities.

The Project Narrative should also include a table of contents, maps and graphics, as appropriate, to make the information easier to review. MARAD recommends that the Project Narrative be prepared with standard formatting preferences (a single-spaced document, using a standard 12-point font such as Times New Roman, with 1-inch margins, and the narrative text in one column only). The Project Narrative may not exceed 10 pages in length, excluding the table of contents and appendices. The only substantive portions that may exceed the 10-page limit are documents supporting assertions or conclusions made in the 10-page Project Narrative. If possible, website links to supporting documentation should be provided rather than copies of these supporting materials, though it is important to ensure that the website links are currently active and working. If supporting documents are submitted, applicants should clearly identify within the Project Narrative the relevant portion of the Project Narrative that each supporting document supports. At the applicant's discretion, relevant materials provided previously in support of a Marine Highway Project application may be referenced, updated, or described as unchanged. To the extent documents provided previously are referenced, they need not be resubmitted in support of a Marine Highway Grant application.

To ensure the Project Narrative is sufficiently detailed and informative, MARAD recommends applications include the following sections:

The first page of the Project Narrative should provide the following items of information:

(A) Marine Highway Project name and the original Project Applicant (as stated on the Marine Highway Program's list of Designated Projects);

(B) Primary point of contact. An application must include the name, phone number, email address, and business address of the primary point of contact for the grant applicant;

(C) Total amount of the proposed grant project cost in dollars and the amount of grant funds the applicant is seeking, along with sources and share of matching funds;

(D) Executive Summary, which should include an outline of the background of the project, the need for the project, and how the grant funding will be applied in the context of the service referenced in the original Project Designation application;

(E) Project parties. The public and private partners engaged in the Marine Highway Project;

(F) The Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number associated with the application. Marine Highway Grants and their first-tier sub-awardees must obtain DUNS numbers, which are available at https://fedgov.dnb.com/webform; and

(G) Evidence of registration with the System for Award Management (SAM) at https://www.SAM.gov.

The next section of the application should provide a concise description of the project. The project description must be in paragraph form providing a high-level view of the overall project and its major components. This section should discuss the project's history, including a description of any previously completed components. The applicant may use this section to place the project into a broader context of other transportation infrastructure investments being pursued by the grant applicant, and, if applicable, how it will benefit communities in rural areas. This section should also include a timeline for implementing the project.

This section of the application should describe the project location, including a detailed geographical description of the proposed project, a map of the project's location and connections to existing transportation infrastructure, and geospatial data describing the project location.

The application should also state whether the project is located in an urban area (UA) or rural area (RA) as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau at http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ .

The Department will consider a project to be in a RA if the majority of the project (determined by geographic location(s) where the majority of the money is to be spent) is located in a RA. Grant funds utilized in an UA border, including an intersection with an UA, will be considered urban for the purposes of the FY 2020 Marine Highway Grants.

Applicants should state whether the project is located in a Qualified Opportunity Zone designated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 1400Z-1.

This section of the application should describe the project's budget. The budget should not include any previously incurred expenses. At a minimum, it should include:

(A) Project costs;

(B) The source and amount of those funds to be used for project costs;

(C) For Non-Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs, documentation of funding commitments should be referenced here and included as an appendix to the application;

(D) For Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs, the amount, nature, and source of any required non-Federal match for those funds;

(E) A budget showing how each source of funds will be spent. The budget should show how each funding source will share in each project component, and present that data in dollars and percentages. Funding sources should be grouped into three categories: Non-Federal; Marine Highway Grant funding; and other Federal. A letter of commitment from each funding source should be an attachment to the application. If the project contains individual components, the budget should separate the costs of each project component. The budget should sufficiently demonstrate that the project satisfies the statutory cost-sharing requirements described in Section C.2.

This section of the application should demonstrate how the project proposed for grant funding aligns with the criteria described below and in Section E.1. MARAD encourages applicants to address each criterion, or expressly state that the project does not address the criterion. Applicants are not required to follow a specific format, but MARAD recommends applicants address each criterion separately using the outline suggested below, which provides a clear discussion that assists project evaluators. Guidance describing how MARAD will evaluate projects against the Selection Criteria is in Section E.1 of this Notice. Applicants also should review that section before considering how to organize and complete their application. To minimize redundant information in the application, MARAD encourages applicants to cross-reference from this section of their application to relevant substantive information in other sections of the application.

(1) This section of the application should demonstrate the extent to which the project is financially viable. Pet 46 U.S.C. 55601(g)(3), preference will be given to projects or components that present the most financially viable transportation services.

(2) This section of the application should demonstrate that the funds received will be spent efficiently and effectively.

(3) This section of the application should demonstrate that a market exists for the services of the proposed project as evidenced by contracts or written statements of intent from potential customers.

(4) This section of the application should describe the public benefits anticipated by the proposed grant project, as outlined in 46 CFR 393.3(c)(8), and described below. The public benefits described in the relevant Marine Highway Project Designation application may be referenced, updated, or described as unchanged. Applicants will need to clearly demonstrate that the original public benefits outlined in the original project designation application apply to the specific grant funding request associated with this Notice, and provide any updates or supplement the original public benefits, as necessary. To the extent referenced, this information need not be resubmitted in support of a Marine Highway Grant application. Applicants should organize their external net cost savings and public benefits of the proposed grant project based on the following six categories:

(i) Emissions benefits;

(ii) Energy savings;

(iii) Landside transportation infrastructure maintenance savings;

(iv) Economic competitiveness;

(v) Safety improvements;

(vi) System resiliency and redundancy.

Projects selected for grant award must comply with NEPA and any other applicable environmental laws. The application should provide information about the NEPA status of the project. If the environmental review process is underway but not complete at the time of the application, the application must detail where the project is in the process, indicate the anticipated date of completion, and provide a website link or other reference to copies of any environmental documents prepared.

An application must indicate whether the proposed project is likely to require actions by other agencies ( e.g., permits), indicate the status of such actions, provide a website link or other reference to materials submitted to the other agencies, and demonstrate compliance with other Federal, state, or local regulations and permits as applicable.

For an application to be considered for a grant award, the Chief Executive Officer, or equivalent, of the applicant is required to certify, in writing, the following:

1. That, except as noted in this grant application, nothing has changed from the original application for formal designation as a Marine Highway Project; and

2. The grant applicant will administer the project and any funds received will be spent efficiently and effectively; and

3. The grant applicant will provide information, data, and reports as required.

Grant applicants should submit, as part of or in support of an application, publicly available data or data that can be made public and methodologies that are accepted by industry practice and standards to the extent possible. If the application includes information that the applicant considers to be a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, the applicant should do the following: Note on the front cover that the submission contains “Confidential Commercial Information (CCI)”; mark each affected page “CCI”; and highlight or otherwise denote the CCI portions. MARAD will protect such information from disclosure to the extent allowed under applicable law. In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

1. Written referral from the original successful Project Applicant stating that the private entity has been referred by the original Project Applicant for the relevant designated Marine Highway Project.

2. A description of the entity including location of the headquarters; a description of the entity's assets (tugs, barges, etc.); years in operation; ownership; customer base; and website address, if any.

3. Unique entity identifier of the parent company (when applicable): Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS + 4 number) (when applicable).

4. The most recent year-end audited, reviewed or compiled financial statements, prepared by a certified public accountant (CPA), per U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (not tax-based accounting financial statements). If CPA prepared financial statements are not available, provide the most recent financial statement for the entity. Do not provide tax returns.

5. Statement regarding the relationship between applicants and any parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, if any such entity is going to provide a portion of the match.

6. Evidence documenting applicant's ability to make proposed matching requirement (loan agreement, commitment from investors, cash on balance sheet, etc.).