On August 3, 2009, Commerce published the AD Order on TBLGs from China. 1 On January 2, 2020, the ITC instituted its review of the Order. 2 Also on January 2, 2020, Commerce published the initiation of the second sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 3 Commerce received timely intent to participate in this review from Agri-Fab, Inc. (Agri-Fab), a domestic interested party, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 4 On January 31, 2020, Commerce received a complete and adequate substantive response from Agri-Fab within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 5 Commerce received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order. 6 On May 10, 2019, the ITC published its notice to conduct an expedited five-year review of the Order. 7

As a result of its review, Commerce determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(1) of the Act, that revocation of the Order on TBLGs from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. Commerce therefore notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margin of dumping rates likely to prevail should this Order be revoked. 8

On July 15, 2020, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 9

The merchandise covered by the order is certain non-motorized tow-behind lawn groomers, manufactured from any material, and certain parts thereof, from China. 10 The lawn groomers that are the subject of this order are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical reporting numbers 8432.41.0000, 8432.42.0000, 8432.80.0000, 8432.80.0010, 8432.90.0060, 8432.90.0081, 8479.89.9496, 8479.90.9496, and 9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions are given for reference and customs purposes only, and the description of merchandise is dispositive for determining the scope of the product included in this order.

As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of this Order on TBLGs from China. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

The effective date of the continuation of this Order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year review of this Order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

On June 15, 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on certain walk-behind lawn mowers and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China. 1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than August 19, 2020.

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

On July 22, 2020, MTD Products, Inc. (the petitioner) submitted a timely request that we fully postpone the preliminary CVD determination because: (1) Commerce has not yet issued supplemental questionnaires to respondents, and (2) additional time will be necessary to ensure that Commerce is able to sufficiently review all questionnaire responses and new factual information, and to conduct a thorough investigation. 2

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination, and Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we are extending the due date for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated, i.e., October 23, 2020. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination.

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

Pursuant to section 304(e)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2), NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, must notify Councils, and publish in the Federal Register , whenever it determines that a stock or stock complex is subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition.

NMFS has determined that Southern Atlantic red porgy is subject to overfishing and remains overfished. This determination is based on the most recent assessment, completed in 2020, using data through 2017, which indicates that this stock is subject to overfishing because the fishing mortality is greater than the threshold and is overfished because the spawning stock biomass remains below the threshold. NMFS has notified the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council of the requirement to end overfishing immediately and rebuild this stock.

NMFS has determined that the WCNPO stock of striped marlin remains both subject to overfishing and overfished. This determination is based on a 2019 assessment by the Billfish Working Group of the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean, using data through 2017. Based on domestic status determination criteria, this stock is subject to overfishing because the fishing mortality rate is greater than the threshold and is overfished because the spawning biomass ratio remains below the threshold. NMFS has determined that section 304(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act applies because the overfishing of the WCNPO stock of striped marlin is due largely to excessive international fishing pressure, and because it has not been determined that management measures adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) will end overfishing and rebuild the stock. NMFS has informed the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Western Pacific Council) of its obligations for domestic and international management under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(i) to address domestic and international impacts.

NMFS has determined that the WCPO stock of oceanic whitetip shark is now both subject to overfishing and overfished. This determination is based on a 2019 assessment by the Shark Working Group of the WCPFC, using data through 2016. Based on domestic status determination criteria, this stock is subject to overfishing because the fishing mortality is greater than the threshold and is overfished because the spawning biomass is below the threshold. NMFS has determined that section 304(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act applies because the overfishing of the WCPO stock of oceanic whitetip shark is due largely to excessive international fishing pressure, and because it has not been determined that management measures adopted by the WCPFC will end overfishing and rebuild the stock. NMFS has informed the Western Pacific Council of its obligations for domestic and international management under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(i) to address domestic and international impacts.

Agenda

The panel will meet to discuss the Conservation Law Foundation petition for rulemaking on Atlantic cod. They will receive an update on the development of Framework Adjustment 61 specifications and other measures and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee, as appropriate. Other business will be discussed, as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The panel will meet to discuss the Conservation Law Foundation petition for rulemaking on Atlantic cod. They will receive an update on the development of Framework Adjustment 61 specifications and other measures and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee, as appropriate. Other business will be discussed, as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, including the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. The term “strategic stock” means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level or PBR (defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (OSP)); (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined.

Prior to public review, the updated SARs under NMFS' jurisdiction are peer-reviewed within NMFS Fisheries Science Centers and by members of three regional independent Scientific Review Groups (SRG), established under the MMPA to independently advise NMFS on information and uncertainties related to the status of marine mammals.

The period covered by the 2019 SARs is 2013-2017. NMFS reviewed all strategic stock SARs and updated 65 SARs representing 76 stocks in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information. The 2019 revisions consist primarily of updated or revised M/SI estimates, updated abundance estimates, including the application of an established capture-mark-recapture method to estimate the abundance of Gulf of Maine humpback whales, and the introduction of a new method for estimating cryptic mortality for Gulf of Maine humpback whales and North Atlantic right whales. One stock (Alaska ringed seal) changed in status from non-strategic to strategic, and four stocks (Western North Atlantic false killer whale and St. Andrew Bay, St. Joseph Bay, and West Bay common bottlenose dolphin stocks) changed in status from strategic to non-strategic. The revised draft reports were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (84 FR 65353, November 27, 2019). NMFS received comments on the draft 2019 SARs through February 27, 2020 and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice announces the availability of 65 final 2019 reports, which are available on NMFS' website (see ADDRESSES ).

NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2019 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission); Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); three non-governmental organizations (Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Maine Lobstermen's Association, Inc. (MLA), and Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC)); and three individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below; comments on actions not related to the SARs are not included. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports, but they are not included in the summary of comments and responses. In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 2019 SARs.

Comment 1: The Commission reiterates their previous comment that section 117 of the MMPA requires inclusion of a minimum population estimate (Nmin), a key factor for effective management of marine mammal stocks using potential biological removal (PBR). Without an Nmin derived from recent data, PBR cannot be calculated and is considered “unknown,” which is useless for management purposes. Including the revised 2019 draft SARs, an Nmin estimate is lacking for 86 of the 252 identified stocks (or 34 percent). The Commission understands that a lack of resources (mainly access to vessel and aerial platforms from which surveys are conducted) is the primary hindrance to full assessment of all stocks. Nevertheless, the lack of data for over one third of the stocks recognized by NMFS is a serious shortcoming in meeting statutory obligations. The Commission appreciates the efforts NMFS has made to address this shortcoming by setting priorities across regions, coordinating requests for vessel time, and maximizing the data collected during these surveys ( e.g., Ballance et al. 2017). The Commission reiterates its recommendation that NMFS continue its efforts to prioritize and coordinate requests to secure the necessary survey resources across regions. In addition to these internal efforts, the Commission acknowledges and encourages NMFS' continued engagement and collaboration with other Federal agencies that also require basic information on marine mammal stocks, through programs like the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species and similar programs in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific. Further, the Commission also reiterates its recommendation that these marine assessment programs continue to include appropriate personnel, logistical capability, and vessel time to allow for photo-identification, biopsy sampling, satellite tagging and other efforts to augment and increase the value of the core line-transect survey data collected. These additional efforts will assist in delineating stock structure, confirming at-sea identification of cryptic species, and furthering understanding of marine mammal distribution, habitat use, and behavior, all of which are important for reaching the overall management goals of NMFS under the MMPA.

Response: We acknowledge the Commission's comment and will continue to address outdated Nmin estimates, as resources allow.

Humpback Whale Stocks

Comment 2: CBD and WDC comment that revisions to humpback whale stocks that would make them consistent with the 2016 rule listing distinct population segments (DPSs) are long overdue. They note the NMFS Procedure for “Reviewing and Designating Stocks and Issuing Stock Assessment Reports under the Marine Mammal Protection Act” says that a stock “might be considered a high priority for possible revision if, for example: a. DPSs for the for the species to which the stock belongs have recently been recognized under the ESA, . . .” CBD-WDC state that the California/Oregon/Washington humpback whale stock should be revised in the 2019 SARs and not wait another year. The second example in the NMFS Procedure for why a stock revision may be a high priority is that “b. there are emerging and/or localized threats likely to affect the stock,” which applies to the humpback whales off the U.S. West Coast because of entanglements. NMFS has documented “a recent spike in entanglements, jumping from an annual average of 9 confirmed entangled large whales between 1982 and 2013, to an average of 41 confirmed entangled large whale reports between 2014 and 2017.” CBD-WDC suggest that revising the stock definitions would better protect the humpback whale DPSs by lowering PBR.

Response: As noted by CBD-WDC, NMFS recently finalized “Procedural Directive 02-204-03: Reviewing and Designating Stocks and Issuing Stock Assessment Reports under the Marine Mammal Protection Act” (NMFS 2019). This Directive establishes a process for prioritizing stocks that should be considered for stock designation revisions, clarifies science and management roles in designating marine mammal stocks, emphasizes the definition of a stock as a management unit, provides guidance for determining whether multiple Demographically Independent Populations may be combined into one or more stocks for management purposes, and details the process by which stock designations are made and documented. The Directive also addresses how to designate stocks of marine mammals when DPSs of the species have been designated under the ESA.

Procedural Directive 02-204-03 became effective after the 2019 SARs were drafted. As detailed in the Directive, revising stock designations involves significant effort and, in some cases, may be ongoing for more than one SAR revision cycle. Given this, and our mandate to review and, where appropriate, revise SARs annually for strategic stocks, including those listed under the ESA, we are not able to revise stock designations for humpback whales in the 2019 SARs. However, for the reasons put forth by CBD-WDC among others, we agree that humpback whale stocks, including the California/Oregon/Washington humpback whale stock, should be considered for stock designation revisions and our intent is address potential revised humpback whale stock designations in future SARs.

Comment 3: The Commission reiterates that accurate information on the taking of marine mammals by Alaska Natives for subsistence and handicraft purposes is becoming increasingly important in light of the pace of climate changes in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Over the past decade, the Commission has repeatedly recommended that NMFS, in collaboration with its co-management partners, improve its monitoring and reporting of subsistence hunting in Alaska. While there have been improvements in the number of communities reporting take levels for some ice seals in the SARs in recent years, the majority of communities that hunt or may hunt ice seals are still unaccounted for. The Commission continues to recommend that NMFS pursue additional mechanisms to gather reliable information on the numbers of marine mammals taken for subsistence and creating handicrafts, including by securing adequate funding for comprehensive surveys of subsistence use and Native hunting effort. At a minimum, the Commission encourages NMFS to consider statistical methods ( e.g., Nelson et al. 2019) that could provide a more complete assessment of take levels from subsistence hunting. Further, the Commission encourages NMFS to continue to provide updated information in the SARs whenever it becomes available, even if it pertains only to a limited number of villages or a subset of years. The Commission would welcome the opportunity to meet with NMFS to discuss progress, next steps, and any impediments to including more comprehensive data on take levels by Alaska Natives in future SARs.

Response: We agree that it would be beneficial to have more comprehensive information about the harvest numbers of species of Alaska marine mammals taken for subsistence purposes and for creating handicrafts. We provide co-management funding to Alaska Native organizations under section 119 of the MMPA, in part to monitor harvests and report harvest numbers. Within the constraints of appropriations, we will continue to work with our co-management partners to monitor subsistence harvests and make that information publicly accessible as it becomes available. Additionally, our intent is to include average statewide subsistence harvest estimates, based on a recently published analysis (Nelson et al. 2019), in the draft 2020 SARs for the ice-associated (spotted, bearded, ringed, and ribbon) seals.

Comment 4: The Commission appreciates that NMFS has prioritized research on, and monitoring of, the Southeast Alaska (SEAK) harbor porpoise stock, but believes that more effort is required in three areas: Management planning, fisheries monitoring, and mitigation. The Commission recommended in its comments on the draft 2018 SARs that, under the requirements of the MMPA, NMFS form a take reduction team (TRT) to address the high level of incidental take by SEAK gillnet fisheries from this stock relative to PBR. NMFS responded that the MMPA allows the agency to prioritize its TRT efforts based on availability of funding and [that it is] currently implementing several other TRTs that address higher priority stocks and fisheries where the Take Reduction Plans (TRPs) are not yet meeting MMPA goals ( e.g., ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales, Hawaii pelagic false killer whales, and Northern and Southern North Carolina Estuarine System bottlenose dolphins). While the Commission is aware of this constraint and supports the allocation of funding to these TRTs as a priority, it notes that several other TRTs (Atlantic Trawl Gear, Harbor Porpoise (Atlantic), Pacific Offshore Cetacean, and Pelagic Longline) that were very active at times in the past are now meeting infrequently and often only via webinar, which suggests that funds might be available to establish a new TRT. The data reported in the draft 2019 SAR include a minimum estimated mean annual U.S. commercial fishery-related mortality and serious injury rate (34 porpoises) that exceeds the PBR (12) by nearly threefold. Given the small population size and an M/SI level that significantly exceeds the PBR for this stock, the Commission recommends that NMFS reconsider its funding priorities and establish a SEAK harbor porpoise TRT as part of the development of a take reduction plan to address bycatch of SEAK harbor porpoises by gillnet fisheries.

Response: NMFS continues to collect and analyze information needed to assess the SEAK harbor porpoise stock and to understand the interactions with commercial fisheries. In 2019, we conducted a vessel survey to assess distribution and abundance of harbor porpoise in inland waters of Southeast Alaska, including areas not previously surveyed. We are also continuing to evaluate population structure of harbor porpoise using environmental DNA techniques. The results of the analyses could be used to support future take reduction efforts.

We continue to implement several other TRTs that address higher priority stocks and fisheries where the TRPs are not yet meeting MMPA goals. Funds have been reallocated from TRTs that are no longer actively meeting (or meeting mainly via webinar), to support the continuing and emerging needs of the existing TRTs. In addition to convening meetings, TRT funds are used to support a variety of take reduction planning activities such as analyses to support rulemaking ( e.g., economic analyses), stock assessments ( e.g., abundance, distribution, genetics) and related analyses, increased or new observer coverage, fishing gear-related research, enforcement-related activities, and education and outreach. We continue to evaluate our priorities for convening TRTs and available funding on a regular basis.

Comment 5: The Commission appreciates the important strides that NMFS has made in the last year with the 2019 harbor porpoise survey that covered much of the range of the SEAK stock. The DNA samples collected will help determine whether the SEAK stock is composed of one or two populations, and the new data will significantly improve our understanding of the status of the stock(s). However, substantial uncertainty remains concerning the magnitude of the bycatch threat. What is known comes from an incomplete bycatch survey conducted by fisheries observers in 2012 and 2013. The Commission has urged NMFS to increase observer coverage of gillnet fisheries in Alaska, but so far, to little effect, primarily because priority shifts by NMFS defunded the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program, which produced the 2012-2013 bycatch estimates. The Commission is encouraged by the 2019 survey, and the data it provided to inform abundance estimates, stock structure, and the development of a fisheries monitoring plan. The Commission recommends that data collected during these surveys, along with fishing effort data, be used to identify areas for timely implementation of a fisheries observer program, in coordination with the State of Alaska. The fisheries of most interest and concern are those with the greatest overlap between gillnets and harbor porpoises in Southeast Alaska.

Response: We are continuing to review the levels of harbor porpoise serious injury and mortality in Southeast Alaska, the new information on harbor porpoise abundance and stock structure, and information on the commercial fishery to evaluate whether and, if so, how best to implement a fishery observer program in Southeast Alaska.

Comment 6: The Commission notes that NMFS, in its response to the Commission's 2018 letter, pointed out that TRTs require a minimum amount of data and analyses to support TRT deliberations, and that it was working to gather the requisite data and analyses. The Commission recommends that NMFS provide a timeline for acquiring these data and analyses and an anticipated date for the initiation of a SEAK harbor porpoise TRT. The Commission recognizes that NMFS may lack the data and analyses typically needed to support a new TRT. However, the problem of harbor porpoise entanglement in gillnets is common and well-studied in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere, and it is well established that gillnet fisheries often represent a significant threat to harbor porpoise populations (see references in Reeves et al. 2013). It is widely recognized that wherever harbor porpoises and such fisheries co-occur, there will be entanglements. The use of pingers to deter harbor porpoises from gillnets has been widely implemented, in most cases with considerable success ( e.g., Kraus et al. 1997, Gearin et al. 1999, Trippel et al. 1999, Gönener & Bilgin 2009, Carlström et al. 2009, Dawson et al. 2013, Orphanides and Palka 2013, Larsen and Eigaard 2014, Zaharieva et al. 2019). Only in a few cases were pingers found to be ineffective at reducing harbor porpoise bycatch in gillnets. In some fisheries with harbor porpoise bycatch, the use of pingers is mandatory ( e.g., New England and throughout the European Union). Thus, experience throughout the species' range suggests that where gillnets are used bycatch is to be expected, and the use of pingers will likely reduce the bycatch rate significantly. Therefore, in the absence of TRT-mediated development of a take reduction plan, the Commission recommends that NMFS adopt a parsimonious approach and initiate the necessary information gathering and consultation necessary to promulgate regulations that would require the use of pingers by SEAK gillnet fisheries.

Response: We recognize that pingers have been used successfully to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch in many fisheries throughout the species' range. However, because pingers have not been effective everywhere they have been used, we need to be careful and thoughtful about requiring their use in any particular fishery.

Comment 7: CBD-WDC note that NMFS released a report with a new abundance estimate for Cook Inlet beluga whales dated December 2019. The report reveals that the population is “estimated to be smaller and declining more quickly than previously thought.” In the report, NMFS estimates that the population contains only 279 individual whales and is declining at a rate of roughly −2.3 percent per year, a significantly faster rate of decline than the prior estimate of −0.5 percent per year reflected in the draft Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR. With this “new, more reliable methodology” and “more accurate” approach, NMFS has also revised the 2016 abundance estimate, which it now states was likely around 293 animals rather than 328. CBD-WDC recommend that NMFS revise the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR to reflect this updated information, as well as revise the PBR accordingly. CBD-WDC question the validity of any value of PBR other than zero for this species, given this small, vulnerable population's critically-imperiled status and sharply declining population.

Response: The revised abundance estimates and trend for the Cook Inlet beluga whale population, released in December 2019 (Wade et al. 2019), and revised estimates of minimum abundance and PBR will be reflected in the draft 2020 SAR.

An underlying assumption in the application of the PBR equation is that marine mammal stocks exhibit certain population dynamics. Specifically, it is assumed that a depleted stock will naturally grow toward OSP if sources of potential mortality are controlled. If, for unknown reasons, a stock's population dynamics do not conform to the underlying model for calculating PBR, NMFS' Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (NMFS 2016) instruct SAR authors to calculate a PBR but to qualify it in the SAR.

In the 2019 SAR, the Cook Inlet beluga whale PBR is calculated using the most conservative recovery factor of 0.1, resulting in an estimate of approximately one whale every two years. The “Status of Stock” section describes how the depleted Cook Inlet beluga whale stock does not conform to the expected population dynamics assumed in the application of the PBR equation. However, it also notes that although there is currently no known direct human-caused mortality of the stock, even if the PBR level were taken, this would have little consequence on the overall population trend given the unexplained lack of increase.

Comment 8: CBD-WDC suggest that the Western North Pacific humpback whale SAR include conclusions from the new research from NMFS regarding humpback whales breeding in the Mariana Archipelago. Scientists learned that humpback whales do not pass through the Marianas on their way to other breeding areas, but instead are using these areas to mate and give birth.

Response: See response to Comment 2. Our intent is to consider this information in future SARs.

Comment 9: The Commission is encouraged to see NMFS considering an approach for estimating cryptic mortality and incorporating the caveat within the “Status of the Stock” section of the SARs that, for example, observed M/SI estimates may account for only 20 percent of total estimated mortality for the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales. The Commission commends the agency's efforts to develop methods for estimating undetected mortality and its recognition that mortality estimates consisting only of observed deaths are biased low, a bias that all too frequently affects the assessed status of the stock. However, the Commission recommends that NMFS explain its methodology and reasoning in a peer-reviewed publication prior to including estimates of cryptic mortality in the SARs. The Commission also encourages NMFS to continue developing ways to summarize the uncertainties underlying M/SI data after discussions with the Atlantic Large Whale TRT and peer review.

Response: The topic of cryptic mortality is one that the agency has been advancing through constructive feedback with the Commission, the Atlantic SRG, and many partners over the past several years. For the Atlantic region, cryptic mortality was first introduced in the 2018 North Atlantic right whale (NARW) SAR. Based on feedback, the methods by which estimates were generated were expanded in the NARW SAR and added to the Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR with the addition of annual mark- recapture based population estimates. While the methods behind the point estimates were fully explained in the SAR, the agency has not attributed cryptic mortality estimates to a cause that might have management implications. The agency has sought guidance on this issue. Constructive dialogue occurred at the February 2020 Atlantic SRG meeting that resulted in an Atlantic SRG recommendation to NMFS that will be considered for the 2020 draft SAR, including a protocol for apportioning cryptic mortality estimates to potential anthropogenic sources, and a publication strategy to support the estimates. The agency feels it is appropriate to document the advancing approach of applying cryptic mortality in each year's SAR (conceptual introduction 2018, methodological expansion 2019, and addition of another species, management application, and supporting publication in 2020) to give stakeholders information about how the science is evolving, and early warnings of additional potential impacts to industry.

Comment 10: CBD-WDC reiterate that NMFS continues to rely on historic sightings data in the NARW report section on “Stock Definition and Range,” and suggest that this section include the significant changes in right whale distribution that have occurred since 2010, including the recent sightings of NARW#3845 (Mogul). CBD-WDC point out that NMFS continues to reference the sightings south of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard as a “late winter use” when the agency declared Dynamic Management Areas in this region in nearly all months of 2019.

Response: We added the following text in the final 2019 report to make the changes in ranges more prominent: “An important shift in habitat use patterns in 2010 was highlighted in an analysis of right whale acoustic presence along the U.S. Eastern seaboard from 2004 to 2014 (Davis et al. 2017). This shift was also reflected in visual survey data in the greater Gulf of Maine region.” Wanderings of NARW#3845 (Mogul) were documented in 2018, outside the period of this report (2013-2017).

Comment 11: MLA recommends the “Stock Definition and Range” section of the NARW report reflect there are more than seven areas that have been identified where right whales are known to aggregate seasonally, which now include Nantucket Shoals and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. They suggest it would be more informative and understandable to readers if these recently identified seasonal aggregation areas were included in the same sentence with the seven previously known areas and not discussed separately in the SAR.

Response: Our intent is to address this issue in the 2020 SAR in such as manner as to reflect changes in our understanding of how right whales are using their habitat, moving away from the identification of individual high-use areas and focusing more on the broad-scale nature of whale presence.

Comment 12: CBD-WDC comment it is unclear how the Pace et al. (2017) model was used to determine a best available population size of 428 individuals for 2018 when the 2019 North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium Report Card determined the best estimate for the end of 2018 was 409 individuals, reportedly using the same model for the same year.

Response: The estimate produced by the Pace et al. (2017) model, presented at the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, is 428. The Consortium “alters” the methods of Pace et al. 2017, to subtract additional mortality that occurred after the endpoint for the model time frame for which the point estimate of 428 was generated. Because the Pace et al. (2017) method estimates all mortality, not just observed, the agency (through discussions with the Atlantic SRG) concluded it is only appropriate for the SAR to report the un-altered output of the Pace et al. (2017) model.

Comment 13: CBD-WDC reiterate their previous comment the “Current Population Trend” section of the NARW report should be updated given the recent precipitous decline in right whales. As NMFS declared an Unusual Mortality Event for this species since 2017, during which at least 30 right whale carcasses were documented, CBD-WDC question the only reference to a serious concern regarding carcass detection dates back to 2004 and 2005. They suggest retaining the figures in this section, abbreviating historic information, and using language taken from the Hayes et al. (2018) NOAA Tech Memo to more clearly assess the current status, including the recent population decline.

Response: We agree and have removed the paragraph highlighted. We added a statement that changing distributions have exposed the population to new sources of anthropogenic mortality and cited the Hayes et al. (2018) Tech Memo. Also, Figure 4 in the final 2019 NARW report was generated from the 2018 Tech Memo as additional background support for this issue.

Comment 14: CBD-WDC appreciate the updated information in the “Current and Maximum net Productivity Rates” section of the NARW report but believe this section is not fully reflective of current trends. For example, the document states that Corkeron et al. (2018) found that the calf count rate increased at 1.98 percent when considering the years 1990-2016. We do not dispute these data but note that Kraus et al. (2016) found that calving rates since 2010 have declined by nearly 40 percent. CBD-WDC continue to request that NMFS limit the historic data and focus on the current status of the species.

Response: The inclusion of data since 1990, in both the calving rate trend graph and in the discussion, is important in order to provide a longer-term context for the calving rate fluctuations. It highlights both the significance and contributing cause of the current decline.

Comment 15: CBD-WDC continue to question the use of an Nmin of 428 for NARW and whether any value of PBR other than zero is appropriate to use for this species when NMFS has determined the population is currently declining at 2.33 percent per year as a result of human causes.

Response: We follow the Guideline for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (NMFS 2016) in the calculation of PBR.

Comment 16: CBD-WDC reiterate that NMFS should consider limiting references to historic data and focus on more current impacts to the species. For example, the “Background” section of the NARW report states that 124 mortalities were recorded between 1970 and 2018, but the SAR does not indicate that nearly 40 percent (n=46) of those mortalities have occurred since 2012. Highlighting this variation is significant as it indicates that for 41 years, mortality rates averaged approximately two per year, but in the most recent 6 years, mortalities escalated to nearly eight per year, a 400 percent increase. CBD-WDC suggest NMFS re-examine its inclusion of the statement “Young animals, ages 0-4 years, are apparently the most impacted portion of the population (Kraus 1990).” These data are now decades old and more recent data should be evaluated to determine if it remains accurate.

Response: NMFS has removed the paragraph with older background information from the final 2019 NARW report. NMFS does not dispute the numbers discussed in the comment but must consider that the numbers are a function of two variables: The total number of mortalities and the agency's ability to detect those mortalities. Given this, it is possible for actual mortality to be much higher in years where few were detected. To that end, NMFS has applied the output of the Pace et al. (2017) model to generate actual annual mortality estimates in the graph provided (Figure 5 of the final 2019 NARW report), which give a good representation of the variation in the observed mortality as well as the estimated total mortality over the 2000-2017 timespan. Given these data, it is inappropriate to estimate mortality rates solely from observed data. Discussion of the 1970 to 2018 dataset was included because that range was analyzed by Sharp et al. (2019). We have removed the Kraus et al. (1990) statement about young animals.

Comment 17: MLA comments the “Background” section of the NARW report is confusing as it contains potentially conflicting statements and fails to make clear the best available science. For example, in paragraph 2, with regard to human sources of mortality, there are two statements that imply different conclusions on the threats of entanglements and vessel strikes. The paragraph states, “The principal factor believed to be retarding growth and recovery of the population is entanglement with fishing gear.” It then cites data from 1970-2018, noting 124 recorded right whale mortalities of which “26 (21.0 percent) resulted from vessel strikes, 26 (21.0 percent) were related to entanglement in fishing gear, and 54 (43.5 percent) were of unknown cause.” Based on the data presented in this paragraph, the reader is likely to conclude that the best available science from Sharp et al. (2019) indicate that incidents attributed to vessel strike and entanglements are equal and would question why only entanglement would be singled out as the principal factor retarding the species' recovery. In addition, the reference to Figure 4 at the end of this paragraph correctly indicates that entanglement injuries have been increasing in recent years, but it ignores the potential implications of the latter data points on vessel strikes in 2016 and 2017, when one and five vessel strikes were observed, respectively. MLA notes this spike in vessel strikes is also of grave concern for right whale recovery and should not be minimized to imply that this source of human caused mortality and serious injury is not of concern.

Response: We note that Sharp et al. (2019) reviewed only detected mortalities, and only those in condition to be necropsied. Not only have numbers of detected carcasses been shown to be uncorrelated to actual mortality rates, but when serious injuries, which account for the bulk of the cryptic entanglements, are considered in addition to mortalities, entanglement far outweighs vessel strike as the principal factor retarding the species' recovery. We have added a clarifying sentence to the final 2019 NARW SAR.

We appreciate the detailed review by MLA but are hesitant to place too much emphasis on small variations in a highly-volatile system. The 2016 and 2017 data were included in the analysis of Figure 4, and the resulting trend line was flat (indicating no evidence of a trend, just volatile data). Should vessel strike mortality occur at higher rates in the coming years (as observed in 2019), it may be possible a trend will emerge, but that is outside of the time period of the 2019 report.

Comment 18: CBD-WDC continue to request NMFS consider sublethal effects of entanglement to North Atlantic right whales, which are known to have population-level impacts, as concluded by van der Hoop et al. (2017) and Pettis et al. (2017).

Response: NMFS is working to quantify sublethal effects on right whales. The data presented in Figure 3 of the NARW report support the hypothesis that they are occurring. However, confounding ecosystem changes that began in 2010 are additionally playing a role.

Comment 19: MLA notes the last sentence of the “Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious Injury” section of the NARW report states that the effectiveness of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) has yet to be evaluated. However, MLA has presented an analysis of NOAA's entanglement data to the agency which shows that entanglement cases attributed to the U.S. lobster fishery since the implementation of major modifications to the ALWTRP in 2009 and 2014 have declined by 89 percent since 2010 (from nine cases to only one), while entanglement cases attributed to gillnet or netting (unassigned by country) have nearly doubled (from four cases to seven). These data reflect the best available science on entanglement incidents in these fisheries and are used to calculate PBR. While these data do not account for entanglements that could not be traced to a fishery, they show a clear trend in known cases before 2010 when entanglements were regularly observed in U.S. lobster gear, and after 2010 when entanglements in U.S. lobster gear have become rare. MLA emphasizes these data are highly relevant and should be included in the report.

Response: As raised in the comment, the source of entanglement for the majority of cases goes undetermined. Because the mortalities with known causes are less than one-third of the estimated mortalities, making judgments based on these is not precautionary when other evidence such as the large number of injuries related to entanglement mortalities speaks to the seriousness of the entanglement problem. Specifically, the frequency of non-lethal entanglement injuries within the population is approximately 26 percent per year. For the period cited (2009-2014), that would indicate more than 500 entanglements occurred for which no linkage was made, belying the caution needed in attributing mortality to a particular source with such limited samples.

Comment 20: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) requests a description of the process used to determine gear origin of entanglements and first sighting information for North Atlantic right whales. DFO notes it is unclear who is confirming the North Atlantic right whale entanglement numbers/information for Canada, because some of the numbers for mortalities appear to reflect data from DFO, others are known to have been established/announced without confirmation from Canada, and some are unclear regarding the source of confirmation.

Response: NMFS has gear experts who conduct an analysis of gear type/origin when assigning to a particular fishery or country of origin. The data and deciding variables are shared with other experts for corroboration and cases are only closed when sufficient evidence is acquired. Gear information, when available, is provided by the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), the NMFS Southeast Regional Office, the Whale Release and Strandings group (WRS), Marine Animal Response Society (MARS), and DFO. NMFS considers any feedback it receives from these groups. First-sighting information is provided by entanglement and stranding networks and/or the population monitoring studies (New England Aquarium for North Atlantic right whales and Center for Coastal Studies for humpback whales).

Comment 21: DFO asks how non-U.S. Canadian entanglements are verified. For example, the 2014 sighting of entanglement “South of SPM” is assigned as having a first sighting in Canada. DFO notes the entanglement in 2014 of NARW #1131 is stated as first spotted in the U.S. but marked as first spotted in Canada—XC (Unassigned 1st sight in CN), is not accurate. If #1131 was first spotted in the U.S. but is assumed to have Canadian gear, it should be marked CN, but if first spotted in the U.S. and it is unclear where the gear is from, it should be marked XU (Unassigned 1st sight in U.S.). DFO points out there are a few cases of entanglements or mortalities spotted first in the U.S. but through some unknown process were later reported as Canadian origin, with no official confirmation or involvement from Canada. For example, NARW #3694 (2016) was an unconfirmed entanglement for two years and then announced as Canadian in 2018.

Response: Canadian event data are provided to NMFS directly from MARS and WRS. Staff from MARS and WRS are consulted regarding determinations. Regarding NARW #1131, it was first sighted entangled at Latitude: 42.25770 N, Longitude: -66.21330 W, in the Northeast Channel, in Canadian waters, so XC is accurate. We have changed the location description to “off Cape Sable Island, NS” since that is the closest point of land instead of “off Provincetown, MA.” Gear from #3694 was identified as Canadian Snow Crab by GARFO, and this result was announced through an email to the Atlantic Large Whale TRT in April 2018.

Comment 22: MLA is concerned about the use of the “first sight” coding in Table 1 in the “Other Mortality” section of the NARW report when attributing M/SI to a country. Despite the clear language included in the SAR regarding the limitations of what this means, these data have proved confusing and have been misrepresented by NMFS in public presentations. In August 2019, and on many other occasions, NMFS staff have presented a graph of right whale serious injury and mortality based on whales first sighted in the U.S. as evidence necessitating additional whale conservation measures in the Northeast Trap/Pot fishery. The graph, entitled “Right Whale Mortalities in U.S. Commercial Fisheries Still Exceed PBR,” relies primarily on M/SI for right whales first sighted in the U.S. to make its case.

MLA recommends NMFS consider dropping this “first sight” code under country and replace it with a generic code to indicate that these entanglements cannot be assigned to a country. Given that NMFS has already adopted an interim policy to attribute the responsibility for risk from these unknown cases equally between the U.S. and Canada, this presentation of the data is now irrelevant. Furthermore, a generic coding would be more informative and less likely to be misrepresented.

Response: NMFS will consider this comment, as well as the evaluation from the November 2019 Center for Independent Experts review that included significant discussion of this topic, in consideration of changes for future SARs.

Comment 23: CBD-WDC request NMFS reconsider its evaluation of the following cases:

• 3/7/2013 #3692—The fluke of the whale was wounded by a vessel strike in 2013. In 2014, the right tip of the fluke had fallen off and the fluke wound had not healed. Lesions and an increased cyamid load were noted and the whale was reported as thin. There have been no additional resights since 2014;

• 7/12/2013 #3123—Female whale previously seen every year since birth (2001) but last seen in 2013 after an ad hoc disentanglement;

• 9/13/2015 #1306 (“Velcro”)—Based on the most recent sightings of this whale on August 16, 2016, there was no change in configuration of the entanglement. However, a marked decline in body condition was reported and the whale has not been resighted since 2016;

• 9/13/2015 Unknown—Unknown right whale located on Roseway Basin on September 13, 2015. The whale was sighted with most of its left fluke lobe missing or composed of necrotic tissue and a significant cyamid load. There have been no resights of this whale. Given that NMFS itself has determined that “there has been no confirmed case of natural mortality in adult right whales in the past several decades,” we believe NMFS should include this whale as a Serious Injury with a value of 1 against PBR;

• 6/18/2017 #3190—Carcass in GSL with suggested blunt force trauma. Since no whales are known to have died from natural causes, this whale should be prorated; and

• 8/9/2017 #2123—Carcass was not necropsied but, according to NMFS, “photos indicated multiple linear impressions suggesting entanglement” and this case should at least be prorated.

Response: NMFS thanks the reviewer for the detailed examination of individual cases. Several of the cases (3/7/2013 #3692 and 9/13/2015 #1306), while confirmed as having anthropogenic injuries, have health status on par with the non-injured population, and we are unable at this time to classify them as more than likely to die as a result of the injury. The entanglement case from 7/12/2013 (#3123) was classified as a prorated injury (0.75) since it has not been confirmed that the gear has been shed. No expert agreement is available on the injured whale documented on 9/13/2015 so, while likely human-caused and definitely serious, we are unable to account for it. The cases from 6/18/2017 (#3190) and 8/9/2017 (#2123) were both mortalities. NMFS currently has no mechanism to prorate carcasses, only injuries.

Comment 24: MLA comments that NARW #1142, sighted on 04/01/2014, was downgraded to a non-serious injury at the October 2018 Atlantic Large Whale TRT meeting. NMFS should confirm the status of this right whale as either serious injury or non-serious injury. If this animal has been downgraded to NSI, MLA suggests this should be reflected in the PBR calculation and summary tables.

Response: As was noted at the time, the determinations provided at the October 2018 Atlantic Large Whale TRT meeting were preliminary and subject to change. Additional sightings data indicate that #1142's health continued to decline, so it remains a serious injury.

Comment 25: MLA notes for the right whale M/SI which occurred in 2017, there are several cases in Table 1 in the “Other Mortality” section that were coded “AE” and “CE” in the “gear type” column, which do not match the associated codes in the legend. These codes appear to reference acute or chronic injuries, rather than the gear type associated with the case. Additionally, several of the 2017 vessel strikes have been erroneously assigned a gear type.

Response: We have corrected those typos in the final 2019 NARW report.

Comment 26: DFO comments it is unclear if there is a process to review entanglement injury scores if the same North Atlantic right whales are later observed as having shown signs of recovery. For example, once a serious injury is assigned, does it remain as a serious injury if the whale is later seen to have recovered or stabilized?

Response: Protocols for serious injury determinations are provided in the annual M/SI report and in the NMFS Serious Injury Determination Procedural directive (NMFS 2012). If an animal is re-sighted in a condition that warrants reevaluating a previously published determination, it will be addressed.

Comment 27: MLA notes the “Status of Stock” section of the NARW SAR states, “The size of this stock is considered to be extremely low relative to OSP in the U.S.” The MMPA was enacted to maintain marine mammal stocks at their OSP level and to restore depleted stocks. However, this critical metric is never quantified in the NARW SAR. Maine lobstermen constantly ask about what is considered a sustainable population of right whales. MLA requests that OSP be quantified in the SAR and, if it cannot be, to explain why.

Response: OSP is defined by MMPA section 3(9), with respect to any population stock, [as] the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity [K] of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element. (16 U.S.C. 1362(3)(9)). OSP is further defined by Federal regulations (50 CFR 216.3) as a population size that falls within a range from the population level of a given species or stock that is the largest supportable within the ecosystem to the population level that results in maximum net productivity. Maximum net productivity level (MNPL) is the greatest net annual increment in population numbers or biomass resulting from additions to the population due to reproduction and/or growth less losses due to natural mortality. We have provided a graph in the NARW SAR (Figure 2) that depicts right whale population growth during 1990-2017. That graph indicates that population growth is decelerating and is at levels clearly lower than MNPL and, by definition, less than OSP. Until population growth begins to decelerate—due to density dependence, not deaths caused by human activities—then it would be inaccurate to attempt to fit a growth curve and estimate OSP from the population data.

For populations that are greatly reduced and endangered, it is best to consider the goals set forward in the ESA recovery plan documents. In this case, the 2005 North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan lists the following criteria that must be met before the species can be considered for reclassifying to “threatened” under the ESA: (1) The population ecology (range, distribution, age structure, and gender ratios, etc.) and vital rates (age-specific survival, age-specific reproduction, and lifetime reproductive success) of right whales are indicative of an increasing population; (2) The population has increased for 35 years at an average rate of increase equal to or greater than 2 percent per year; (3) None of the known threats to Northern right whales (summarized in the five listing factors) are known to limit the population's growth rate; and (4) Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the right whale population has no more than a 1-percent chance of quasi-extinction in 100 years.

Comment 28: CBD-WDC request that NMFS consider providing a distributional map that more accurately represents the coast-wide distribution of the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales, including in near-shore waters of the mid-Atlantic.

Response: The map is intended to represent the distribution of sightings that were used to generate past and current line-transect abundance estimates. We are in the process of converting all SAR maps to stock range depictions in future reports, but in the 2019 SAR, none of the stocks have range maps.

Comment 29: The Commission notes several SARs for beaked whales in the North Atlantic were updated in 2019. Although a PBR cannot be calculated for individual stocks, each of these SARs includes a best estimate of abundance, Nmin, and PBR calculated for “undifferentiated beaked whales,” which includes four species of Mesoplodon and Ziphius cavirostris. In many areas of the world where long-term studies occur, photo-identification of individuals indicates some level of site-fidelity ( e.g., Baird 2019, Dinis et al. 2017, Forney et al. 2017, McSweeney et al. 2007), suggesting that many of these species have complex population structure. Designating a single “western North Atlantic stock” for each species may not reflect their stock structure. This shortcoming is compounded when abundance and PBR are reported for “undifferentiated beaked whales,” combining all five species. While the Commission is encouraged to see NMFS making efforts to obtain accurate species identifications at sea (particularly through techniques such as eDNA, photo-documentation, unmanned aerial vehicles, and acoustic monitoring), the Commission recommends that NMFS reconsider whether including an abundance estimate, Nmin, and PBR for “undifferentiated beaked whales” is meaningful for effective management of these stocks and revise the SARs accordingly if appropriate. Part of this evaluation should consider how the data are likely to be used by those who rely on and cite the information provided in the SARs.

Response: Taking the Commission's recommendation, and that of the Atlantic SRG, we have reworked the abundance estimate groupings in the final 2019 SAR to be able to report separate estimates for Cuvier's beaked whales and Mesoplodon beaked whales. We will continue efforts to differentiate between the different species of Mesoplodon beaked whales to eventually report estimates for each species.

Comment 30: CBD-WDC appreciate the updates made to clarify differentiation of killer whale populations in the Eastern North Pacific and to align terms used in the SAR with those commonly used today ( e.g., ecotypes). However, we note that despite the availability of significantly more information about coastal distribution and habitat use by the Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) population, the paragraph in the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section describing coastal sightings and habitat of the SRKWs remains relatively unchanged since at least 2014, with the most recent citation from 2013. NMFS recently issued a proposed rule to revise the SRKW critical habitat designation to include coastal waters from Washington to Point Sur, California, and included a substantial summary of the data collected by the agency itself to support the revision.

CBD-WDC request that NMFS update the paragraph describing coastal distribution and include the more recent references available in the Biological Report that accompanies the proposed critical habitat rule, including updated information from satellite tag deployments and more recent data from passive acoustic monitoring. Coastal habitat use is thoroughly described and confirmed in other NMFS SRKW material, including recent recovery documents and status updates, and we urge NMFS to describe the coastal range of the SRKWs with similar confidence in the SAR, instead of retaining the description of “uncertain” coastal habitat use from 2013.

CBD-WDC also ask that NMFS note that while the SRKWs historically utilized the inland waters of Washington and southern British Columbia (the Salish Sea) in the late spring and summer, the seasonality of their presence is changing, and they have not been seen regularly or reliably during the summer in recent years. SRKW use of the Salish Sea has been highly variable since 2013, with a historically late return to the area in both 2018 and 2019. We recommend these recent observed changes in habitat use be included in the SRKW SAR.

Response: NMFS has updated the geographic range language in the final 2019 SRKW SAR.

Comment 31: CBD-WDC comment the Center for Whale Research (CWR) conducts the annual census for the SRKWs and typically provides updates on July 1st and December 31st of each year. As noted above, the changes in seasonal habitat use by the SRKWs has resulted in late returns to the Salish Sea and has complicated the census process, with some or all of the population no longer seen before the July 1st reporting deadline. While we appreciate established use of this system to achieve both estimates of abundance and a minimum population estimate, the increasing difficulty of completing a full census by July 1st introduces uncertainty as the status of all individuals in the population cannot be confirmed. For example, in 2019 none of the SRKW population had been seen in the Salish Sea by the July 1st census date, and while CWR noted three whales as “missing” following an initial encounter in July, sightings were so infrequent that those three whales—a matriarch and two adult males—were not officially declared deceased for over a month. Given the extremely small size of the SRKW population, unconfirmed status of even one individual is significant. CBD-WDC ask that NMFS update its protocol for including the most recent population estimate for SRKWs, since using census numbers from the previous summer ( e.g., July 2018) reflects a population abundance more than a year and a half out of date, and the biannual census may no longer be an accurate count for the population. We urge NMFS to include the most recent full count from CWR in the SAR, regardless of the date that count was reached.

As of fall of 2019, the SRKW population consisted of 71 individuals (not including two new calves born in December 2018 and May 2019, following established protocol of waiting one year before adding to the census count).

Given the grave concerns for the survival of the SRKW population and their precipitous decline in recent years, CBD-WDC ask that NMFS clearly state the decline observed following the “peak census count of 99 animals in 1995,” with average decrease per year, and specifically for the time period included in this SAR. Recent population viability assessments completed in both the U.S. and Canada should be used to describe the current population trend and future outlook.

Response: The comment on the reporting period for annual census values was addressed in the response to public comments on final 2018 SARs (84 FR 28489, June 19, 2019). The response is reiterated here: “The Center for Whale Research is under contract to NMFS and provides a population estimate on July 1st of each year. Since the beginning of the Center for Whale Research's study in 1976, July 1st was used as the date for the population estimate. Although additional effort in the fall months in recent years has occasionally allowed for a population estimate of December 31st, for some years sighting data of all three pods may not exist for most or all of the fall months. For the sake of consistency, we will continue to use the census data from July 1st. We do provide an update to the SRG at their annual meeting of any changes (births/deaths) since the SAR was filed.”

We have added language to the final 2019 SRKW SAR noting the annual percent decline observed in the population since the peak count in 1995.

Comment 32: CBD-WDC comment that growth rates and productivity in different Resident killer whale populations may be affected by variability in diet, environmental conditions, and habitat range. Alaskan Resident killer whales consume Chinook salmon, similar to Northern and Southern Resident killer whales but appear to have a more diverse diet and benefit from larger and healthier salmon runs.

Different environmental conditions, including prey availability, pollution, and disturbance levels may impact their resulting annual growth rate. To better reflect the habitat conditions and diet of SRKWs and the resulting maximum net productivity, CBD-WDC suggest that NMFS use the same growth rates and estimated net productivity rates as are used for Northern Resident killer whales. This population is closer to SRKWs in prey preference and availability as well as environmental conditions, and shares a similar history in exploitation for captive display. The maximum net productivity rate for Northern Resident killer whales has been updated and is now estimated to be 2.9 percent. Using the same rate for SRKWs yields a PBR of 0.11 (1 animal every 9 years) for a population level of 75 whales as included in the current version of the SAR; or a PBR of 0.10 (1 animal every 10 years) if the more recent population estimate of 71 is used.

Response: This comment was addressed in the response to public comments on final 2018 Stock Assessments (84 FR 28489, June 19, 2019). We intend to evaluate other maximum rates of increase for killer whale populations and continue to consult with the Pacific SRG regarding potential changes to the SRKW SAR moving forward. We retain the currently-used Rmax value from the published study of Matkin et al. (2014) in the final 2019 SAR. The retention of the current Rmax value results in no appreciable difference in the calculated PBR compared with the Rmax value proposed by the commenter.

Comment 33: CBD-WDC disagree with NMFS that the total non-fishery human-caused mortality for the SRKW stock for the past five years (2013-2017) is zero. NMFS notes in the SRKW SAR the death of a young adult male, L95, from a fungal infection introduced by a satellite tag. While the infection was determined to be the cause of death for L95, we argue that human activity exacerbated this infection and contributed to the introduction of the fungus into L95's bloodstream, hastening his death. Additionally, the death of J34, from blunt force trauma consistent with vessel strike (as noted in the SAR), should be included as another human-caused mortality and attributed as vessel strike mortality. Both NMFS and DFO have established this death as “likely from ship impact” in other material and communications, which should be reflected here for consistency. Of note, the DFO necropsy report was written in 2017, not 2019, and CDC-WDC recommend the citation be corrected. For a population in a highly vulnerable state, deaths with a high likelihood of being caused by human activity should be noted as such.

Response: NMFS has updated the language in the final 2019 SRKW SAR to explicitly treat these deaths as human-caused. The necropsy report and expert panel review for L95 and necropsy report for J34 indicate human-related causes as likely factors in the mortality of these animals. The DFO necropsy report citation was updated in 2019 and the citation date is correct.

Comment 34: CBD-WDC request that NMFS reflect the level of research that has established the preference for Chinook salmon of SRKWs and remove the phrase “appears to be” in noting that SRKWs are Chinook salmon specialists in the “Habitat Issues” section of the SRKW SAR. We also disagree with the inclusion of pink salmon in the list of other species in their diet, as the paper cited (Ford et al. 2016) finds that pink salmon are present in proportions of less than 0.01 in fecal samples from SRKWs. CBD-WDC suggest that NMFS include updated information on toxic contamination and potential impacts in this section.

Response: We have updated diet language in the final 2019 SRKW SAR with findings from Ford et al. (2016), who found that a majority of the diet comprised Chinook and Coho salmon, with seasonal differences in importance. We have also added information on toxic pollutants.

Comment 35: CBD-WDC comment that rather than referring to the stock structure guidance, the proposed text revision to the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section of the California/Oregon/Washington humpback whale report makes the issue murky by saying the “relationship of MMPA stocks to ESA distinct population segments is complex.” The NMFS Procedure, to the contrary, says that “NMFS should align stock designations with DPSs established under the ESA unless there is compelling reason not to.” Further, “maintaining incongruent MMPA and ESA management units is neither practical nor implementable.” The SARs' continued reliance on a California/Oregon/Washington humpback stock is confusing, but the relationship of MMPA stocks to ESA DPSs is not “complex.” CDC-WDC recommend NMFS revise the stocks to align with the DPSs.

Response: See response to Comment 2.

Comment 36: CBD-WDC comment that updates to the “Ship Strikes” section in the California/Oregon/Washington humpback whale SAR are helpful and request that Rockwood and Jahncke (2019) be cited at the end of that section.

Response: We have added the unpublished Rockwood and Jahncke (2019) reference to the California/Oregon/Washington humpback whale SAR text.

Comment 37: CBD-WDC suggest the “Habitat Concerns” section of the California/Oregon/Washington humpback whale SAR be updated with the recent scientific information in the humpback whale critical habitat proposed rule and biological report.

Response: NMFS has added language to the California/Oregon/Washington humpback whale 2019 final SAR to reflect the critical habitat proposed rule and habitat concerns.

On January 24, 2020, the NOAA Administrator, pursuant to authority delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to decide Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) federal consistency appeals, received a “Notice of Appeal” filed by Electric Boat Corporation under the CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 930, subpart H. The Notice of Appeal is taken from an objection by the New York State Department of State to Appellant's consistency certification for a proposed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit to dispose of dredged material in the Eastern Long Island Sound Dredged Material Disposal Site.

Under the CZMA, the NOAA Administrator may override New York State Department of State's objection on grounds that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA, or is necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA,” the Department of Commerce must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the national interest furthered by the proposed activity outweighs the activity's adverse coastal effects, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the proposed activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the enforceable policies of the applicable coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “necessary in the interest of national security,” the NOAA Administrator must find that a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impaired if the proposed activity is not permitted to go forward as proposed. 15 CFR 930.122.

The NOAA Administrator must close the decision record in a federal consistency appeal 160 days after the Notice of Appeal is published in the Federal Register . 15 CFR 930.130(a)(1). The CZMA, though, authorizes the NOAA Administrator to stay the closing of the decision record for up to 60 days when the NOAA Administrator determines it is necessary to receive, on an expedited basis, any supplemental information specifically requested by the NOAA Administrator to complete a consistency review. 15 CFR 930.130(a)(2), (3).

After reviewing the decision record developed to date, the NOAA Administrator has decided to solicit supplemental briefs from the Appellant and New York State Department of State pertaining to additional information including a July 17, 2020, comment letter received from the Department of the Navy. In order to allow time for the receipt of these briefs, the NOAA Administrator hereby stays closure of the decision record, currently scheduled to occur on August 3, 2020, until August 31, 2020.

NOAA has provided access to publicly available materials and related documents comprising the appeal record on the following website: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-HQ-2020-0021.

Authority Citation: 15 CFR 930.130(a)(2), (3).

The Committee will meet to discuss the Conservation Law Foundation petition for rulemaking on Atlantic cod. They will receive an update on the development of Framework Adjustment 61 specifications and other measures and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee, as appropriate. Other business will be discussed, as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign

language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

I. Background

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act)  1 granted primary authority to the Bureau to supervise and enforce compliance with ECOA and its implementing regulation, Regulation B, for entities within Bureau's jurisdiction and to issue regulations and guidance to interpret ECOA. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Bureau to report on its efforts “to fulfill the fair lending mission of the Bureau,”  2 and authorizes it to “engage in . . . requests for information, [which] includes matters relating to fair lending.”  3

The Dodd-Frank Act clearly states the Bureau's purpose as follows: “to implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to . . . markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.”  4 The Bureau's mission includes both protecting consumers from unlawful discrimination and fostering innovation. Specifically, the Dodd-Frank Act makes clear that “[t]he Bureau is authorized to exercise its authorities under [F]ederal consumer financial law for the purposes of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services . . . (2) consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination . . . and (5) markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.”  5 This RFI is one method by which the Bureau is continuing to explore ways to ensure nondiscriminatory access to credit as well as cutting-edge issues at the intersection of fair lending and innovation, including how innovation can increase access to credit for all consumers—and especially unbanked and underbanked consumers (referred to as “credit invisibles” in a May 2015 Bureau research report  6 )—without unlawful discrimination.

The USAF has decided to implement the first phase of Alternative 2, specifically renovation of 30 historic housing units and the demolition of government-owned non-historic housing located on Yount Drive. This decision will support the near-term housing needs of WPAFB's key and essential leaders.

The Air Force's decision, documented in the Record of Decision, was based on analysis provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and includes inputs from the public and regulatory agencies. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public on May 29, 2020 through a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (Volume 85, Number 104, Page 32390) with a review period that ended on June 29, 2020.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), RSA makes grants to States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations (including institutions of higher education) to pay part of the cost of projects to provide State VR agency personnel with training and technical assistance designed to assist in increasing the numbers of, and upgrading the skills of, qualified personnel (especially rehabilitation counselors) who are trained in providing vocational, medical, social, and psychological rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities, who are trained to assist individuals with communication and related disorders, and who are trained to provide other services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act. Projects must be awarded and operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and the Federal civil rights laws.

Priorities: Priorities 1 and 2 are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register (NFP).

Applicants must address either Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2, in the budget information (ED Form 524, Section B) and budget narrative. Applicants may apply for both priorities if they submit separate applications and demonstrate in each application that it has sufficient institutional capacity to fully implement multiple awards, including the required cost share.

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2020, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one or more of these priorities.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1: Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Quality Management.

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish a Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Quality Management (VRTAC-QM).

The VRTAC-QM will provide intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to State VR agencies on quality management strategies that will enable VR agencies to improve service delivery to, and employment outcomes achieved by, individuals with disabilities. For States that request intensive training and technical assistance, the training and technical assistance will upgrade and increase the competencies, skills, and knowledge of VR personnel, enabling them to assess current VR program performance and to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities for improvement, and threats (SWOT) that impact the effectiveness of VR agency service delivery and the quality of employment outcomes. This SWOT assessment will be based on a review of a wide variety of information sources, including, but not limited to, RSA's monitoring findings and recommendations; State audit reports; consumer feedback provided in public hearings and through consumer satisfaction surveys; results of comprehensive statewide needs assessments; and input from workforce development partners, community rehabilitation programs, and other VR stakeholders. Based on SWOT assessments, the center and VR agency personnel will develop individualized intensive training and technical assistance agreements designed to provide personnel with skills and strategies they need to address the weaknesses identified in the SWOT assessments to improve service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. The center will also provide VR agency personnel with technical assistance on evaluating whether the quality management strategies they adopt lead to increasing the percentage of participants who achieve an MSG and exit the program with an employment outcome and to modify those strategies, if necessary, to achieve continuous program improvement. In addition to the intensive training and technical assistance, the VRTAC-QM also will provide targeted training and technical assistance and universal training and technical assistance to State VR agencies on a broad range of quality management strategies and practices, both programmatic and fiscal, to address needs common to many agencies.

With regard to program management and performance, the VRTAC-QM's training and technical assistance will support the assessment, development, and enhancement of staff knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the following functions in order to improve service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities:

• Analyzing the State VR agency's comprehensive system of personnel development to identify strengths and weaknesses in staff's ability to understand and address factors affecting program performance and designing management strategies to address these deficits.

• Analyzing case service data to identify trends and inconsistencies in program performance, and developing strategies to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of services provided, including addressing inconsistencies in the quality and quantity of employment outcomes achieved by various groups of individuals with disabilities served by the program.

• Understanding statutory and regulatory requirements related to performance management, including calculations for the common performance measures required under WIOA and factors that may be affecting the agency's performance on these measures.

• Conducting quality assurance and performance improvement, including the use of data for performance management systems and the implementation of the common performance measures required by WIOA.

• Strategic planning to address aspects of the SWOT assessment that pose challenges and barriers to improving service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, particularly students and youth with disabilities and individuals with significant and the most significant disabilities.

• Implementing effective and efficient policies for delivering pre-employment transition services under section 113, VR services under section 103(a), and supported employment services under title VI of the Rehabilitation Act.

• Understanding the relationship to important outcomes of various cost containment measures, such as implementing an order of selection giving priority for services to individuals with the most significant disabilities, establishing a financial needs test for various services, implementing policies for consumer participation in the cost of services, and implementing the requirement to seek comparable services and benefits for certain services, among others.

Under the VR program, agencies must comply with several complex Federal fiscal requirements related to maintenance of effort, reallotment, reservation of funds for pre-employment transition services, and match, among others. VR agencies must understand, track, assess, and adjust, when necessary, program activities to meet these requirements while maximizing program outcomes. Additionally, the lack of knowledge and skills in fiscal and resource management can negatively affect the ability of VR agency personnel to meet consumer needs, for example, necessitating the implementation of orders of selection limiting the numbers of eligible individuals served in the VR program. With regard to effective resource management, the training and technical assistance will support the assessment, development, and enhancement of staff knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure that—

• Resources, including program funds and personnel, are being used for allowable purposes and innovative employment strategies and supports that maximize employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, including students and youth with disabilities and individuals with significant and the most significant disabilities;

• Programs have sound internal controls and reliable reporting systems upon which to base fiscal and programmatic decision-making to support attainment of program goals and objectives, including those related to increasing the numbers and qualifications of service delivery personnel; and

• Resources, including program funds and personnel, are maximized for program needs.

The following are examples of activities the VRTAC-QM may undertake to address weaknesses in resource management:

• Assess grantee financial management processes used to support attainment of fiscal and programmatic outcomes (for example, whether an agency's fiscal processes support the accurate tracking and reporting of non-Federal funds to maximize the drawdown of Federal award funds to support attainment of employment outcomes). The assessment will be used to identify areas for improvement in fiscal processes that will assist the agency in meeting program goals.

• Assess personnel training and technical assistance needs to identify gaps in fiscal knowledge, skills, and abilities that prevent the agency from effective and efficient resource utilization necessary to achieve employment outcomes.

• Provide intensive training and technical assistance on financial planning to maximize program resources and attainment of program goals and objectives, maximizing opportunities for funds matching, avoiding potential maintenance of effort and match penalties, and meeting the reservation of funds requirement for pre-employment transition services in order to increase resources available for service delivery.

• Provide technical assistance on implementing Federal, State, and program fiscal requirements, including internal controls, in an efficient and effective manner to reduce unnecessary burden and to focus efforts on program outcomes.

• Provide technical assistance on the identification, collection, and analysis of program and fiscal data necessary for program management and maximizing available resources to support consumer services.

Absolute Priority 2: Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Quality Employment.

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish a Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Quality Employment (VRTAC-QE).

The purpose of the VRTAC-QE is to upgrade and increase the competencies, skills, and knowledge of VR personnel to implement and sustain employment strategies and supporting practices that enable individuals with disabilities to achieve quality employment and career advancement, particularly competitive integrated employment as defined in the Rehabilitation Act. The center will include strategies and practices that meet the needs and promote the quality employment of individuals with significant and the most significant disabilities, students and youth with disabilities, and traditionally underserved populations. The VRTAC-QE will implement a coordinated plan to provide intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to State VR agencies on a broad range of employment strategies and supporting practices.

Employment strategies for consideration include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Career pathways education, training, and supports in high-demand occupations, including those in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

(b) Registered and industry-recognized apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, and on-the-job training.

(c) Supported employment and customized employment.

(d) Customized training and credential programs to meet employer demand.

(e) Self-employment and entrepreneurship, including services available under the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program.

(f) Business engagement and employer supports, including dual customer models such as Progressive Employment.

Supporting practices for consideration include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Practices to enhance the employment capacity of individuals with the most significant disabilities receiving supported employment services, such as the Individual Placement and Support model.

(2) Pre-employment transition services that prepare students with disabilities and transition services that prepare youth with disabilities to identify career interests through work-based learning and early career exploration opportunities, including internships and job shadowing, with a focus on high-demand and STEM careers.

(3) Career counseling techniques and resources, including labor market information tools such as Career Index Plus.

(4) Strategies involving workforce development partners, community rehabilitation programs, and other community-based organizations to provide the comprehensive support services that individuals with significant and the most significant disabilities need to succeed, such as the Integrated Resource Teams model.

(5) Approaches that encourage VR clients to enter and remain engaged in the VR process, such as rapid engagement, motivational interviewing, benefits counseling, and financial empowerment training, and vehicles such as the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) tax-free accounts for individuals with disabilities.

(6) Community outreach strategies to expand the pool of potential VR applicants and referral sources, including traditionally underserved populations.

Requirements: For FY 2020 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following requirements apply to the VRTAC-QM and VRTAC-QE. The requirements are from the NFP.

To meet the requirements of this priority, the VRTAC-QM must, at a minimum, conduct one or more of the following activities:

(1) Establish a committee on quality management of State VR programs that meets at least semi-annually to obtain individual advice and recommendations for the project.

The committee must include, but is not limited to, individuals with disabilities, representatives from State VR agencies, representatives from community rehabilitation programs, stakeholders, and individuals with subject matter expertise in improving outcomes through effective program and resource management and in employment strategies for people with disabilities. At a minimum, the committee members will provide individual input and recommendations pertaining to the implementation of the project and the project evaluation and quality assurance plan.

(2) Establish a state-of-the-art website and information technology (IT) platform for communicating with State VR agencies and ensure that all products produced by the VRTAC-QM and posted on the website meet government and industry-recognized standards for accessibility.

The website will become a key training and technical assistance delivery vehicle; a major communication center for the VRTAC-QM and State VR agencies; and the central repository of information about quality management strategies and practices that will form the basis for intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance.

(3) Complete a comprehensive review of programmatic and fiscal quality management strategies and practices for VR services for individuals with disabilities to achieve employment outcomes and develop an overarching training and technical assistance plan for the project. Both the review and the plan must be made available to the public, ensuring applicable privacy requirements are met.

The purpose of the review is to identify those strategies and practices for inclusion in VRTAC-QM's overarching training and technical assistance plan. The center will develop an analytical framework and selection criteria against which to evaluate potential strategies and practices. The analysis will focus on: State VR agency needs and priorities, up-to-date information on quality management strategies and practices that have proven to be effective in the field of rehabilitation as well as other public and private sectors of the economy that may have applicability to the management of VR agencies, and quantitative and qualitative research on the effectiveness of the identified program and resource management strategies and practices leading to improved service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

Sources of information used for this review may include: State VR agency interviews and consultations; information from such sources as the RSA-911 Case Service Report aggregate data, general labor market data and information, Unified or Combined State Plans, and RSA monitoring reports; and information and resources generated by technical assistance centers funded by the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services.

The overarching training and technical assistance plan must include, at a minimum—

(a) Quality management strategies and practices that result in improved service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, including the rationale for their selection;

(b) Conceptual framework for the selected strategies and practices, including key assumptions, expectations, and presumed relationships or linkages among strategies and practices;

(c) Nature and scope of the intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to be provided in support of the selected strategies and practices; and

(d) Protocols and timelines for requesting and obtaining training and technical assistance.

(4) Provide intensive training and technical assistance to State VR agencies.

Intensive training and technical assistance will be provided to increase State VR agencies' capacity to adopt, expand, or sustain programmatic and fiscal quality management strategies and practices that improve the quality of service delivery and employment outcomes. Intensive training and technical assistance will be provided on-site, over an extended period, under the terms of signed intensive training and technical assistance agreements between the VRTAC-QM and the participating State VR agencies. Numerical targets for the number of intensive training and technical assistance agreements will be included in the cooperative agreement between RSA and the VRTAC-QM. Agreements will reflect the participating VR agencies' needs and priorities, goals, and objectives. They must include the following components:

(a) Quality management strategies and practices to be implemented by the State VR agency and that result in improved service delivery and employment outcomes.

(b) Nature and scope of the training and technical assistance to be provided by the VRTAC-QM.

(c) Roles and responsibilities of the VRTAC-QM, State VR agency, other workforce development partners, community rehabilitation programs, and other partners, including the commitment of resources.

(d) Logic model  1 that includes: Performance outcomes, targets, and baselines; project activities, inputs, and outputs; and data collection and analysis commitments.

The intensive training and technical assistance agreements will be developed based on the VRTAC-QM and participating VR agency's review and analysis of such information sources as Unified or Combined State Plans; RSA-911 and other performance data; general labor market data and information; RSA monitoring reports; State audit reports; and a review of pertinent Federal, State, and local resources in the State, including existing employment and training programs.

(5) Provide targeted training and technical assistance and universal training and technical assistance on programmatic and fiscal quality management strategies and practices that lead to effective and efficient service delivery and quality employment outcomes.

(6) Coordinate training and technical assistance with other technical assistance centers.

The VRTAC-QM must coordinate the provision of training and technical assistance with the Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Quality Employment and other RSA-funded technical assistance and training centers. This coordination is particularly critical when developing intensive training and technical assistance agreements with the VR agencies to avoid confusion and duplication of efforts. The VRTAC-QM must also coordinate with other technical assistance centers funded by the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services.

(7) Present at a national conference or regional forums or specialized meetings throughout the grant period, with special focus in the fifth year of the grant to disseminate the VRTAC-QM's summative findings and results.

The primary objectives are to help State VR agencies to expand and sustain their VRTAC-QM programmatic and fiscal management strategies and practices that result in improved service delivery and employment outcomes by promoting an exchange of ideas and experiences with other participating VR agencies and to encourage other State VR agencies to consider adopting VRTAC-QM strategies and practices. In addition, the VRTAC-QM will explore cost-effective approaches such as virtual convenings to engage VR agencies and partners who may be unable to attend in-person meetings.

(8) Develop a plan for an evaluation, including a timeline for the evaluation and measurement benchmarks, that will assess the effect of the center's training and technical assistance on the service delivery and employment outcomes achieved by the VR agencies that received the center's services. This should be done through an analysis of the quality, relevance, and usefulness of VRTAC-QM training and technical assistance activities designed to improve State VR agencies' program and resource management and lead to improved service delivery and achievement of high-quality employment outcomes and career advancement.

To meet the requirements of this priority, the VRTAC-QE must, at a minimum, conduct one or more of the following activities:

(1) Establish a state-of-the-art website and IT platform for communicating with State VR agencies and ensure that all products produced by the VRTAC-QE and posted on the website meet government and industry-recognized standards for accessibility.

The website will become a key training and technical assistance delivery vehicle; a major communication center for the VRTAC-QE, State VR agencies, workforce development partners, and other professionals; and the central repository of information about employment strategies and practices that will form the basis for intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance.

(2) Complete a comprehensive review of effective strategies and practices leading to quality employment for individuals with disabilities and develop an overarching training and technical assistance plan for the project. Both the review and the plan must be made available to the public, ensuring applicable privacy requirements are met.

The purpose of the review is to identify employment strategies and supporting practices for inclusion in VRTAC-QE's overarching training and technical assistance plan. The center will develop an analytical framework and selection criteria against which to evaluate potential strategies and practices. The analysis will focus on: State VR agency needs and priorities; up-to-date information on national trends, barriers, challenges, and opportunities regarding quality employment for individuals with disabilities, including factors leading to successful employment of individuals with significant and the most significant disabilities, students and youth with disabilities, and traditionally underserved populations; and quantitative and qualitative research on the effectiveness of the identified strategies and practices.

Sources of information for this review may include, but are not limited to, State VR agency interviews and consultations; analyses of aggregate RSA-911 Case Service Report data, Unified or Combined State Plans, and RSA monitoring reports; information and tools generated by RSA's vocational rehabilitation technical assistance centers and special demonstration projects, available on the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials website; and other resources funded by the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, and institutions of higher education.

The overarching training and technical assistance plan must include, at a minimum—

(a) Employment strategies and supporting practices, including the rationale for their selection;

(b) Conceptual framework for the selected strategies and practices, including key assumptions, expectations, and presumed relationships or linkages among strategies and practices;

(c) Nature and scope of the intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to be provided in support of the selected strategies and practices; and

(d) Protocols and timelines for requesting and obtaining training and technical assistance.

(3) Provide intensive training and technical assistance to State VR agencies.

Intensive training and technical assistance will be provided to increase the capacity of State VR agencies to adopt, expand, or sustain employment strategies and supporting practices that improve the quality of employment outcomes. Intensive training and technical assistance will be provided on-site, over an extended period, under the terms of signed intensive training and technical assistance agreements between the VRTAC-QE and the participating State VR agencies. Numerical targets for the number of intensive training and technical assistance agreements will be included in the cooperative agreement between RSA and the VRTAC-QE. Agreements will reflect the participating VR agencies' needs and priorities, goals, and objectives. They must include the following components:

(a) Employment strategies and supporting practices to be implemented by the State VR agency.

(b) Nature and scope of the training and technical assistance to be provided by the VRTAC-QE.

(c) Roles and responsibilities of the VRTAC-QE, State VR agency, workforce development partners, community rehabilitation programs, and other partners, including the commitment of resources.

(d) Logic model  2 that includes: State-specific performance outcomes, targets, and baselines; project activities, inputs, and outputs; and data collection and analysis commitments.

The intensive training and technical assistance agreements will be developed based on the VRTAC-QE and participating VR agency's review and analysis of such information sources as Unified or Combined State Plans; RSA-911 and other performance data; RSA monitoring reports; relevant labor market information; and a review of pertinent Federal, State, and local resources in the State, including existing employment and training programs.

Intensive training and technical assistance will be implemented in coordination with, and leveraging the resources of, State and local workforce development partners and other parties specified in the intensive training and technical assistance agreement.

(4) Provide targeted training and technical assistance meeting the identified needs of a limited number of State VR agencies, as well as universal training and technical assistance broadly available to all State VR agencies and their partners.

(5) Coordinate training and technical assistance with other technical assistance centers.

The VRTAC-QE must coordinate the provision of training and technical assistance with the Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Quality Management and other RSA-funded training and technical assistance investments. This coordination is particularly critical when developing intensive training and technical assistance agreements with the VR agencies to avoid confusion and duplication of efforts. The VRTAC-QE must also coordinate with other training and technical assistance resources funded by the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, and other pertinent Federal or State organizations, and institutions of higher education, as appropriate.

(6) Disseminate VRTAC-QE summative findings and results through a national conference or regional forums or specialized meetings throughout the grant period and at with special focus in the fifth year of the grant. The primary objectives are to help State VR agencies to expand and sustain their VRTAC-QE strategies and practices and to encourage other State VR agencies to consider adopting some VRTAC-QE strategies and practices by promoting an exchange of ideas and experiences with other participating VR agencies. To maximize the dissemination of project findings and results throughout the grant period and with special focus in the fifth year, the VRTAC-QE will explore cost-effective approaches such as virtual convenings to engage VR agencies and partners who may be unable to attend in-person meetings.

(7) Develop a plan for an evaluation, including a timeline for the evaluation and measurement benchmarks, that will assess VRTAC-QE employment strategies and supporting activities' effect on VR participants' employment outcomes and career advancement. The evaluation will also assess the quality, relevance, and usefulness of the VRTAC-QE's training and technical assistance in improving State VR agencies' ability to identify and implement the appropriate strategies and practices.

Application Requirements: The following application requirements apply to both Priority 1 and Priority 2. The Department encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements. Applicants must—

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how the proposed project will meet the evaluation requirements of the priority. Applicants must describe the anticipated implementation steps, milestones, and timelines for the development of a logic model for the project. The logic model must include data elements, inputs, activities, outputs, and short-term and long-term performance indicators regarding—

(1) Quantitative outcomes resulting from the program management or employment strategies and practices, including—

(i) Quality and timeliness of the VR processes and services;

(ii) Number and quality of employment outcomes;

(iii) VR participants' employment or career-readiness;

(iv) Cost-effectiveness; and

(v) Sustainability;

(2) Quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's training and technical assistance activities;

(3) Quantitative or qualitative insights about the relationship between strategies, practices, and training and technical assistance activities on critical outcomes for VR personnel, VR clients, and key partners, including through—

(i) Pre- and post-training assessments;

(ii) Comparison groups;

(iii) Focus groups; or

(iv) Success stories.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how the applicant will ensure that—

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

(2) Projects will be operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and the Federal civil rights laws;

(3) Key project personnel, consultants, and

subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to meet all the requirements of the priority, including expertise in—

(i) Programmatic areas addressed in the Project Requirements section of the priority;

(ii) Program and resource management and oversight;

(iii) Knowledge translation and dissemination, including the effective use of communication technologies; and

(iv) Project evaluation leading to continuous improvement, including qualitative and quantitative assessments;

(4) The applicant and key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed project activities, and achieve anticipated project outcomes and impact on the VR services to individuals with disabilities, including assurances that the proposed allocation of human and financial resources for project evaluation will be enough to meet the requirements in section (a) of the application requirement regarding the “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” above; and

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

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how the applicant will ensure that—

(1) The project's intended outcomes, including implementation of the evaluation plan, will be achieved on time and within budget, through—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities of key project personnel, consultants, and contractors, as applicable;

(ii) Procedures to track and ensure completion of the action steps, timelines, and milestones established for key project activities, requirements, and deliverables, in accordance with the cooperative agreement between RSA and the applicant;

(iii) Internal monitoring processes to ensure that the project is being implemented in accordance with an established project performance plan, including timelines and milestones; and

(iv) Financial and budgetary oversight processes to

ensure timely obligations and reporting of grant funds, in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200 and the terms and conditions of the Federal award;

(2) The allocation of key project personnel, consultants, and contractors—including levels of effort of key personnel—will be appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that key personnel will have enough availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services are of high quality, relevance, and usefulness, in both content and delivery; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

The following application requirements apply only to priority 1 (VRTAC-QM). The Department encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements. Applicants must—

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will increase State VR agencies' capacity to improve the quality of VR services and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities by enabling VR agencies to develop and implement efficient and effective program and resource management techniques leading to increases in the numbers and improved skills of VR counselors and other service delivery personnel. To meet this requirement, the applicant must demonstrate—

(1) Knowledge about State VR program challenges, opportunities, barriers, and trends regarding program and resource management or quality employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities including those with significant and the most significant disabilities, students and youth with disabilities, and traditionally underserved populations;

(2) Knowledge about Federal, State, and nongovernment initiatives to promote program and resource management and quality employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, particularly in response to requirements under WIOA;

(3) The proposed project's potential to contribute to these Federal, State, and nongovernment initiatives by assisting State VR agencies in equipping personnel with the necessary skills and training to implement the substantive provisions of the Rehabilitation Act introduced by WIOA that are designed to improve the quality of employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities; and

(4) How the proposed project will increase State VR agencies' capacity to implement program and resource management strategies leading to improved VR services, employment outcomes, and career advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will achieve the goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of this priority. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe its plan for implementing the project, including major implementation activities, timelines, and milestones (particularly for the initial fiscal year), as well as key assumptions and expectations, presumed relationships or linkages among variables, and underlying rationale and empirical support, for the following Project Requirements of the priority:

(1) State-of-the-art website. Applicants must describe how the website will serve as an effective communication center, training and technical assistance delivery vehicle, and repository of information about quality management or employment strategies and practices, including—

(i) Expected features and capabilities, including information-delivery and stakeholder-convening technologies; and

(ii) Anticipated uses of such features and capabilities in support of the project goals and objectives.

(2) Comprehensive review. Applicants must describe how the comprehensive review will provide the factual basis for the project training and technical assistance plan. At a minimum, the comprehensive review must include—

(i) Input from State VR agencies about their needs, priorities, and innovative approaches to program and resource management that lead to improved service delivery;

(ii) Information regarding the latest—

(A) National trends, barriers, challenges, and opportunities;

(B) Effective and efficient program and resource management strategies, techniques, and practices that may be applicable to State VR agencies; and

(C) Additional information that the applicant deems relevant; and

(iii) An analytical framework for assessing the collected information and selecting the program and resource management strategies and practices for inclusion in the training and technical assistance plans.

(3) Provision of intensive training and technical assistance. Applicants must describe how the intensive training and technical assistance agreements will increase State VR agencies' capacity to improve the State VR agencies' performance and quality employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, through State-appropriate—

(i) Program and resource management;

(ii) Federal, State, and local partnerships; and

(iii) Performance outcomes, outputs, inputs, targets, baselines, and data collection requirements.

(4) Provision of targeted training and technical assistance and universal training and technical assistance. Applicants must describe how each training and technical assistance modality (targeted or universal) will help State VR agencies to adopt, expand, and sustain program and resource management practices. For each training and technical assistance modality, describe—

(i) Topics, activities, and products;

(ii) Intended audience and outreach strategies;

(iii) Content delivery and dissemination methods; and

(iv) Steps to ensure quality, relevance, and usefulness.

(5) Coordination. The applicant must describe how it will maximize coordination between the VRTAC-QE and the VRTAC-QM and seek opportunities to coordinate with other training and technical assistance investments, including those funded by the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, in the provision of training and technical assistance to State VR agencies.

(6) National conference, regional forums, or specialized meetings throughout the grant period and with special focus in the fifth year of the grant performance period. Applicants must describe how the project will disseminate its summative findings and results, including cost-effective approaches such as virtual convenings to engage State VR agencies and other potential Federal, State, local, and nongovernment partners, including—

(i) Types of events ( e.g., conferences, forums, specialized meetings);

(ii) Target audience ( e.g., by event type, types of stakeholders with a variety of roles and sectors); and

(iii) Convening modes (in-person, virtual).

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” the applicant's capacity and experience in addressing the State VR agencies' training and technical assistance needs in the areas of program and resource management, including but not limited to strategic planning and performance improvement leading to performance improvement, including SWOT assessment related to implementing strategies that ensure education funds are spent in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.

The following application requirements apply only to Priority 2 (VRTAC-QE). The Department encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements. Applicants must—

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will increase State VR agencies' capacity to improve the quality of VR services and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities by enabling VR agencies to develop and implement innovative employment and support strategies that are designed to improve employment outcomes and career advancement for individuals with disabilities. To meet this requirement, the applicant must demonstrate—

(1) Knowledge about State VR program challenges, opportunities, barriers, and trends regarding program and resource management or quality employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities including those with significant and the most significant disabilities, students and youth with disabilities, and traditionally underserved populations;

(2) Knowledge about Federal, State, and nongovernment initiatives to promote program and resource management and quality employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, particularly in response to requirements under WIOA;

(3) The proposed project's potential to contribute to these Federal, State, and nongovernment initiatives by assisting State VR agencies in equipping personnel with the necessary skills and training to implement the substantive provisions of the Rehabilitation Act introduced by WIOA that are designed to improve the quality of employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities; and

(4) How the proposed project will increase State VR agencies' capacity to implement employment strategies and supporting practices leading to improved VR services, employment outcomes, and career advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will achieve the goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of this priority. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe its plan for implementing the project, including major implementation activities, timelines, and milestones (particularly for the initial fiscal year), as well as key assumptions and expectations, presumed relationships or linkages among variables, and underlying rationale and empirical support, for the following Project Requirements of the priority:

(1) State-of-the-art website. Applicants must describe how the website will serve as an effective communication center, training and technical assistance delivery vehicle, and repository of information about quality management or employment strategies and practices, including—

(i) Expected features and capabilities, including information-delivery and stakeholder-convening technologies; and

(ii) Anticipated uses of such features and capabilities in support of the project goals and objectives.

(2) Comprehensive review. Applicants must describe how the comprehensive review will provide the factual basis for the project training and technical assistance plan. At a minimum, the comprehensive review must include—

(i) Input from State VR agencies about their needs, priorities, and innovative approaches to program and resource management that lead to quality employment and career-readiness that lead to quality employment outcomes;

(ii) Information regarding the latest—

(A) National trends, barriers, challenges, and opportunities;

(B) Effective employment strategies and practices that prepare individuals with disabilities to compete in the global economy and designed to create or expand innovative and affordable paths to relevant careers through postsecondary credentials or job-ready skills; and

(C) Additional information that the applicant deems relevant; and

(iii) An analytical framework for assessing the collected information and selecting the employment and career-readiness strategies and practices for inclusion in the training and technical assistance plans.

(3) Provision of intensive training and technical assistance. Applicants must describe how the intensive training and technical assistance agreements will increase State VR agencies' capacity to improve the State VR agencies' performance and quality employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, through State-appropriate—

(i) Employment strategies and supporting practices;

(ii) Federal, State, and local partnerships; and

(iii) Performance outcomes, outputs, inputs, targets, baselines, and data collection requirements.

(4) Provision of targeted training and technical assistance and universal training and technical assistance. Applicants must describe how each training and technical assistance modality (targeted or universal) will help State VR agencies to adopt, expand, and sustain employment strategies and practices that improve employment outcomes and career advancement opportunities for eligible VR participants. For each training and technical assistance modality, describe—

(i) Topics, activities, and products;

(ii) Intended audience and outreach strategies;

(iii) Content delivery and dissemination methods; and

(iv) Steps to ensure quality, relevance, and usefulness.

(5) Coordination. The applicant must describe how it will maximize coordination between the VRTAC-QE and the VRTAC-QM and seek opportunities to coordinate with other technical assistance centers, including those funded by the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, in the provision of training and technical assistance to State VR agencies.

(6) National conference, regional forums, or specialized meetings throughout the grant period, with special focus in the fifth year of the grant performance period. Applicants must describe how the project will disseminate its summative findings and results, including cost-effective approaches such as virtual convenings to engage State VR agencies and other potential Federal, State, local, and nongovernment partners, including—

(i) Types of events ( e.g., conferences, forums, specialized meetings);

(ii) Target audience ( e.g., by event type, types of stakeholders with a variety of roles and sectors); and

(iii) Convening modes (in-person, virtual).

Definitions: For FY 2020 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following definitions apply to the VRTAC-QM and VRTAC-QE priorities. The definitions are from the NFP.

Intensive training and technical assistance means training and technical assistance provided to State VR agencies and State VR agency personnel primarily on-site or through remote delivery, as needed and appropriate, over an extended period. Intensive training and technical assistance are based on an ongoing relationship between the training and technical assistance center staff and State VR agencies and State VR agency personnel under the terms of a signed intensive training and technical assistance agreement.

Targeted training and technical assistance means training and technical assistance based on needs common to one or more State VR agencies and State VR agency personnel on a time-limited basis and with limited commitment of training and technical assistance center resources. Targeted training and technical assistance are delivered through virtual or in-person methods tailored to the identified needs of the participating State VR agencies and State VR agency personnel.

Universal training and technical assistance means training and technical assistance broadly available to State VR agencies and State VR agency personnel and other interested parties through their own initiative, resulting in minimal interaction with training and technical assistance center staff. Universal training and technical assistance includes generalized presentations, products, and related activities available through a website or through brief contacts with the training and technical assistance center staff.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772(a)(1) and 29 U.S.C. 773(b)(1).

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR parts 385 and 373. (e) The NFP.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: $3,344,560.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $3,344,560 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Applications must include separate ED-524 budget forms and budget narratives for funds requested under the Rehabilitation Training and Demonstration and Training programs, respectively.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: $3,344,560.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $3,344,560 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Applications must include separate ED-524 budget forms and budget narratives for funds requested under the Rehabilitation Training and Demonstration and Training programs, respectively.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

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

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: The Department determined that cost sharing of 10 percent of the total cost of the project is required of grantees under both the Rehabilitation Training program and the Demonstration and Training program. Therefore, cost sharing of 10 percent of the total cost of the project ( i.e., based on the sum of Federal and non-Federal project costs) is required of the grantee under this competition. Any program income that may be incurred during the period of performance may only be directed towards advancing activities in the approved grant application and may not be used towards the 10 percent cost share requirement. The Secretary does not, as a general matter, anticipate waiving this requirement. However, the Secretary may waive part of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project after negotiations if the applicant demonstrates that it does not have sufficient resources to contribute the entire cost share. Furthermore, given the importance of the cost share funds to the long-term success of the project, eligible entities must identify appropriate cost share funds in the proposed budget. Finally, the selection criteria include factors such as “the adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization” and “the relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project,” which may include a consideration of demonstrated cost sharing support.

Under 34 CFR 75.562(c), an indirect cost reimbursement on a training grant is limited to the recipient's actual indirect costs, as determined by its negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, or eight percent of a modified total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. Indirect costs in excess of the limit may not be charged directly, used to satisfy matching or cost-sharing requirements, or charged to another Federal award. This requirement applies only to the Rehabilitation Training program funds, which amount to up to $3,000,000 of the $3,344,560 available for each award.

Under 34 CFR 373.22, indirect cost reimbursement for grants under the Demonstration and Training program is limited to the recipient's actual indirect costs, as determined by its negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, or 10 percent of the total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. This requirement applies only to the Demonstration and Training program funds, which amount to up to $344,560 of the $3,344,560 available for each award.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 373.23(b), a grantee under this competition may not award subgrants using Demonstration and Training program funds to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants using Rehabilitation Training program funds—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: States and public or private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including Indian Tribes and institutions of higher education. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantee. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e) and 373.23(b), a grantee may use either Demonstration and Training program or Rehabilitation Training program funds to contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with 2 CFR part 200.

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

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the Rehabilitation Training competition, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2020.

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

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 45 pages and (2) use the following standards:

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

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

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

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

The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, Part III.

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

(a) Need for project and the significance of the proposed project. (10 points)

The Secretary considers the need for and significance of the proposed project. In determining the need for and significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals.

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

(iii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in employment, independent living services, or both, as appropriate.

(b) Quality of the project design. (25 points)

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

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

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.

(iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project will increase efficiency in the use of time, staff, money, or other resources in order to improve results and increase productivity.

(c) Quality of project services. (25 points)

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

(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services.

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

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

(d) Quality of project personnel and adequacy of resources. (15 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of project personnel who will carry out the proposed project and the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, in determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

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

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

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

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

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

(e) Quality of the management plan and strategy to scale. (15 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan and the strategy to scale the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project and the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

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

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

(iii) The applicant's capacity ( e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to bring the proposed project to scale on a national or regional level (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) working directly, or through partners, during the grant period.

(f) Quality of the project evaluation. (10 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

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

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

In addition to the selection criteria listed above, the Secretary, in making awards under this program, in accordance with 34 CFR 385.33, considers the past performance of the applicant in carrying out similar training activities under previously awarded grants, as indicated by such factors as compliance with grant conditions, soundness of programmatic and financial management practices, and attainment of established project objectives.

This criterion will be used after non-Federal reviewers score the applications and will be applied to all applications that are recommended for funding.

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

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

When reviewing prior performance under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3) and conducting risk assessments pursuant to 2 CFR 200.205, the Secretary will consider factors such as whether applicants have demonstrated sufficient institutional capacity through the commitment of adequate resources, as described in the selection criteria, and adequate past performance in fully implementing multiple awards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Number and percentage of participating State VR agencies reporting improved coordination and collaboration with Federal, State, or local organizations as a result of the training and technical assistance.

(b) Number and percentage of VR agency personnel reporting that the training and technical assistance is high in quality, relevant, and useful to their work.

(c) Of State VR agencies that received training and technical assistance, the percentage change in consumers achieving an employment outcome compared to the prior year.

(d) Of State VR agencies that received training and technical assistance, the number and percentage of agencies that achieved their negotiated level of performance for the measurable skill gains indicator in the VR Program Year.

In addition to the GPRA measures, the following program measure has been established for the VRTAC-QM and the VRTAC-QE: The number and percentage of participating State VR agencies that adopt quality management or quality employment strategies and practices as a result of training and technical assistance provided under this grant.

Applicable short-term and long-term indicators and targets will be specified in the VRTAC-QM and VRTAC-QE cooperative agreements. Grant recipients will report the data necessary to assess performance against these measures, indicators, and targets in their quarterly, annual and final performance reports.

Annual project progress toward meeting project goals must be posted on the project website.

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

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

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

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

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

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has adopted a drinking water regulation for the Arsenic Rule (66 FR 6976) promulgated on January 22, 2001. After review of documentation submitted by the Commonwealth, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the Commonwealth's Arsenic Rule is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulation, with the understanding that the Commonwealth's regulation includes a typographical error that the Commonwealth has agreed to correct. EPA considers this issue to be minor and believes it should not preclude granting the Commonwealth primacy for the reasons detailed below.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts revised its Drinking Water Regulations for Arsenic promulgated at 310 CMR 22.06, 310 CMR 22.07A, and 310 CMR 22.07B effective December 6, 2002. Under federal regulations, the arsenic Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is 0.01 mg/l. The Commonwealth's regulation contains the correct value for the arsenic MCL. However, there is a typographical error in the Commonwealth's public notice requirements at 310 CMR 22.16 Table 7.C., Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification. In that table, the Commonwealth erroneously lists the MCL for arsenic as 0.05 mg/l when it should read 0.01 mg/l. MCL. Despite the typographical error, the Commonwealth issues reports based on exceedances of the correct value for the arsenic MCL. The Commonwealth has indicated that it will correct the typographical error in its upcoming regulatory revision later this year. Therefore, EPA intends to approve the Commonwealth's PWSS program revision for its Arsenic rule.

The State of Connecticut has adopted a drinking water regulation for the Consumer Confidence Report Rule (63 FR 44511) promulgated on August 19, 1998, the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (63 FR 69478-69521) promulgated on December 16, 1998, and the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (67 FR 1812) promulgated on January 14, 2002. After review of the documentation submitted by the State, EPA has determined that the State of Connecticut's regulation for these three drinking water rules is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. EPA intends to approve Connecticut's PWSS program revision for these three rules.

The State of New Hampshire has adopted a drinking water regulation for the Arsenic Rule (66 FR 6976) promulgated on January 22, 2001. After review of the documentation submitted by the State, EPA has determined that the state of New Hampshire's rule is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulation. EPA's primary enforcement responsibility regulations require states that accept electronic documents from public water systems to have adopted regulations consistent with 40 CFR part 3 (electronic reporting). New Hampshire accepts electronic documents and is in the process of completing elements of its electronic reporting program that will supplement the State's already existing legal authority under the State's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Therefore, EPA intends to approve New Hampshire's PWSS program revision for its Arsenic rule.

This publication satisfies the requirement of the Privacy Act of 1974 that agencies publish a system of records notice in the Federal Register when there is a revision, change, or addition to the system of records.

The Employee Travel Records—FCA system is used to ensure proper payment of travel claims. The Agency is updating the notice to include payment of relocation costs and fees as a primary purpose of the system and is updating the categories of records maintained in the system to reflect that modified purpose. Additionally, the FCA is making administrative updates as well as non-substantive changes to conform to the system of records notice (SORN) template requirements prescribed in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108. The substantive changes and modifications to the currently published version of FCA-14—Employee Travel Records—FCA include:

1. Updating the name of the system to reflect the expanded purpose—FCA-14—Employee Travel and Relocation Records—FCA.

2. Identifying the records in the system as unclassified.

3. Updating the system location to reflect the system's current location.

4. Updating the system managers to reflect the system's current owner.

5. Expanding the purpose of the system to include processing payment(s) of relocation claims for FCA employees.

6. Expanding and clarifying the categories of records to ensure they are consistent with the purposes for which the records are collected.

7. Expanding and clarifying the categories of individuals to ensure they are consistent with the purposes for which the records are collected.

8. Expanding and clarifying how records may be stored and retrieved.

9. Revising the retention and disposal section to reflect the relevant records schedule.

10. Revising the safeguards section to reflect updated cybersecurity guidance and practices.

Additionally, non-substantive changes have been made to the notice to align with the latest guidance from OMB.

The amended system of records is: FCA-14—Employee Travel and Relocation Records—FCA. As required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, the FCA has sent notice of this proposed system of records to the Office of Management and Budget, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. The notice is published in its entirety below.

This publication satisfies the requirement of the Privacy Act of 1974 and subsequent guidance from the Office of Management and Budget that agencies publish in the Federal Register , notice of rescission of a System of Records Notice when an agency stops maintaining a previously established system of records.

This information system includes enrollment and related information about FCA employees used to administer Agency-sponsored health and life insurance programs. A review of the System of Records Notice, FCA-12—Health and Life Insurance Records—FCA, was conducted in November 2019. The Agency determined that a separate system for Agency-sponsored health or life insurance benefits is no longer necessary, as the agency no longer sponsors health or life insurance programs.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, the FCA has sent notice of this action to the Office of Management and Budget, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

This publication satisfies the requirement of the Privacy Act of 1974 that agencies publish a system of records notice in the Federal Register when there is a revision, change, or addition to the system of records.

The Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Requests—FCA system is used by FCA officials in administratively processing requests for records to ensure compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act. The Agency is updating the notice to add additional and clarifying details, to make administrative updates, and to make non-substantive changes to conform to the SORN template requirements prescribed in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108. The substantive changes and modifications to the currently published version of FCA-6—Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Requests—FCA include:

1. Identifying the records in the system as unclassified.

2. Revising the System name.

3. Revising and clarifying the system's purpose.

4. Revising and clarifying the categories of records maintained in the system.

5. Revising the retention and disposal section to reflect updated guidance from the National Archives and Records Administration.

6. Revising the safeguards section to reflect updated cybersecurity guidance and practices.

Additionally, non-substantive changes have been made to the notice to align with the latest guidance from OMB.

The amended system of records is: FCA-6—Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Requests—FCA. As required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, FCA sent notice of this proposed system of records to the Office of Management and Budget, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. The notice is published in its entirety below.

This publication satisfies the requirement of the Privacy Act of 1974 that agencies publish a system of records notice in the Federal Register when there is a revision, change, or addition to the system of records. The substantive changes and modifications to the currently published version of FCA-9—Personnel Security Files—FCA include:

1. Identifying the records in the system as unclassified.

2. Updating the system location to reflect the system's current location.

3. Updating the system managers to reflect the system's current owner.

4. Expanding and clarifying the categories of records and individuals to ensure they are consistent with the intended purpose.

5. Expanding the record source categories to account for legacy records received from the Office of Personnel Management's National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB) and the Department of Defense's (DoD) Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA), which assumed investigation responsibilities from OPM in October 2019.

6. Expanding and clarifying how records may be stored and retrieved.

7. Revising the retention and disposal section to reflect updated guidance from the National Archives and Records Administration.

8. Revising the safeguards section to reflect updated cybersecurity guidance and practices.

Additionally, non-substantive changes have been made to the notice to align with the latest guidance from OMB.

The amended system of records is: FCA-9—Personnel Security Files—FCA. As required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, FCA sent notice of this proposed system of records to the Office of Management and Budget, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. The notice is published in its entirety below.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0987.

Title: 911 Callback Capability; Non-initialized Handsets (47 CFR Sections 9.10(o)(1)(i-iii), 9.10(o)(2)(i-iii)).

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 968 respondents; 225,968 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.01258143 hours (range of 30 seconds for labeling each handset to one hour for each respondent's public education effort).

Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority of this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 303, and 332.

Total Annual Burden: 2,843 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: In 2003, the Commission modified 47 CFR Section 20.18(l) to further improve the ability of public safety answering points (PSAPs) to respond quickly and efficiently to calls for emergency assistance made from non-service initialized wireless mobile handsets. In 2019, 47 CFR 20.18 was renumbered as 47 CFR 9.10. Accordingly, we update the references to Section 20.18 with Section 9.10. See 84 FR 66716. Non-service-initialized wireless mobile handsets (non-initialized handsets) are not registered for service with any Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licensee. A non-initialized handset lacks a dialable number, but is programmed to make outgoing 911 calls. The Commission addressed issues arising from the inability of a PSAP operator to call back a 911 caller who becomes disconnected when using a non-service-initialized wireless handset. These requirements also apply to manufacturers of 911-only handsets that are manufactured after May 3, 2004.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0813.

Title: Section 9.10, Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other-for-profit and State, Local and Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,048 Respondents; 567 Responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-1 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time third-party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 251(e), 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, and 403.

Total Annual Burden: 527 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No Impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The information collection entailed in a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) request is necessary to initiate E911 service and serves as notice to the CMRS provider. The notification requirement on PSAPs will be used by the carriers to verify that wireless E911 calls are referred to PSAPs who have the technical capability to use the data to the caller's benefit. If the carrier challenges the validity of the request, the request will be deemed valid if the PSAP making the request provides the following information:

A. Cost Recovery. The PSAP must demonstrate that a mechanism is in place by which the PSAP will recover its costs of the facilities and equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements;

B. Necessary Equipment. The PSAP must provide evidence that it has ordered the equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements; and

C. Necessary Facilities. The PSAP must demonstrate that it has made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange carrier for the necessary trunking and other facilities to enable E911 data to be transmitted to the PSAP.

In the alternative, the PSAP may demonstrate that a funding mechanism is in place, that it is E911 capable using a Non-Call Associated Signaling technology, and that it has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC for the necessary ALI database upgrade.

Title: Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans (Negative Option Rule or Rule), 16 CFR 425. 1

OMB Control Number: 3084-0104.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Likely Respondents: Sellers of prenotification subscription plans.

Estimated Annual Hours Burden: 9,750 hours.

Estimated Annual Cost Burden: $572,300 (solely related to labor costs).

Estimated Capital or Other Non-Labor Cost: $0 or de minimis.

Abstract: The Negative Option Rule governs the operation of prenotification subscription plans. Under these types of plans—which can include things such as a book of the month club, food of the month club, or clothing items of the month club—a seller provides a consumer with automatic shipments of merchandise unless the consumer affirmatively notifies the seller they do not want the shipment. The Rule requires that a seller notify a member that they will automatically ship merchandise to the member and bill the member for the merchandise if the subscriber fails to expressly reject the merchandise beforehand within a prescribed time. The Rule protects consumers by: (a) Requiring that promotional materials disclose the terms of membership clearly and conspicuously; and (b) establishing procedures for the administration of such “negative option” plans.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the FTC is requesting that OMB renew the clearance for the PRA burden associated with the proposed collection.

Burden statement:

Estimated annual burden hours: 9,750.

On June 15, 2020, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, CDC published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comment and recommendations on a proposed data collection titled CDC Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (OMB Control Number 0920-0909) (85 FR 36214). Since then, CDC has received a request to extend the comment period to permit participants in four regional Tribal consultation calls to provide comment on this proposed data collection. Four consultation calls are scheduled for after August 14, 2020, the original closing date of the docket.

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

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

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

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

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

5. Assess information collection costs.

Multi-site Clinical Assessment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (MCAM)—Existing collection in use without an OMB Control Number—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

This Multi-site Clinical Assessment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (MCAM) study uses a standardized approach for data collection to examine the heterogeneity of patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) using a clinical epidemiologic longitudinal study with a retrospective and prospective rolling cohort design. The study also aims to address the issue of ME/CFS case definition and improve measures of illness domains by using evidence-based data from multiple clinical practices in the United States. Healthy adults and those with illnesses that share some features with ME/CFS were enrolled in comparison groups. Children and adolescents with ME/CFS and healthy participants were also enrolled.

The MCAM study has been conducted in multiple stages following multiple study protocols. The time burden estimates are based on the 2012-2019 data collection, which is the most recent stage of data collection completed.

Section 740 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-12) establishes four different types of user fees: (1) Fees for certain types of animal drug applications and supplements; (2) annual fees for certain animal drug products; (3) annual fees for certain establishments where such products are made; and (4) annual fees for certain sponsors of animal drug applications and/or investigational animal drug submissions (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)). When certain conditions are met, FDA will waive or reduce fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(d)).

For FYs 2019 through 2023, the FD&C Act establishes aggregate yearly base revenue amounts for each fiscal year (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(1)). Base revenue amounts are subject to adjustment for inflation and workload (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(2) and (3)). Beginning with FY 2021, the annual fee revenue amounts are also subject to adjustment to reduce workload-based increases by the amount of certain excess collections or to account for certain collection shortfalls. (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(3) and (g)(5)). Fees for applications, establishments, products, and sponsors are to be established each year by FDA so that the percentages of the total revenue that are derived from each type of user fee will be as follows: (1) Revenue from application fees shall be 20 percent of total fee revenue; (2) revenue from product fees shall be 27 percent of total fee revenue; (3) revenue from establishment fees shall be 26 percent of total fee revenue; and (4) revenue from sponsor fees shall be 27 percent of total fee revenue (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(2)).

For FY 2021, the animal drug user fee rates are: $574,810 for an animal drug application; $287,405 for a supplemental animal drug application for which safety or effectiveness data are required and for an animal drug application subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(4)); $12,230 for an annual product fee; $166,695 for an annual establishment fee; and $142,881 for an annual sponsor fee. FDA will issue invoices for FY 2021 product, establishment, and sponsor fees by December 31, 2020, and payment will be due by January 31, 2021. The application fee rates are effective for applications submitted on or after October 1, 2020, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2021. Applications will not be accepted for review until FDA has received full payment of application fees and any other animal drug user fees owed under the Animal Drug User Fee Act program (ADUFA program).

ADUFA IV, Title I of Public Law 115-234, specifies that the aggregate base fee revenue amount for FY 2021 for all animal drug user fee categories is $29,931,240 (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(1)(B)).

ADUFA IV specifies that the annual fee revenue amount is to be adjusted for inflation increases for FY 2020 and subsequent fiscal years, using two separate adjustments—one for personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B) and one for non-PC&B costs (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii)). The component of the inflation adjustment for payroll costs shall be one plus the average annual percent change in the cost of all PC&B paid per full-time equivalent position (FTE) at FDA for the first 3 of the 4 preceding fiscal years of available data, multiplied by the average proportion of PC&B costs to total FDA costs for the first 3 of the 4 preceding fiscal years. The data on total PC&B paid and numbers of FTE paid, from which the average cost per FTE can be derived, are published in FDA's Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees.

Table 1 summarizes that actual cost and FTE data for the specified fiscal years, and provides the percent change from the previous fiscal year and the average percent change over the first 3 of the 4 fiscal years preceding FY 2021. The 3-year average is 1.2644 percent.

The statute specifies that this 1.2644 percent should be multiplied by the proportion of PC&B costs to total FDA costs. Table 2 shows the amount of PC&B and the total amount obligated by FDA for the same 3 fiscal years.

The portion of the inflation adjustment relating to payroll costs is 1.2644 percent multiplied by 48.9777 percent, or 0.6193 percent.

The statute specifies that the portion of the inflation adjustment for non-payroll costs is the average annual percent change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers (Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV; not seasonally adjusted; all items less food and energy; annual index) for the first 3 of the preceding 4 years of available data multiplied by the average proportion of all costs other than PC&B costs to total FDA costs for the first 3 of the 4 preceding fiscal years. As a result of a geographical revision made by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics in January 2018, 1 the “Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV” index was discontinued and replaced with two separate indices ( i.e., “Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV” and “Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD”). In order to continue applying a CPI which best reflects the geographic region in which FDA is headquartered and which provides the most current data available, FDA is using the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria less food and energy index when calculating the relevant adjustment factors for FY 2020 and subsequent years. Table 3 provides the summary data for the percent change in the specified CPI for the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria area. The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are shown in table 3.

On January 31, 2020, as a result of confirmed cases of COVID-19, and after consultation with public health officials as necessary, Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to the authority under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), determined that a PHE exists and has existed since January 27, 2020, nationwide. 1 On March 13, 2020, President Donald J. Trump declared that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020. 2

In the Federal Register of March 25, 2020 (85 FR 16949, the March 25, 2020, notice) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-03-25/pdf/2020-06222.pdf ), FDA announced procedures for making available FDA guidance documents related to the COVID-19 PHE. These procedures, which operate within FDA's established good guidance practices regulations, are intended to allow FDA to rapidly disseminate Agency recommendations and policies related to COVID-19 to industry, FDA staff, and other stakeholders. The March 25, 2020, notice stated that due to the need to act quickly and efficiently to respond to the COVID-19 PHE, FDA believes that prior public participation will not be feasible or appropriate before FDA implements COVID-19-related guidance documents. Therefore, FDA will issue COVID-19-related guidance documents for immediate implementation without prior public comment (see section 701(h)(1)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 371(h)(1)(C) and 21 CFR 10.115(g)(2) (§ 10.115(g)(2))). The guidances are available at FDA's web page titled “COVID-19-Related Guidance Documents for Industry, FDA Staff, and Other Stakeholders” ( https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-issues/covid-19-related-guidance-documents-industry-fda-staff-and-other-stakeholders ) and through FDA's web page titled “Search for FDA Guidance Documents” available at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents.

The March 25, 2020, notice further stated that, in general, rather than publishing a separate NOA for each COVID-19-related guidance document, FDA intends to publish periodically a consolidated NOA announcing the availability of certain COVID-19-related guidance documents that FDA issued during the relevant period, as included in Table 1. This notice announces COVID-19-related guidances that are posted on FDA's website.

Pursuant to the process described in the March 25, 2020, notice, FDA is announcing the availability of the following COVID-19-related guidance documents:

Although these guidance documents have been implemented immediately without prior comment, FDA will consider all comments received and revise the guidances as appropriate (see § 10.115(g)(3)).

These guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (§ 10.115). The guidances represent the current thinking of FDA. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

The guidances listed in the table below refer to previously approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in the following FDA regulations and guidance have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:

The guidance, Statistical Considerations for Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by OMB under the PRA is not required.

The guidance listed in the table below refer to previously approved collection of information. This collection of information is subject to review by the OMB under the PRA. The collection of information in the following FDA regulations and guidance have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table: