Federal Register Vol. 83, No.151,

Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. While the poultry standards do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, they—along with other official standards—are maintained by USDA and can be found at https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards. Copies of official standards are also available upon request. To revise the poultry standards, AMS utilizes the procedures it published in the August 13, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR 43439) and in 7 CFR part 36. Because this change to the poultry standards is to ensure consistency with FSIS's definition, public comments are not being sought.

FSIS maintains regulatory authority over the labeling of poultry products under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) which prohibits the distribution of poultry products that are adulterated or misbranded (12 U.S.C. 458). In November 2013, the National Chicken Council petitioned FSIS to amend the “roaster chicken class to remove the 8-week minimum age criteria and increase the Ready-to-Cook (RTC) carcass weight to 5.5 pounds.” According to the petition, the existing “roaster” standard—defined at 9 CFR 381.170(a)(1)(iii) as a “young chicken (between 8 and 12 weeks of age), of either sex, with a ready-to-cook carcass weight of 5 pounds or more, that is tender-meated with soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin and breastbone cartilage that is somewhat less flexible than that of a broiler or fryer”—detracted from the orderly and efficient marketing of classes. Specifically, companies were unable to label and market chickens as “roasters” that met all the physical attributes apart from the minimum age requirement. FSIS and AMS completed a review of the petition in July 2014 and concluded that continuous improvements in breeding and poultry management techniques had enabled producers to raise chickens with the characteristics of roasters in under 8 weeks.

On April 13, 2016, FSIS published a final rule in the Federal Register (81 FR 21706) amending the definition and standard of identity for the “roaster or roasting chicken” poultry class, with an effective date of January 1, 2018. AMS is revising its poultry standards definition of roaster from usually 3 to 5 months of age to 5.5 pounds or more and less than 12 weeks of age to maintain consistency with the FSIS regulation.

Overview

Federal Agency: Rural Utilities Service (RUS), USDA.

Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP).

Announcement Type: Requests for Letter of intent and Applications.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.751.

Dates: Submit the Letter of intent before September 30, 2019, and the completed loan application package on or before sixty (60) days from the receipt date of a written RUS Invitation to proceed.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), OMB approved this information collection under OMB Control Number 0572-0151. The current expiration date for the information collection is December 31, 2019.

For the purpose of RESP, the following terms must have the following meanings:

Administrator means the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, an agency under the Rural Development mission area of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Applicant means an Eligible entity interested in applying for a RESP that is planning to submit a Letter of intent.

Commercially available technology means equipment, devices, applications, or systems that have a proven, reliable performance and replicable operating history specific to the proposed application. The equipment, device, application or system is based on established patented design or has been certified by an industry-recognized organization and subject to installation, operating, and maintenance procedures generally accepted by industry practices and standards. Service and replacement parts for the equipment, device, application or system must be readily available in the marketplace with established warranty applicable to parts, labor and performance.

Completed loan application means an application containing all information required by RUS to approve a loan and that is materially complete in form and substance satisfactory to RUS within the specified time.

Conditional commitment letter means the notification issued by the Administrator to a RESP Applicant advising it of the total loan amount approved for it as a RESP borrower, the acceptable security arrangement, and such controls and conditions on the RESP borrower's financial, investment, operational and managerial activities deemed necessary by the Administrator to adequately secure the Government's interest. This notification will also describe the accounting standards and audit requirements applicable to the transaction.

Conflict of interest means a situation or situations, event or series of events, that jointly or severely undermines an individual's judgement, ability, or commitment to providing an accurate, unbiased, fair and reliable assessment or determination about the cost-effectiveness of the Energy efficiency measures due to self-interest or cannot be justified by the prevailing and sound application of the generally accepted standards and principles of the industry.

Eligible entity means an entity described in section C.1. of this NOFA.

Energy audit means an analysis or inspection of the energy flows in a building, process, or system with the goal of identifying opportunities to enhance energy efficiency. The activity should result in an objective standard-based technical report containing recommendations on the Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy costs or consumption of the Qualified consumer and an analysis of the estimated benefits and costs of pursuing each recommendation in a payback period not to exceed 10 years. The report will include a payback analysis of the aggregated energy efficiency measures.

Energy efficiency measures means for or at a property served by an Eligible entity, structural improvements or investments in cost-effective, commercially available technologies that result in a decrease in a Qualified consumer's energy usage or costs.

Energy efficiency program (EE Program) means a program set up by an Eligible entity to provide financing to Qualified consumers so that they can reduce their energy use or costs by implementing energy efficiency measures.

Financial feasibility means an Eligible entity's ability to generate sufficient revenues to cover its expenses, sufficient cash flow to service its debts and obligations as they come due, and meet the financial ratios set forth in the applicable loan documents.

Invitation to proceed means the written notification issued by RUS to the Eligible entity acknowledging that the Letter of intent was received and reviewed, describing the next steps in the application process and inviting the Eligible entity to submit a complete application.

Key performance indicators means the set of measures that help an entity to determine if it is reaching its performance and operational goals. These indicators can be both financial and non-financial.

Letter of intent means a signed letter issued by an Applicant notifying RUS of its intent to apply for a RESP loan and addressing all the elements identified in section D.1.a. of this NOFA.

Qualified consumer means a consumer served by an Eligible entity that has the ability to repay a loan made by an RESP borrower under the RESP program, as determined by the Eligible entity.

RESP applicant means an Eligible entity that has received a written Invitation to proceed from RUS to apply for a RESP loan.

RESP borrower means an Eligible entity with an approved RESP loan.

Small business means an entity that is in accordance with the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards found in 13 CFR part 121.

Special advance means an advance, not to exceed 4 percent of the total approved loan amount, that a RESP borrower may request to defray the start-up costs of establishing a new EE Program.

Start-up costs mean amounts paid or incurred for: (a) Creating or implementing an active Energy efficiency (EE) program; or (b) investing in the integration of an active Energy efficiency program. Start-up costs may include, but are not limited to, amounts paid or incurred in the analysis or survey of potential markets, products such as software and hardware, labor supply, consultants, salaries and other working capital directly related to creation or enhancement of an Energy efficiency program consistent with RESP.

With regard to the rules of grammatical construction, unless the context otherwise indicates, “includes” and “including” are not limiting, and “or” is not exclusive.

The USDA through the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides RESP loans to Eligible entities that agree to, in turn, make loans to Qualified consumers for the purpose of implementing Energy efficiency measures. These loans are made available under the authority of Section 6407. Eligible Energy efficiency measures funded under this NOFA must be for or at a property or properties served by a RESP borrower, using commercially available technologies that would allow Qualified consumers to decrease their energy use or costs through cost-effective measures including structural improvements to the structure. Loans made by RESP borrowers under this program may be repaid through charges added to the Qualified consumer's bill for the property or properties for, or at which, energy efficiencies are or will be implemented. The purpose of the program is to help rural families and small businesses achieve cost savings by providing loans to Qualified consumers to implement durable cost-effective Energy efficiency measures.

Type of Award: Loan.

Fiscal Year 2018 Funds: $8,000,000 in budget authority to remain available until expended, plus any available prior year funding, to remain available until September 30, 2019. Based on projected subsidy rates and estimated carry over funds, RUS expects to have approximately $100 Million available to lend this fiscal year.

Authority: RESP is a program to be carried out by the Rural Utilities Service pursuant to Section 6407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 7 U.S.C. 8107a, as amended; and Section 769, Title VII, Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31, May 5, 2017.

a. Any public power district, public utility district, or similar entity, or any electric cooperative described in section 501(c)(12) or 1381(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that borrowed and repaid, prepaid, or is paying an electric loan made or guaranteed by the Rural Utilities Service (or any predecessor agency);

b. Any entity primarily owned or controlled by one (1) or more entities described in section C.1.a. of this NOFA; and

c. Any other entity that is an eligible borrower of the Rural Utilities Service, as determined under 7 CFR 1710.101.

a. To be eligible for a RESP loan, a newly created Eligible entity or an entity primarily owned or controlled by one (1) or more entities described in section C.1.a. of this NOFA must have a minimum equity position in the Energy efficiency program proposed to be funded with RESP at the time of the loan closing and the Eligible entity will be required to continue to maintain the minimum equity position for the period of time determined by the Administrator and as set forth in the loan documents. The required equity position and terms will be determined by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis based upon review of the risk profile of the Eligible entity and other security arrangements.

b. If the Administrator determines that the RESP Applicant under this section does not have acceptable equity, in the Energy efficiency (EE) Program at the time of application, the Administrator may consider the following to meet such shortfall regarding equity:

i. The infusion of additional capital into the EE program by an Investor to meet any shortfall. RUS may require that the additional capital be deposited into a RESP Applicant's special account subject to a deposit account control agreement with RUS prior to loan closing.

ii. An unconditional, irrevocable letter of credit satisfactory to the Administrator in the amount of the shortfall. RUS must be an unconditional payee under the letter of credit and the letter of credit must be in place prior to loan closing and remain in place until the loan is repaid.

iii. General obligation bonds issued by tribal, state or local governments in the amount of the shortfall. If the equity requirement is satisfied with general obligation bonds, any lien securing the bonds must be subordinate to the lien of the government securing the RESP loan.

iv. Any other equity requirements determined necessary by the Administrator to meet the shortfall.

Complete applications for loans to Eligible entities under this NOFA will be processed on a first-come-first served basis (queue) until funds appropriated to carry out RESP are available pursuant to Public Law 115-31, as amended by Public Law 115-141, and pursuant to Public Law 115-141. An Eligible entity that applied pursuant to the Notice of Solicitation of Application issued on June 21, 2016, or pursuant to the NOFA issued on November 20, 2017, and that is in the queue but has not yet been invited to proceed to closing, may notify the Administrator of its intent to participate in RESP pursuant to the new authorities granted by Public Law 115-141 regarding manufactured housing replacement and service territory. The Administrator may approve loans for the queued entities provided they still meet the all application requirements, pursuant to this NOFA. To be considered for this funding, Applicants must submit documentation no later than the dates set forth in this NOFA. The application process consists of two steps:

1. Step 1: Letter of Intent—To be considered for financing pursuant to this notice, an Applicant seeking financing must submit a mandatory Letter of intent with the following information. Applicants must submit all the information identified in the Letter of intent “Evaluation Criteria Checklist” available online at the following web address: http://www.rd.usda.gov/resp/. A sample Letter of intent is available online at the following web address: www.rd.usda.gov/files/RD-RUS-SampleLetterofIntent.pdf.

By submitting the Letter of intent, the Applicant certifies to RUS that it has the intent of submitting a complete RESP loan application on or before the date set forth as the application deadline in the event that RUS provides an Invitation to proceed. RUS will not consider Letters of intent where the project description exceeds five (5) pages. An Invitation to proceed with the loan application sent by the RUS is not to be deemed as an offer by the Agency. The Letter of intent must contain the following:

a. Applicant's Profile and Point of Contact—

i. Name and legal status of the Eligible entity and its address and principal place of business.

ii. The Eligible entity's tax identification number, DUNS and Bradstreet (D&B) number.

iii. Specify if the Eligible entity is a current or a former RUS borrower.

iv. Identify the service territory.

v. Identify the net assets value and specify if the Eligible entity has been placed in receivership liquidation, or under a workout agreement or declared bankruptcy or has had a decree or order issued for relief in any bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar action over the last 10 years. The Applicant must submit a copy of its balance sheet and income statements for the last 3 years. If applicable, the Applicant must provide the balance sheet and income statements for the last 3 years of the entity or entities providing equity or security for the RESP loan together with an explanation of the legal relationship among the legal entities.

vi. Identify a point of contact and provide contact information.

b. The description of the project must not exceed five (5) pages (size 8.5 X 11) and must include the following:

i. A description of the service to be provided to Qualified consumers.

ii. Identity of the staff or contractors that will be implementing the EE Program and their credentials.

iii. Implementation plan that briefly addresses:

A. The marketing strategy.

B. How the Applicant will operate the relending process.

C. A schedule showing sources and uses of funds to implement the EE Program.

D. A brief description of the processes, procedures, and capabilities to quantify and verify the reduction in energy consumption or decrease in the energy costs of the Qualified consumers.

iv. A list of eligible Energy efficiency measures that will be implemented. An Applicant with an existing Energy efficiency Program in place by April 8, 2014, may describe the Energy efficiency measures, its implementation plan, and its measurement and verification system for the existing program in its Letter of intent to expedite the application process.

c. The Applicant must provide evidence of its key performance indicators for the 5 complete years prior to the submission of the loan application if the total loan amount exceeds 5 million dollars.

2. Step 2: Loan Application—A RESP Applicant that has been invited in writing by RUS to proceed with the loan application, as provided in this NOFA, will have up to sixty (60) days to complete the documentation for a complete application. The sixty (60) day timeframe will begin from the date the RESP Applicant receives an email with RUS' Invitation to proceed. If the deadline to submit the completed application falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day. The Administrator may grant an extension of time to complete the documentation required for an application if, in the Administrator's sole judgment, extraordinary circumstances prevented the RESP Applicant from completing the application within the timeframe herein stipulated (60 days). An Applicant may not submit more than one application in this funding cycle for the same EE Program. However, one or more Eligible entities may submit their applications using the same EE Program model. In extending an Invitation to proceed to an Applicant in the queue, RUS reserves the right to meet overall RUS Program objectives and therefore, may notify the Applicant that the amount of financing to be awarded is below the level sought by the Applicant.

Instructions on how to submit the loan application package will be included in the RUS Invitation to proceed to the RESP Applicant. An initial conference call will be scheduled within 10 days from the date of the written invitation to proceed with the RESP loan application and a General Field Representative (GFR) will be assigned to assist the RESP Applicant during this part of the application process.

a. Loan Application Package—The RESP Applicant's application package must include the following documents:

i. Cover Letter. A signed cover letter from the RESP Applicant's General Manager or highest-ranking officer requesting a RESP loan under this NOFA.

ii. Board Resolution. A signed copy of the board resolution or applicable authorizing document approving and establishing the EE Program.

iii. Environmental Compliance Agreement. A copy of the duly executed Multi-tier Action Environmental Compliance Agreement (Multi-tier Agreement). A template of a Multi-tier Agreement can be found in Exhibit H of RD Instruction 1970-A, Environmental Policies and Procedures (http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/1970a.pdf). A copy of the Multi-tier Agreement will be provided to the RESP Applicant with the Invitation to proceed and discussed with the RESP Applicant in the initial conference call.

iv. Financial Forecast. A financial forecast approved by the applicable governing body of the RESP Applicant in support of its loan application. RUS encourages RESP Applicants to follow the format set forth in RUS Form 325, which may be obtained from a GFR. The financial forecast must cover a period of at least 10 years and must demonstrate that the RESP Applicant's operation is economically viable and that the proposed loan is financially feasible. RUS may request projections for a longer period of time, or additional information, if RUS deems it necessary based on the financial structure of the RESP Applicant and necessary to make a determination regarding loan feasibility. The financial forecast and related projections submitted in support of a loan application must include:

A. Current and projected cash flows.

B. A pro forma balance sheet, statement of operations, and general funds summary projected for each year during the forecast period. The requested RESP loan must be included in the financial forecast.

C. The financial goals established for margins, debt service coverage, equity, and levels of general funds to be invested in the EE Program. The financial forecast must use the accrual method of accounting for analyzing costs and revenues and, as applicable, compare the economic results of the various alternatives on a present value basis.

D. A full explanation of the assumptions, supporting data, and analysis used in the forecast, including the methodology used to project revenues, operating expenses, power costs, and any other factors having a material effect on the balance sheet and the financial ratios such as equity and debt service coverage. RUS may require additional data and analysis on a case-by-case basis to assess the probable future competitiveness of the RESP Applicant.

E. Current and projected non-operating income and expense.

F. An itemized budget and schedule for the activities to be implemented with the RESP funds and a discussion on how the loan loss reserve will be set up, the expected delinquency and default rates. The RESP applicant is expected to forecast the amount of loans to be made to Qualified consumers over a 10-year timeframe. If the RESP Applicant determines to charge interest, the RESP Applicant must describe how it is going to use the funds generated from the interest to be received from the loans to the Qualified consumers.

G. A sensitivity analysis may be required by RUS on a case-by-case basis.

v. EE Program Implementation Work Plan (IWP). The RESP Applicant must produce, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, an IWP, duly approved by the applicable governing body of the Eligible entity. The IWP must address all the following core elements:

A. Marketing. In this section the RESP Applicant will identify the qualified customers by market segment that will benefit from the funding available under this NOFA and explains the marketing and outreach efforts to be executed in implementing the relending program. In the identification of the marketing effort to the qualified customers, the RESP Applicant should provide racial and ethnic demographics for the service area or individuals.

B. Operations. In this section the RESP Applicant will describe its Energy efficiency program and how it will operate the relending process. The RESP Applicant must also identify the staff that will be implementing the program, including the tasks that each one will be carrying out, and whether or not it will be outsourcing some or all of the execution of the program.

The RESP Applicant must describe its expertise and the credentials of any third party implementing outsourced tasks to effectively implement the Energy efficiency measures at the scale contemplated by the EE Program for which RESP funding is requested. The statement of qualifications must show the party's experience carrying out the financial and technical expertise components of an EE program at the desired scale. The RESP Applicant will be held accountable to RUS for actions or omissions departing from the required standards by those partners or contractors, arising from or in connection with an EE Program funded under this NOFA.

In this section the RESP Applicant will identify the anticipated amount of special advance for start-up costs and purposes over the expected schedule to draw down the funds attributable to such purposes. In addition, the RESP Applicant will describe the expected schedule to implement the EE Program with an itemized allocation of expected resources including anticipated costs assigned to each task. The IWP must only include those activities and investments identified in the Multi-tier Agreement executed between RUS and the RESP Applicant. If any additional activities or investments are to be pursued, additional environmental review would be required.

The RESP Applicant must describe the processes and procedures that will be put in place to avoid a Conflict of interest in the implementation of the energy efficiency loan program for Qualified consumers.

C. Financials. The RESP Applicant must address the items identified in the Financial Forecast section of this NOFA, Section D.2.a.iv.

D. Measurement and Verification. The RESP Applicant must describe the processes, procedures, and capabilities to quantify and verify the reduction in energy consumption or decrease in energy costs of the Qualified consumers. An RESP Applicant may provide a measurement and verification plan approved by a state or local regulatory body or sponsored by a governmental entity. A measurement and verification plan developed and certified by an industry recognized professional or entity will also be acceptable. Other measurement and verification plans may be acceptable if the Eligible entity can support, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that the protocols and methodology used to verify the Energy efficiency measures are cost-effective and follow generally accepted industry principles and standards. An RESP Applicant with an existing EE Program as of April 8, 2014, may submit the measurement and verification plan previously established to fulfill this requirement.

vi. Articles of incorporation and bylaws or other applicable governing and organizational documents. The RESP Applicant must provide the Applicant's articles of incorporation or other applicable organizational documents currently in effect, as filed with the appropriate state office, setting forth the RESP applicant's corporate purpose; and the bylaws or other applicable governing documents currently in effect, as adopted by the RESP Applicant's applicable governing body. RESP Applicants that are active RUS borrowers may comply with this requirement by notifying in writing to RUS that there are no material changes to the documents already on file with RUS.

vii. Statement of Compliance with other federal statutes. The RESP Applicant must provide statement of compliance with other federal statutes, including but not limited to the following:

A. Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs. 7 CFR part 15, subpart A, Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture-Effectuation on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, RUS Bulletin 1790-1, “Nondiscrimination Among Beneficiaries of RUS Program.” Eligible entities must complete and submit RUS Form 266, Assurance Agreement.

• Signing Form RD 400-4 (Assurance Agreement). Each prospective recipient must sign Form 400-4, Assurance Agreement, which assures USDA that the recipient is in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 CFR part 15 and other Agency regulations. That no person will be discriminated against based on race, color or national origin, in regard to any program or activity for which the recipient receives Federal financial assistance. That nondiscrimination statements are in advertisements and brochures.

• Collect and maintain data provided by ultimate beneficiaries on race, sex, and national origin. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, “(62 FR 58782), October 30, 1997. These items should not be submitted with the application but should be available upon request by the Agency.

• The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.

• Civil rights compliance reviews will be conducted by the Agency at pre-award and post award. The results of the review should be documented on Form 9, Compliance Review, and appropriate documentation attached to substantiate findings of compliance or noncompliance. The original Form 9 should be maintained in the case file with copies forwarded to the Rural Development Program Compliance Branch. If the recipient is not in compliance, copies must be immediately forwarded to the Director, Civil Rights Staff, with a recommendation for action to be taken.

• RD Instruction 2006-P requires that a Civil Rights Impact Analysis be conducted prior to approving or implementing a wide range of Agency activities. The Agency will prepare Form RD 2006-38, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, on the recipient.

• Signing Form 400-1 Equal Opportunity Agreement in accordance with Executive Order 11246. The requirement of the Equal Opportunity Clause within a construction contract where federal financial assistance exceeds $10,000.

B. Standard Form 100—Equal Employment Opportunity Employer Report EEO-1. This form, required by the Department of Labor, sets forth employment data for Eligible entities with 100 or more employees. A copy of this form, as submitted to the Department of Labor, is to be included in the application for an insured loan if the Eligible entity has more than 100 employees.

C. Form AD-1049—Certificate Regarding Drug Free Workplace Requirements. This form is required as prescribed in 2 CFR parts 182 and 421, Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Financial Assistance). Information on all of your organization's known workplaces by including the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the award takes place. Workplace identification is required under the drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B of 2 CFR part 421, which adopts the Government-wide implementation (2 CFR part 182) of the Drug-Free Workplace Act.

D. Form AD-1047—Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters. This form is required in accordance with 2 CFR part 417 (Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension) supplemented by 2 CFR part 180, if it applies. See the section heading is “What information must I provide before entering into a covered transaction with the Federal Government?” located at 2 CFR 180.335.

E. Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to http://www.LEP.gov.

F. Lobbying for Grants, Loans, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements. The information on lobbying is required pursuant to 2 CFR part 418. The RESP Applicant should consult RUS before submitting this information.

G. Report on Federal debt delinquency. This report indicates whether or not the RESP Applicant is delinquent on any Federal debt.

H. Certify Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting Requirements. The RESP Applicant must certify to RUS that it is aware of and will abide by the accounting, auditing, and reporting requirements as described within the Federal Award Administration Information section of this NOFA.

I. Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS). The Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS Unique entity identifier and System for Award Management (SAM). Applicants must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number with their Letters of Intent and RESP Applicants with their loan application. Please see http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. RESP Applicants are required to be registered in SAM before submitting an application, provide a valid unique entity identifier in the application, and continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the entity has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. The agency may not make a Federal award to a RESP Applicant until the RESP Applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If a RESP Applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Federal awarding agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Federal awarding agency may determine that the RESP Applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another RESP Applicant. Applicants may register for the SAM at http://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM. To remain registered in SAM, the Applicant must review and update the information in the SAM database annually from the date of initial registration or last update. Applicants must ensure that the information in the database is current, accurate, and complete.

1. General—Loans made to RESP Applicants for eligible purposes under this program will be made only when the Administrator, in his judgment, finds that there is reasonably adequate security and the loan will be repaid within the time agreed.

The Administrator, on case-by-case basis, may set financial coverage ratios based on the risk profile of the RESP Applicant and specific loan terms. Those financial ratios will be included in the RESP borrower's loan documents with RUS. Existing RUS borrowers will be subject to their current debt service coverage ratios in their current loan documents, unless notified otherwise. A RESP Applicant must, after submitting a loan application, promptly notify RUS of any changes in its circumstances that materially affect the information contained in the loan application.

2. Letter of Intent Review—RUS will consider complete Letters of intent as they are received. Upon review of the Letters of Intent, RUS will issue a notification to the Applicant indicating the result of the initial screening. Letters of intent will be reviewed by RUS for the following:

a. Eligibility to participate in RESP in accordance with section C. of this NOFA.

b. Eligibility and feasibility of the project. Compliance with the purpose of Section 6407 to help rural families and small businesses achieve cost savings by providing loans to Qualified consumers to implement durable cost-effective Energy efficiency measures, provided that the Administrator may allow eligible entities to offer loans to customers in any part of their service territory.

c. The financial status of the Applicant to determine the Applicant's likelihood to complete the full application.

3. Loan Application Review

a. Loan Feasibility. Based on the complete application, RUS must have reasonable assurance that the loan, together with all other outstanding loans and other obligations of the RESP Applicant, will be repaid in full as scheduled, in accordance with the loan documents. In making a finding of loan feasibility, RUS will consider, among others: (i) That expected amount of loans and loan amounts are based on reasonable assumptions and adequate supporting data and analysis; (ii) the interest rate, application fees, servicing fees and any other fees expected to be charged to the Qualified consumer per customer class; (iii) the projected revenues, expenses, and any other reliable financial information that could enable RUS to assess its ability to repay the loan within a term not to exceed 20 years; (iv) the ability of the RESP Applicant to meet the required coverage ratios; (v) such risk factors that may substantially impair the RESP Applicant's ability to operate a sustainable business; (vi) supplemental sources of funding to carry out the EE Program; (vii) management's experience implementing EE Programs at the expected scale; and (viii) the financial and management controls in place.

b. Loan Security. Loans will ordinarily be secured by a first and prior lien on substantially all the RESP borrower's property, and in any event will be secured by the best security position practicable in a manner which will adequately protect the interest of the Government during the repayment period of the loan. Collateral that is used to secure a loan must ordinarily be free from liens or security interests other than those permitted by RUS or existing security documents. RUS may in certain circumstances agree to share its first lien position with another lender provided the RESP loan is adequately secured and the security arrangements are acceptable to RUS. In such circumstances, RUS will consider entering into joint security arrangements with other lenders on a pari passu basis.

c. Loan Term. Amortization schedule must be based on a loan term that does not exceed 20 years from the date on which the loan is closed.

d. EE Program Compliance. Proceeds from a RESP loan may only be used for loans to Qualified consumers for the purpose of implementing Energy efficiency measures that decrease energy (not just electricity) usage or costs of the Qualified consumer by an amount that ensures, to the maximum extent practicable, that a loan term of not more than 10 years will not pose an undue financial burden on the Qualified consumer.

Proceeds from the interest charged to the Qualified consumers may be used to establish a loan loss reserve, and to offset personnel and program costs necessary to carry out the program. Nonetheless, under no circumstances will the RESP borrower be able to charge more than 3 percent interest rate to its customers. Loans made by the RESP borrower to Qualified consumers may not exceed 10 years.

Qualified consumers must ordinarily repay their loans to the RESP borrower through charges added by the RESP borrower to the electric bill associated with the property where the Energy efficiency measures are or will be implemented. The repayment mechanism adopted to implement an EE Program under RESP must not prevent the voluntary prepayment of the loan by the owner of the property. A RESP borrower may adopt any other repayment mechanism to carry out its EE Program with RESP proceeds as long as it can demonstrate that the proposed repayment mechanism has appropriate risk mitigation features and ensures repayment to the RESP borrower if the Qualified consumer will no longer be a customer of the RESP borrower.

Loans made by a RESP borrower to a Qualified consumer using RESP loan funds must require an Energy audit by the RESP borrower to determine the impact of the proposed Energy efficiency measures on the energy costs and consumption of the Qualified consumer. The RESP borrower may engage contractors to carry out the Energy audits necessary to fulfill this requirement. In so doing, the RESP borrower must engage contractors with adequate expertise to perform the Energy audits according to the applicable standards of the industry. The credentials of the energy auditors used or proposed to be used by the RESP Applicant will be subject to RUS review. RUS may reject a loan application or refuse to disburse loan proceeds to the RESP borrower that fails to demonstrate that the Energy audits will be or have been performed by qualified individuals.

4. Ancillary Provisions

a. Contractor's Expertise—Contractor's adequate expertise may be determined by using the following criteria:

i. Contractor's staff possesses a current residential or commercial Energy auditor or building analyst certification from a national, industry-recognized organization.

ii. Contractor's staff possesses proficiency in the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to conduct whole house assessments, building performance diagnostics and reasoning, and estimates of energy savings from improvement installations (via calculations or a modeling software tool) accredited by training and credentialing. The credentialing process must be at least as robust as those employed by nationally recognized certification bodies or suitable to meet or exceed the rigor of the standards of federal, state or local government entities.

iii. The contractor must demonstrate adequate capacity and resources to engage customers, conduct whole house assessments, building performance testing and diagnostic reasoning, and fulfillment of all program data collection and reporting requirements. This includes having access to satisfactory diagnostic equipment, tools, qualified staff, data systems and software, and administrative support.

iv. The contractor must be current and in good standing with all local registration and licensing requirements for their specific region and trade.

v. The contractor must employ or sub-contract to companies with workers who are qualified to install or physically oversee the installation of home performance improvements in compliance with local building codes and industry-accepted protocols.

vi. In the absence of fulfilling the first criterion under this subsection, the contractor for commercial Energy audits, must meet one of the following criteria:

A. Be a licensed professional engineer in the state in which the audit is conducted with at least one (1) year experience and who has completed at least two similar type Energy audits;

B. Be an individual with a four-year engineering or architectural degree with at least three years of experience and who has completed at least five similar type Energy audits; or

C. Be an individual with an energy auditor certification recognized by the U.S. Department of Energy through its Better Buildings Workforce Guidelines project. For related information please visit: http://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/workforce/better-buildings-workforce-guidelines.

b. Collateral. RUS generally requires that borrowers provide it with a first priority lien on all of the borrower's real and personal property, including intangible personal property and any property acquired after the date of the loan. For existing RUS borrowers, the agency may, at its sole discretion, rely on existing security arrangements with RUS. When a RESP borrower is unable by reason of preexisting encumbrances, or otherwise, to furnish a first priority lien on its entire system, the Administrator may accept other forms of security, such as a parent guarantee, state guarantee, an irrevocable letter of credit, or a pledge of revenues if the Administrator determines such credit support is reasonably adequate and otherwise acceptable in form and substance.

c. Appeal Rights. Applicants and RESP Applicants have appeal or review rights for Agency decisions made under this NOFA. Programmatic decisions based on clear and objective statutory or regulatory requirements are not appealable; however, such decisions are reviewable for appealability by the National Appeals Division (NAD). An Applicant and a RESP Applicant can appeal any Agency decision that directly and adversely impacts it. Appeals will be conducted by USDA NAD and will be handled in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.

d. Eligible Activities and Investments. A RESP borrower may provide financing to Qualified consumers to implement or invest in one or more set of Energy efficiency measures listed in this section. However, a RESP borrower may be able to fund other Energy efficiency measures if it can justify, to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the proposed Energy efficiency measure is cost effective and the technology is commercially available. Eligible activities and investments include, but are not limited, to:

i. Lighting:

A. Lighting fixture upgrades to improve efficiency.

B. Re-lamping to more energy efficient bulbs.

C. Lighting controls.

ii. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC):

A. Central Air Systems—Energy Star qualified equipment.

B. Economizers.

C. Heat pumps.

D. Furnaces—Energy Star qualified equipment.

E. Air Handlers.

F. Programmable controls.

G. Duct sealing.

iii. Building Envelope Improvements:

A. Improved insulation—added insulation beyond existing levels, or above existing building codes.

B. Caulking and weather stripping of doors and windows.

C. Window upgrades—Energy Star qualifying windows.

D. Door upgrades—door upgrades could include man-doors, and overhead doors with integrated insulation and energy efficient windows.

E. Materials listed in Appendix A to Part 440 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, 10 CFR part 440, Appendix A—Standards for Weatherization Materials.

iv. Water Heaters.

v. Compressed Air Systems.

vi. Motors:

A. High efficiency motors—motors with a rated efficiency beyond the Energy Policy Act standards.

B. Variable frequency drive.

vii. Boilers, dryers, heaters and process-related equipment or equipment not otherwise specified, e.g. commercial coolers and freezers.

viii. Energy audits.

ix. On or Off Grid Renewable energy systems if consistent with the statutory purpose of RESP.

x. Energy storage devices if permanently installed to reduce the energy cost or usage of small businesses and families within a rural area.

xi. Energy efficient appliance upgrades if attached to real property as fixtures.

xii. Irrigation or water and waste disposal system efficiency improvements.

xiii. Replacement of a manufactured housing unit with another manufactured housing unit, if replacement would be more cost effective in saving energy.

xiv. Necessary and incidental activities and investments directly related to implementation of an Energy efficiency measure.

i. General. RUS will disburse RESP funds to the RESP borrower in accordance with the terms of the executed loan documents. Excluding the special advance for start-up activities, all loan funds will be disbursed either as an advance in anticipation of consumer loans to be made by the RESP borrower; or as a reimbursement for eligible program costs, including consumer loans already made, upon the RESP borrower having complied with the loan conditions set forth in the loan documents. Within a 12-month consecutive period, any disbursements of loan funds to an RESP borrower must not exceed 50 percent of the approved loan amount.

ii. Loan Advances. The RESP borrower must provide to the Qualified consumers all RESP loan funds that the RESP borrower receives within one year of receiving them from RUS. If the RESP borrower does not re-lend the RESP loan funds within one year, the unused RESP loan funds, and any interest earned on those RESP loan funds, must be returned to the Federal Government and will be applied to the RESP borrower's debt. The RESP borrower will not be eligible to receive additional RESP loan funds from RUS until providing evidence, satisfactory to RUS, that RESP loan funds from a previous advance have been fully relent to Qualified consumers or returned to the Federal Government. RUS will disburse the RESP loan funds in advance only if the RESP borrower has established written procedures that will minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of RESP loan funds from RUS and their disbursement to the Qualified consumer, and the requests for advances made by the RESP borrower are limited to the minimum amounts needed and timed to be in accordance with the actual immediate cash needs to carry out the Energy efficiency program.

iii. Loan term for loans to Qualified consumers. Each loan made by the RESP borrower to a Qualified consumer may not exceed a term of 10 years.

iv. Unauthorized uses of funds. The RESP borrower must not finance the purchase or modification of personal property with proceeds from the RESP loan unless the personal property is or becomes attached to real property (including a manufactured home) as a fixture. The RESP borrower must keep adequate processes, procedures and records and must not commingle RESP funds with other sources of funding in the implementation of an EE Program.

1. General. A successful loan RESP Applicant will receive a Conditional commitment letter from the Administrator notifying the Applicant of the total loan amount approved by RUS; any additional controls on the its financial, investment, operational and managerial activities; acceptable security arrangements; and such other conditions deemed necessary by the Administrator to adequately secure the Government's interest and ensure repayment. Upon receipt of the acceptance of the loan offer from the RUS Borrower, RUS will begin to prepare the loan documents with the assistance of the Eligible entity. Upon completion of the loan documents, RUS will forward the loan documents to the RESP borrower.

Receipt of a Conditional commitment letter from the Administrator does not authorize the RESP borrower to commence performance under the award. All RUS requirements and loan conditions specified in the Conditional commitment letter must be met before the loan will be advanced. RUS will notify the RESP borrower when it is authorized to commence performance using RESP funds.

2. Loan Term. RUS will make loans to RESP Applicant under RESP for a term not to exceed 20 years from the date on which the loan is closed.

3. Interest rate. Loans made under RESP will not bear interest (0 percent) although indebtedness not paid when due will be subject to interest, penalties, administrative costs and late fees as provided in the loan documents.

4. Repayment. The repayment of each advance to the RESP borrower must be amortized for a period not to exceed 10 years. However, any special advances under a loan must be made during the first 10-year period of the term of the underlying loan and repayment of such special advance shall be required during the 10-year period with such period beginning on the date on which such special advance is made. A RESP borrower may elect to defer the repayment of the special advance to the end of the 10-year period. However, all amounts advanced on the loan by RUS to the RESP borrower must be paid prior to the final maturity which must not exceed 20 years. The RESP borrower is responsible for fully repaying the RESP loan to RUS according to the loan documents regardless of repayment by its Qualified consumers.

5. Financial Ratios. The requirements for coverage ratios will be set forth in the Conditional commitment letter and RESP borrower's loan documents with RUS. The minimum coverage ratios required of RESP borrowers, whether applied on an annual or average basis will be determined by the Administrator on case-by-case basis based on the risk profile of the RESP Applicant and specific loan features. Existing RUS borrowers will be subject to their current debt service coverage ratios. When new loan documents are executed, the Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, increase the coverage ratio of the RESP borrower if the Administrator determines that higher ratios are required to ensure the repayment made by RUS. Also, the Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, reduce the coverage ratios if the Administrator determines that the lower ratios are required to ensure the repayment of the loan made by RUS.

6. Equity Requirements. The required equity position would be determined by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis and will be set forth in the Conditional commitment letter and the loan documents as a condition to the RESP loan.

7. Opinion of counsel. An opinion of counsel is required at closing and must be acceptable to the Administrator, opining that the RESP Applicant is properly organized and has the required corporate authority to enter into the proposed transaction. It must also identify the proposed collateral to secure the RESP loan and certify that such collateral is free of liens or identify any issues that may arise for the Government regarding the securing and perfecting of a first and prior lien on such property comprising the collateral.

8. Loan Term and Conditions. The Administrator reserves the right to modify or waive certain requirements if the Administrator believes such modifications or waiver are in the best interest of the government and the Administrator has determined that the loan will be repaid in the designated time period and the security is adequate. Also, the Administrator, at his sole discretion, may add such terms and conditions in a loan under this NOFA to ensure the RESP loan is timely repaid and is adequately secured.

9. Administrative and National Policy Requirements. The items listed in this notice implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements, which include but are not limited to:

a. Execution of a RESP loan agreement and related loan documents;

b. Compliance with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in Section D.2.a.vii. (Statement of Compliance with other federal statutes) of this notice, and any successor regulations.

10. Reporting.

a. Performance Reporting. RUS will establish periodic reporting requirements. These will be enumerated in the loan documents.

b. Accounting Requirements. RESP borrowers must follow RUS' accounting requirements. These requirements, which will be specified in the loan agreement, include, but are not limited to, the following:

i. RUS accounting requirements include compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as well as compliance with the requirements of the applicable regulations: 7 CFR part 200 (for RESP borrowers, under this CFR Part, the term “grant recipient” will also mean loan recipient) or the system of accounting prescribed by RUS Bulletin 1767. The Administrator may modify the accounting requirements if, in his judgement, it is necessary to satisfy the purpose of Section 6407.

ii. RESP borrowers must comply with all reasonable RUS requests to support ongoing monitoring efforts. The RESP borrowers must afford RUS, through their representatives, a reasonable opportunity, at all times during business hours and upon prior notice, to have access to and the right to inspect any or all books, records, accounts, invoices, contracts, leases, payrolls, timesheets, cancelled checks, statements, and other documents, electronic or paper of every kind belonging to or in possession of the RESP borrowers or in any way pertaining to its property or business, including its parents, affiliates, and subsidiaries, if any, and to make copies or extracts therefrom.

c. Audit Requirements. RESP borrowers will be required to prepare and furnish to RUS, at least once during each 12-month period, a full and complete report of its financial condition, operations, and cash flows, in form and substance satisfactory to RUS, audited and certified by an independent certified public accountant, satisfactory to RUS, and accompanied by a report of such audit, in form and substance satisfactory to RUS. RESP borrowers must follow the 7 CRF 1773, Policy on Audits for RUS borrowers or 2 CFR part 200, subpart F audit requirements. The Administrator may modify the audit requirements if, in his judgement, it is necessary to satisfy the purpose of Section 6407.

Robert Coates, Electric Program, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 1568, Room 0257-S, Washington, DC 20250-1510; Telephone: (202) 260-5415; Email: [email protected].

Applicants may also consider the funding opportunities under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program, 7 CFR 1710, Subpart H.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, familial status, disability, limited English proficiency, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.ascr.usda.gov/ad-3027-usda-program-discrimination-complaint-form and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.

To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

a. Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410;

b. Facsimile: (202) 690-7442; or

c. Email: [email protected].

d. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

District Export Councils support the mission of US&FCS by facilitating the development of an effective local export assistance network, supporting the expansion of export opportunities for local U.S. companies, serving as a communication link between the business community and US&FCS, and assisting in coordinating the activities of trade assistance partners to leverage available resources. Individuals appointed to a DEC become part of a select corps of trade experts dedicated to providing international trade leadership and guidance to the local business community and assistance to the Department of Commerce on export development issues.

Nomination Process: Each DEC has a maximum membership of 35 appointed to staggered four-year terms. Because the CenCal DEC will be a new DEC, up to 17 members will be appointed from the date of appointment until December 31, 2019, and up to 18 individuals will be appointed from the date of appointment until December 31, 2021. All potential nominees must complete an online nomination form and consent, if appointed, to sharing of their contact information with the National Association of District Export Councils; trade and industry associations; and with Federal, State, and local government agencies with an interest in trade.

Eligibility and Appointment Criteria: Appointment is based upon an individual's international trade leadership in the local community, ability to influence the local environment for exporting, knowledge of day-to-day international operations, interest in export development, and willingness and ability to devote time to DEC activities. Members must be employed as exporters or export service providers or in a profession which supports U.S. export promotion efforts. Members include exporters, export service providers and others whose profession supports U.S. export promotion efforts. DEC member appointments are made without regard to political affiliation. DEC membership is open to U.S. citizens and permanent residents of the United States. As representatives of the local exporting community, DEC Members must reside in, or conduct the majority of their work in, the territory that the DEC covers. DEC membership is not open to federal government employees, or individuals representing foreign governments, including individuals registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Selection Process: Nominations of individuals who have applied for DEC membership will be forwarded to the Fresno USEAC Director for consideration. The Fresno USEAC Director ensures that all nominees meet the membership criteria outlined below. The Fresno USEAC Director then evaluates all nominations to determine their interest, commitment, and qualifications. In reviewing nominations, the Fresno USEAC Director strives to ensure a balance among exporters from a manufacturing or service industry and export service providers. A fair representation should be considered from companies and organizations that support exporters, representatives of local and state government, and trade organizations and associations. Membership should reflect the diversity of the local business community, encompass a broad range of businesses and industry sectors, and be distributed geographically across the DEC service area.

The Executive Secretary determines which nominees to forward to the US&FCS Office of U.S. Operations for further consideration for recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce. A candidate's background and character are pertinent to determining suitability and eligibility for DEC membership. Since DEC appointments are made by the Secretary, the Department must make a suitability determination for all DEC nominees. After completion of a vetting process, the Secretary selects nominees for appointment to local DECs. DEC members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce.

Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the government of the United States, the government of Canada, and the government of Mexico. There are established Rules, which were adopted by the three governments and require Notices of Completion of Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 78. For the complete Rules, please see https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/Article-1904.

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

The items of discussion at the Data Scoping webinar are as follows:

1. Participants will review SEDAR 58 stock identification recommendations.

2. Participants will identify potential data sources and discuss data needs and treatments in order to prepare for the Data Workshop.

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

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

Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

Coonamessett Farm Foundation (CFF) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on July 10, 2018, to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. The EFP would authorize vessels to test the efficacy of an extended link scallop dredge apron at reducing the capture of yellowtail and windowpane flounder and small scallops over the duration of four directed research cruises. The EFP would support research associated with a project titled “Development of an Extended Link Apron: A Broad Range Tool for Bycatch Reduction,” that has been funded under the 2017 Atlantic Sea Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program.

CFF is requesting exemptions that would exempt four commercial fishing vessels from the following regulations:

• Atlantic sea scallop days-at-sea (DAS) allocations at 50 CFR 648.53(b);

• Crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c);

• Dredge gear restrictions for minimum mesh size at § 648.51(b)(2) and gear obstructions at § 648.51(b)(4)(iii);

• Atlantic sea scallop observer program requirements at § 648.11(g);

• Access area program requirements at § 648.59(a)(1)-(3), (b)(2), (b)(4);

• Rotational closed area exemptions for Closed Area I Access Area at § 648.60(c), Closed Area II Access Area at § 648.60(d), and all four of the Nantucket Lightship areas at § 648.60(e)-(h); and

• Possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subpart B and subparts D through O, to allow temporary possession for biological sampling.

Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

The project would consist of conduct four, 7-day research trips for a total of 28 days-at-sea on limited access (LA) vessels fishing on Georges Bank. All trips will take place from September 2018 through June 2019. Vessels would complete approximately 55 paired, 30-minute tows per trip at a standard vessel speed of 4.8 knots. In addition to open areas, tows could occur in Closed Area I, Closed Area II, or the four Nantucket Lightship Scallop Rotational Areas. The four research trips would be centralized around areas with high yellowtail and winter flounder bycatch and in areas with a high abundance of harvestable size scallops mixed with pre-recruit scallops.

Vessels would fish two, 15-foot (4.57-m) Turtle Deflector Dredges; one dredge would be rigged with a standard apron while the other would be rigged with an extended vertical link apron. The project will alternate tows with and without the dredge over net over both dredges. Standard linking is defined as a single link between ring spaces, and the extended link is defined as two links linked together between rings. Both dredges would use 4-inch (10.16-cm) rings and a 10-inch (25.40-cm) twine top.

For all tows, the sea scallop catch would be counted into baskets and weighed. One basket from each dredge would be randomly selected and the scallops would be measured in 5 mm increments to determine size selectivity. Finfish catch would be sorted by species and then counted, weighed, and measured in 1 mm increments. Depending on the volume of scallops and finfish captured, the catch would be subsampled as necessary. No catch would be retained for longer than needed to conduct sampling and no finfish or scallop catch would be landed for sale. Table 1 contains an estimate of the finfish catch anticipated for the project.

CFF needs these exemptions to allow them to conduct experimental dredge towing without being charged DAS, and to deploy gear in closed access areas where concentrations of primary bycatch species are sufficiently high to provide statistically robust results. Researchers also need mesh size and gear obstruction exemptions in order to use the dredge net cover. Utilizing the dredge net cover will allow researchers to quantify fish that would normally escape through the gear during normal fishing operations. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel, and possession waivers will enable researchers to conduct finfish sampling activities. The project would be exempt from the sea scallop observer program requirements because activities conducted on the trip are not consistent with normal fishing operations.

If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

The subject amendment to Permit No. 21217 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

Permit No. 21217, issued on November 6, 2017 (82 FR 60968; December 26, 2017), authorizes the permit holder to import biological samples from up to 30 harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and 30 hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) from Canada to study the effects of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) on the fitness and immune function in two species of phocid seals. The permit holder is requesting the permit be amended to increase the number of samples imported from each species from 30 to 60 individuals and to include the import of samples collected during the 2019 field season in Canada. All other aspects of the permitted activities would not change.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the proposed activities are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of these applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Major topics include, but are not limited to, Salmon Methodology Review, Salmon Rebuilding Plan update, and preliminary Pacific halibut management for 2019. The groups may also address one or more of the Council's scheduled Administrative Matters and Ecosystem topics. Public comments during the webinar will be received from attendees at the discretion of the STT, SAS, and MEW Chairs.

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

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

The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on August 28, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. Other than the start time, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated. In addition, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS had determined that the issuance of the 2018-2019 IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review and signed a Categorical Exclusion memo in October 2017. Since the new 2019-2020 IHA covers the same work covered in the former 2018-2019 IHA, NMFS is relying on this same Categorical Exclusion memo for the issuance of this IHA.

On September 16, 2016, NMFS received an application from ADOT&PF for the taking of marine mammals incidental to replacing the city dock in Sand Point, Alaska. On April 11, 2017, ADOT&PF submitted a revised application that NMFS determined was adequate and complete. ADOT&PF proposed to conduct in-water activities that may incidentally take, by Level A and Level B harassment, nine species of marine mammals. Proposed activities included as part of the Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project with potential to affect marine mammals include impact hammer pile driving and vibratory pile driving and removal. We published a notice of a proposed IHA and request for comments on July 6, 2017 (82 FR 31400). We subsequently published the final notice of our issuance of the IHA on October 23, 2017 (82 FR 48987), making the IHA valid for August 1, 2018-July 31, 2019. The specified activities are expected to result in the take of nine species of marine mammals including harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), killer whale (Orcinus orca), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata).

On April 24, 2018, ADOT&PF informed NMFS that work would be postponed relevant to the specified activity considered in the MMPA analysis and construction will not start until spring of 2019. Therefore, ADOT&PF requested the IHA be re-issued to be valid from May 31, 2019 through May 30, 2020.

The 2018-2019 IHA covered the construction of a new dock in Sand Point, Alaska. Impact and vibratory driving of piles and vibratory pile removal were expected to take place over a total of approximately 32 working days within a 5-month window from August 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. However, due to the potential for unexpected delays, up to 40 working days may be required. The new dock would be supported by approximately 52 round, 30-inch-diameter, 100-foot-long permanent steel pipe piles. Fender piles installed at the dock face would consist of 8 round, 24-inch-diameter, 80-foot-long permanent steel pipe piles. The single mooring dolphin would consist of 3 round, 24-inch-diameter, 120-foot-long permanent battered steel pipe piles. This equates to a total of 63 permanent piles. Up to 90 temporary piles would be installed and removed during construction of the dock and would be either H-piles or pipe piles with a diameter of less than 24 inches.

NMFS refers the reader to the documents related to the previously issued IHA for more detailed description of the project activities. These previous documents include the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2018-2019 IHA for ADOT&PF's Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project (82 FR 48987; October 23, 2017), ADOT&PF's application, the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (82 FR 31400; July 6, 2017) and all associated references and documents.

Detailed Description of the Action—A detailed description of the proposed vibratory and impact pile driving activities at Sand Point City Dock is found in these previous documents. The location, timing (including the August 1, 2019—December 31 2019 work window), and nature of the pile driving operations, including the type and size of piles and the methods of pile driving, are identical to those described in the previous notices.

Description of Marine Mammals—A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities is found in these previous documents, which remains applicable to this IHA as well. In addition, NMFS has reviewed recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and recent scientific literature, and determined that no new information affects our original analysis of impacts under the current IHA.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals—A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat is found in these previous documents, which remains applicable to this IHA. There is no new information on potential effects.

Estimated Take—A description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take anticipated to occur and, ultimately, the take that was authorized is found in these previous documents. The methods of estimating take are identical to those used in the previous IHA, as is the density of marine mammals. The source levels, were also unchanged from the previously issued IHA, and NMFS' 2016 acoustic technical guidance was used to address new acoustic thresholds in the notice of issuance of the 2018 IHA.

Description of Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measures—A description of proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures is found in the previous documents, which are identical in this issued IHA. The following measures would apply to ADOT&PFs mitigation requirements:

Establishment of Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving activities, ADOT&PF will establish a shutdown zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). In this case, shutdown zones are intended to contain areas in which SPLs equal or exceed acoustic injury criteria for some authorized species, based on NMFS' acoustic technical guidance published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2016 (81 FR 51693).

Establishment of Monitoring Zones—ADOT&PF will identify Level A take zones which are areas beyond the shutdown zones where animals may be exposed to sound levels that could result in permanent threshold shift (PTS). During impact installation of 30-inch and 24-inch piles, a 100-meter shutdown zone would not be sufficient to prevent Level A take of low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., humpback whales), high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoises), or phocid pinnipeds (i.e., harbor seals). For this reason, Level A take for small numbers of humpback whales, harbor porpoises, and harbor seals is authorized. To account for potential variations in daily productivity during impact installation, isopleths were calculated for different numbers of piles that could be installed each day. ADOT&PF will identify Level B disturbance zones which are areas where SPLs equal or exceed 160 dB rms for impact driving and 120 dB rms during vibratory driving. Observation of monitoring zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area and outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. NMFS has established monitoring protocols described in the Federal Register notice of the issuance (82 FR 48987; October 23, 2017) which are based on the distance and size of the monitoring and shutdown zones. The same protocols are contained in this 2019-2020 IHA.

Soft Start—The use of a soft-start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors will be required to implement soft start procedures. Soft Start is not required during vibratory pile driving and removal activities.

Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, the observer will observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal has left the zone or has not been observed for 30 minutes for medium and large-sized odontocetes and mysticetes and 15 minutes for small cetaceans and pinnipeds.

Visual Marine Mammal Observation—Monitoring will be conducted by qualified marine mammal observers (MMOs), who are trained biologists, with minimum qualifications described in the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2018-2019 IHA (82 FR 48987; October 23, 2017). In order to effectively monitor the pile driving monitoring zones, two MMOs will be positioned at the best practical vantage point(s). If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' ability to make observations within 100 m of the pile driving activity (e.g., excessive wind or fog), pile installation and removal will cease. Pile driving will not be initiated until the entire shutdown zone is visible. MMOs shall record specific information on the sighting forms as described in the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2018-2019 IHA (82 FR 48987; October 23, 2017). At the conclusion of the in-water construction work, ADOT&PF will provide NMSF with a monitoring report which includes summaries of recorded takes and estimates of the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.

ADOT&PF proposes to conduct activities identical to those covered in the previous 2018 IHA. As described above, the number of estimated takes of the same stocks of marine mammals is the same as those authorized in the 2018 IHA that were found to meet the negligible impact and small numbers standards. The authorized take of marine mammal species is shown in Table 1. Our analysis shows that between <0.01 percent and 2.89 percent of the populations of affected stocks could be taken by harassment. Therefore, the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations.

Notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC's CBP Task Force. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings are located online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/partners#marine-fisheries-advisory-committee. The CBP Task Force reports to MAFAC and is being convened to develop recommendations for long-term goals to meet Columbia Basin salmon recovery, conservation needs, and harvest opportunities, in the context of habitat capacity and other factors that affect salmon mortality. More information is available at the CBP Task Force web page: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/columbia_river/index.html.

The Committee is convening to discuss feedback from CBP Task Force members as they shared provisional goals with their constituents and communities; drafting of their recommendations and report; and next steps for the CBP Task Force.

The meeting is scheduled for August 22, 2018, 1-4 p.m., Pacific Time by conference call and webinar. Access information for the public will be posted at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/columbia_river/index.html by August 8, 2018.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Katherine Cheney, 503-231-6730 by August 8, 2018.

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 Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon, Queets coho salmon, Juan de Fuca coho salmon, Snohomish coho salmon, and Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon are now overfished. Pacific salmon stocks are overfished when the 3-year geometric mean of annual spawning escapement falls below the stock's minimum stock size threshold (MSST). MSST for Pacific salmon is generally defined as 0.5*SMSY or 0.75*SMSY, although there are some exceptions including Juan de Fuca and Snohomish coho, where MSST is 0.636*SMSY and 0.62 SMSY, respectively. SMSY is the number of spawners corresponding to maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The determinations for the two Chinook stocks are based on 2018 assessments—using data from 2017—produced by the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Salmon Technical Team (STT) using methodologies that have been reviewed by the Pacific Council's Science and Statistical Committee (SSC). The determinations for the three coho stocks are based on 2018 assessments—using data from 2016—produced by the Pacific Council's STT, using methodologies that have been reviewed by the Pacific Council's SSC.

NMFS has further determined that Upper Columbia River summer-run Chinook salmon is now subject to overfishing. This stock is subject to overfishing when the Fyear exceeds the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), where the MFMT is generally defined as less than or equal to FMSY. This determination is based on a 2018 assessment—using data from 2015—produced by the Pacific Salmon Commission's Chinook Technical Committee. Consistent with the requirements in the Salmon FMP, the Pacific Council has directed the STT to develop rebuilding plans for each overfished stock for the Council's consideration. Of the six salmon stocks, only the two Chinook stocks are not internationally managed stocks. For all other stocks, the Council has limited ability to control ocean fisheries in waters outside its jurisdiction.

Thorny skate and the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico stock of sandbar shark are still overfished. Thorny skate is overfished if the three-year moving average of the autumn survey mean weight per tow (B) is less than BTHRESHOLD, which is one-half of the 75th percentile of the mean weight per tow observed in the autumn trawl survey from the selected reference time series. A stock assessment was completed in 2017—using data through 2016—which supported the determination that thorny skate remains overfished. NMFS is working with the New England Fishery Management Council (New England Council) to implement conservation and management measures to rebuild thorny skate. The sandbar shark stock is overfished when current biomass (B) proxy is less than the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) (B < BMSST). The B proxy for sandbar shark is spawning stock fecundity. The sandbar shark determination is based on a stock assessment completed in 2018—using data through 2015—following the Southeast Data Assessment and Review process. NMFS manages sandbar shark under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan and its amendments.

The Gulf of Maine/Cape Hatteras Atlantic mackerel stock is now both overfished and subject to overfishing. Atlantic mackerel is subject to overfishing if the fishing mortality rate (F) exceeds F40%. The stock is overfished if spawning stock biomass (SSB) is less than 1/2 SSBMSY, the SSB associated with fishing at FMSY. This determination is based on a benchmark assessment, finalized in 2018 and using data through 2016. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has been notified of its requirement to adopt measures to end overfishing and approve a rebuilding plan for Atlantic mackerel.

Agenda

The Whiting Advisory Panel and Committee will evaluate Amendment 22 (limited access alternatives) public hearing comments and impact analyses to recommend final action to the Council at its September meeting. The will also receive the Annual Monitoring Report for Fishing Year 2017 from the Whiting Plan Development Team. The Advisory Panel and Committee will review recommendations to streamline small-mesh multispecies fishery regulations and make final recommendations to the Council. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. 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 meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Thursday, August 23, 2018 through Friday, August 24, 2018

This two-day meeting is expected to focus on: (a) A presentation on uses of EM for recording interactions with seabirds; (b) an update about the Alaska Region Electronic Technologies Implementation Plan; (c) updates for ongoing research, funding, and regulatory comparisons relevant to trawl EM; (d) a review of the EM Workgroup cooperative approach; (e) drafting of a cooperative workplan for trawl EM; and, (f) a discussion of scheduling and other issues. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/observer-program/.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Elizabeth Figus, Council staff: [email protected] or through the mail: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. In-person oral public testimony will be accepted at the discretion of the chair.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

Coonamessett Farm Foundation (CFF) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on July 6, 2018, that would allow gear research to be conducted by vessels on compensation fishing trips associated with projects funded by the 2018 Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) program. The exemptions would allow commercial fishing vessels to exceed the crew size regulations at 50 CFR 648.51(c) to place a researcher on the vessel and temporarily exempt the participating vessels from possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subpart B and subparts D through O, for biological sampling purposes. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited, including landing fish in excess of a possession limit or below the minimum size.

Experimental fishing activity would test a one-way extended link gear modification in an attempt to reduce finfish bycatch and habitat impact in the scallop dredge fishery. Any modification would comply with existing scallop gear regulations. All trips would take place in scallop fishing areas open to scallop RSA compensation fishing.

Exemption from crew size limits is needed because a research technician would accompany vessels on the compensation fishing trips to collect catch data associated with the dredge modifications. The crew size exemption would be for approximately 120 days-at-sea and would be used in conjunction with a valid compensation fishing letter of authorization. The technician would only engage in data collection activities, and would not process catch to be landed for sale. Exemption from possession limit and minimum sizes would support catch sampling activities, and ensure the vessel is not in conflict with possession regulations while collecting catch data. All catch above a possession limit or below a minimum size would be discarded as soon as possible following data collection. Estimated catch totals for the experimental permit activities are listed below in Table 1. The proposed gear modifications are not expected to increase catch above typical commercial fishing practices and gears. All research trips would otherwise be consistent with normal commercial fishing activity and catch would be retained for sale.

If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) Performance Report.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0748.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 291.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,274.

Abstract: GAANN grantees must submit a performance report annually. In addition, grantees are required to submit a supplement to the final performance report two years after submission of their final report. The reports are used to evaluate grantee performance. Further, the data from the reports will be aggregated to evaluate the accomplishments and impact of the GAANN Program as a whole. Results will be reported to the Secretary in order to respond to GPRA requirements.

Minor changes have been made to the collection to clarify the intent of the questions and update the areas of national need. These changes did not alter the anticipated burden hours associated with this collection. There was a small increase in total burden hours based on the recalculation of the burden on public respondents.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

EPA has received an application to register a new use for a pesticide product containing a currently registered active ingredient. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on this application. Notice of receipt does not imply a decision by the Agency on this application.

EPA registration numbers: 59639-107, 59639-138, 59639-202. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0273. Applicant: The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient: etoxazole. Product type: insecticide. Proposed use: sweet corn. Contact: RD.

On March 12, 2018, January 29, 2018, and January 3, 2018, the District of Columbia (the District), State of Maryland (Maryland), and Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia), respectively, formally submitted, as revisions to their SIPs, a maintenance plan for the Washington Area. The maintenance plan includes NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Washington Area for the years 2014 (the attainment year), 2025, and 2030. Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking redesignation to attainment must be established, at minimum, for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEBs are the amount of emissions allowed in the SIP for on-road motor vehicles and establishes an emissions ceiling for the regional transportation network. The most recently approved MVEBs for the Washington Area originate from the attainment plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which EPA found adequate on February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9044). The maintenance plan includes two sets of NOX and VOC MVEBs, shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The MVEBs shown in Table 1 will be the applicable motor vehicle emissions budgets after the adequacy findings are effective. The MVEBs shown in Table 2 add a twenty percent (20%) transportation buffer to the mobile emissions inventory projections for NOX and VOC in 2025 and 2030. The MVEBs shown in Table 2 that include a transportation buffer will be used only as needed in situations where the conformity analysis must be based on different data, models, or planning assumptions, including, but not limited to, updates to demographic, land use, or project-related assumptions, than were used to create the first set of MVEBs in the maintenance plan (Table 1). The technical analyses used to demonstrate compliance with the MVEBs and the need, if any, to use transportation buffers will be fully documented in the conformity analysis and follow the Transportation Planning Board's (TPB) interagency consultation procedures.

Details about Participating in the Event: The public is invited to speak during the August 14 listening session. Those interested in speaking can sign up for a 3-minute speaking slot on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-community-engagement. Please check this website for event materials as they become available, including a full agenda, leading up to the event.

The PFAS National Leadership Summit: On May 22-23, 2018, the EPA hosted the PFAS National Leadership Summit. During the summit, participants worked together to share information on ongoing efforts to characterize risks from PFAS, develop monitoring and treatment/cleanup techniques, identify specific near-term actions (beyond those already underway) that are needed to address challenges currently facing states and local communities, and develop risk communication strategies that will help communities to address public concerns regarding PFAS.

The EPA wants to assure the public that their input is valuable and meaningful. Using information from the National Leadership Summit, public docket, and community engagements, the EPA plans to develop a PFAS Management Plan for release later this year. A summary of the North Carolina Community Engagement will be made available to the public following the event on the EPA's PFAS Community Engagement website at: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-community-engagement.

On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.

The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.

Report title: Single-Counterparty Credit Limits.

Agency form number: FR 2590.

OMB control number: 7100-NEW.

Frequency: Quarterly; event-generated for requests for temporary relief.

Respondents: U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs) with total consolidated assets that equal or exceed $250 billion, foreign banking organizations (FBOs) with U.S. banking operations and total consolidated assets that equal or exceed $250 billion, and the U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs) of such FBOs with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion. Based on data as of December 31, 2017, this respondent panel would include 10 U.S. BHCs, 12 U.S. IHCs, and 82 FBOs.

Estimated number of respondents: 104; 3 for requests for temporary relief.

Estimated average hours per response: 254 for ongoing and 1,273 for one-time implementation and 10 for requests for temporary relief.

Estimated annual burden hours: 237,982 (which includes 132,392 for one-time implementation and 30 for requests for temporary relief).

General description of report: The proposed reporting form would provide the Federal Reserve with information to monitor a covered company's or a covered foreign entity's compliance with the SCCL set forth in the final SCCL rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The report would comprehensively capture the credit exposures of a respondent organization to its counterparties in accordance with the SCCL rule. A covered company is any U.S. BHC identified as a global systemically important BHC (GSIB) under the Board's Regulation Q and any other U.S. BHC with total consolidated assets that equal or exceed $250 billion. A covered foreign entity is any entity that is part of the combined U.S. operations of an FBO with total global consolidated assets that equal or exceed $250 billion, and any U.S. IHC of such an FBO with total consolidated assets that equal or exceed $50 billion.

The reporting form first asks for general information about the respondent organization (e.g., the respondent organization's full legal name; the amount of its capital stock and surplus; whether the respondent would be considered a major covered company, major foreign banking organization, or major U.S. intermediate holding company under the final SCCL rule).1 The reporting form also permits any respondent that is an FBO to certify that it is subject to and complies with large exposure standards on a consolidated basis established by its home-country supervisor that are consistent with the large exposures framework published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The reporting form then requests data required to calculate the respondent organization's credit exposures and requires identification of counterparties by name and by entity type (e.g., sovereign entities, securitization funds). The form would require each respondent organization to report its top 50 counterparties.2

The FR 2590 includes nine schedules. Five of these schedules (Schedules G-1 through G-5) collect information related to the gross exposures of the respondent organization to various counterparties, as calculated pursuant to the methods in § 252.73 and 252.173, respectively, of the SCCL rule. A respondent organization must add the exposure amounts in the five G schedules to calculate its aggregate gross credit exposure.

A respondent organization would then calculate its net credit exposure by adjusting its gross credit exposures using Schedules M-1 and M-2, which collect information related to eligible collateral and other eligible risk mitigants (e.g., eligible guarantees), respectively, pursuant to § 252.74 and 252.174 of the SCCL rule.

The respondent organization must take into account special provisions in the SCCL rule that require aggregation of certain connected counterparties due to economic interdependence—meaning the underlying risk of one counterparty's financial distress or failure would cause the financial distress or failure of another counterparty, as indicated by the presence of certain enumerated factors in the SCCL rule—or due to the presence of certain control relationships described in the SCCL rule.3 Data relevant to understanding the presence of any relationships that require such aggregation are reported in Schedules A-1 and A-2.

In filling out the schedules described above, the respondent organization must report exposures by counterparty, with a single counterparty in each row. The reporting form requires each respondent organization to report its top 50 counterparties.

This schedule contains seven general gross credit exposure categories that are described in § 252.73, 252.75, 252.173, and 252.175 of the SCCL rule: (i) Deposits; (ii) loans and leases; (iii) debt securities or investments; (iv) equity securities or investments; (v) committed credit lines; (vi) guarantees and letters of credit; and (vii) securitization arising from the look-through approach.4 These gross exposures are summed together, by counterparty, in the final column of Schedule G-1.

This schedule collects gross credit exposures arising from repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements as provided in § 252.73 and 252.173 of the SCCL rule. It requires the respondent organization to identify the assets transferred and received in the transaction. Examples include sovereign entity debt, non-sovereign entity debt, main index equities,5 and cash. The penultimate column asks for the total gross credit exposure under bilateral netting agreements. The final column tallies the total gross credit exposure resulting from these transactions by counterparty.

This schedule collects similar information to that collected in Schedule G-2 with respect to securities lending and securities borrowing transactions. Again, the final column tallies the total gross credit exposure resulting from these transactions by counterparty.

Schedule G-4 requires the respondent organization to report the gross notional amount of its derivatives transactions—interest rate, foreign exchange rate, credit, equity, commodity, or other—by counterparty, consistent with § 252.73 and 252.173 of the SCCL rule. If the respondent organization has been authorized by the Board to use internal models to value such transactions, then it can report its exposures using the “Internal Model Method” columns.6 Another column in Schedule G-4 is available for a respondent organization to report gross credit exposures resulting from qualifying master netting agreements.7 All respondent organizations are required to complete the total gross credit exposure column.

Schedule G-5 collects information related to gross credit exposures that have been impacted by the risk shifting requirements of § 252.74 and 252.174 of the SCCL rule. Risk-shifting is required when a respondent organization employs five types of credit risk mitigants: (i) Eligible collateral; (ii) eligible guarantees; (iii) eligible credit derivatives; (iv) other eligible hedges; or (v) unused portion of certain extensions of credit. Risk-shifting may also be required in connection with credit transactions involving exempt counterparties.8 The final column aggregates the total gross exposure, by counterparty, due to risk-shifting.

Sections 252.74 and 252.174 of the SCCL rule permit a respondent organization to subtract the value of any “eligible collateral” provided by a counterparty in connection with a particular transaction from its gross credit exposure for that transaction.9 The value of all such eligible collateral is reported in Schedule M-1. Eligible collateral include, but are not limited to, sovereign debt, non-sovereign debt, main index equities, other publicly traded equities, and cash. The final column sums the total credit risk mitigation impact due to eligible collateral, by counterparty.

Schedule M-2 collects information related to credit risk mitigation techniques other than the receipt of eligible collateral used by the firm to reduce its gross credit exposure in a given transaction. Permitted credit risk mitigation methods, described in § 252.74 and 252.174 of the SCCL rule, are (i) eligible guarantees; (ii) eligible credit derivatives; (iii) other eligible hedges; (iv) unused portion of certain extensions of credit; and (v) credit transactions involving exempt entities. The final column sums the total credit risk mitigation effected by use of these techniques, by counterparty.

The reporting form contains a summary sheet that sums the respondent organization's aggregate gross credit exposure (as reported in the final columns of each of the five G schedules); calculates the respondent organization's aggregate net credit exposures by reducing its aggregate gross credit exposure by its aggregate credit risk mitigants (calculated by taking the sum of the final columns of the two M schedules); and divides the respondent organization's aggregate net credit exposure by its eligible capital base.10 The resulting ratio shows whether the respondent organization's aggregate net credit exposures comply with the limits of the SCCL rule.

Sections 252.76(b) and 252.176(b) of the SCCL rule require a covered company, a covered foreign entity, or U.S. IHC with total consolidated assets that equal or exceed $250 billion to aggregate its net credit exposures to counterparties that are economically interdependent—meaning that the underlying risk of one counterparty's financial distress or failure would cause the financial distress or failure of another counterparty.11 Those sections enumerate specific factors that those covered companies or covered foreign entities must consider in order to assess whether counterparties are economically interdependent. Such factors include whether 50 percent or more of one counterparty's gross revenue is derived from the other counterparty, or whether two or more counterparties rely on the same source for the majority of their funding.12 The SCCL rule requires that counterparties that must be aggregated be treated as a single counterparty (reported in Schedule A-1 as an “interconnected counterparty group”) for purposes of the aggregate net credit exposure limits of the SCCL rule. Schedule A-1 requires the respondent organization to provide its aggregate net credit exposure to each member of the interconnected counterparty group (one per column). The final column of Schedule A-1 sums the total net credit exposure of the respondent organization to each connected counterparty group.

Sections 252.76(c) and 252.176(c) of the SCCL rule require a covered company, a covered foreign entity, or U.S. IHC with total consolidated assets that equal or exceed $250 billion to aggregate exposures to counterparties due to the presence of certain control relationships.13 These sections require that counterparties that are connected by certain specified control relationships must be treated as a single counterparty (reported in Schedule A-2 as a “control counterparty group”) for purposes of the aggregate net credit exposure limits of the SCCL rule. Schedule A-2 requires the respondent organization to provide its aggregate net credit exposure to each member of the control counterparty group (one per column). The final column of Schedule A-2 sums the total net credit exposure of the respondent organization to each control counterparty group.

In addition, certain provisions in the SCCL rule permit a covered company or covered foreign entity to request temporary relief from specific requirements of the rule. Specifically, the SCCL rule permits a covered company or covered foreign entity to request temporary relief from requirements to aggregate one or more counterparties even if one or more factors indicating economic interdependence or control relationships are met, subject to certain conditions, including that such relief be in the public interest and consistent with the purpose of the rule.14 The SCCL rule also permits a covered company or covered foreign entity that is not in compliance with the requirements of the rule to request a special temporary credit exposure limit exemption from the Board to permit continued credit transactions with that counterparty, based upon a finding that those transactions are necessary or appropriate to preserve the safety and soundness of the covered company or U.S. financial stability.15

Legal authorization and confidentiality: Section 165(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(e)) and section 5(c)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)(1)) authorize the Board to require these BHCs, FBOs, and U.S. IHCs to file a reporting form such as the proposed FR 2590 with the Board. The proposed FR 2590 would be mandatory for U.S. BHCs with total consolidated assets that equal or exceed $250 billion, FBOs with U.S. banking operations and total consolidated assets that equal or exceed $250 billion, and U.S. IHCs of such FBOs with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets.

The data collected on this proposed form includes financial information that is not normally disclosed by the respondent organizations, the release of which would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent organization if made publicly available. Therefore, the data collected on this form would be kept confidential under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects from disclosure trade secrets and commercial or financial information (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

Regarding notices associated with requests for temporary relief from specific requirements of the SCCL rule, a firm that wishes information in these notices to be kept confidential in accordance with exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) may request confidential treatment under the Board's rules regarding confidential treatment of information at 12 CFR 261.15. The Board's Legal Division will be asked to review the confidentiality status of such notices.

The mission of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is to promote competition and to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices. In support of pursuing a vigorous law enforcement agenda, the FTC engages in substantial research to stay informed of market developments, shape its policy agenda, and identify opportunities to develop the law consistent with its enforcement authority. Beginning in September 2018, the FTC will hold a series of multi-day, multi-part public hearings (“hearings”) to consider whether broad-based changes in the economy, evolving business practices, new technologies, or international developments might require adjustments to competition and consumer protection law, enforcement priorities, and policy. The hearings pay tribute to, and are modeled after, the FTC's 1995 Global Competition and Innovation Hearings under the leadership of then-Chairman Robert Pitofsky. Chairman Pitofsky's hearings “were the first major step in establishing the FTC as a key modern center for . . . `competition policy research and development' ” and “sought to `articulate recommendations that would effectively ensure the competitiveness of U.S. markets without imposing unnecessary costs on private parties or governmental processes.' ” 1 They “re-energized one of the FTC's most valuable functions—to gather leaders in business, economics, law, and related disciplines to discuss tough, emerging problems and prepare public reports on the facts, issues, governing law, and the need, as appropriate, for change.” 2 Subsequent to the hearings, the Commission released two staff reports “Anticipating the 21st Century” on competition and consumer protection policy, respectively.3 This new series of hearings honors Chairman Pitofsky's legacy, and complements and enhances the agency's robust enforcement program.

“The progress of the Federal Trade Commission in its modern era has built heavily upon the willingness of its people to assess their work critically and explore possibilities for improvement.” 4 The hearings and associated public comment process will provide opportunities for FTC staff and leadership to obtain input from a broad and diverse range of interested stakeholders and experts, and will stimulate thoughtful internal and external evaluation of the FTC's near- and long-term law enforcement and policy agenda. The hearings may identify areas for additional study, enforcement, advocacy, and policy guidance, including improvements to the agency's investigation and law enforcement processes.

The Commission will invite public comment in stages throughout the term of the hearings.

• Through August 20, 2018, the Commission will accept public comment on the topics identified in this announcement. Each topic description includes issues of particular interest to the Commission, but comments need not be restricted to these subjects.

• Additionally, the Commission will invite comments on the topic of each hearing session. The FTC will issue a news release before each session to inform the public of the agenda, the date and location, and instructions on submitting comment.

• The Commission will also invite public comment upon completion of the entire series of hearings.

The Commission is especially interested in new empirical research that indicates (or contraindicates) a causal relationship with respect to any of the topics identified for comment. Upon review and consideration of a public comment highlighting such research, the Commission may request the voluntary sharing of the data and models underlying the comment, in accordance with general principles of peer review of social scientific inquiry, and consistent with confidentiality or other limitations on the sharing of such data.

Commenters are invited to address one or more of the following topics generally, or with respect to a specific industry, such as the health care,5 high-tech,6 or energy 7 industries. (1) The state of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement, and their development, since the Pitofsky hearings. Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) The continued viability of the consumer welfare standard for antitrust law enforcement and policy; (b) economic analysis and evidence on market competitiveness, enforcement policy, and the effects of past FTC enforcement decisions; (c) the identification of new developments in markets and in business-to-business or business-to-consumer relationships; (d) the benefits and costs associated with the growth of international competition and consumer protection enforcement regimes; and (e) the advisory and advocacy role of the FTC regarding enforcement efforts by competition and consumer protection agencies outside the United States, when such efforts have a direct effect on important U.S. interests. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0048.

(2) Competition and consumer protection issues in communication, information, and media technology networks. FTC staff's 1996 Competition Policy in the New High-Tech Global Marketplace report 8 discussed the competitive analysis of both unilateral and joint conduct in industries subject to network effects; and FTC staff's 2007 Broadband Connectivity and Competition Policy report 9 addressed similar issues in the broadband internet access service market. Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) Whether contemporary industry practices in networked industries continue to present competition and consumer protection concerns like those discussed in the prior reports; (b) the welfare effects of regulatory intervention to promote standardization and interoperability; (c) the application of the FTC's Section 5 authority to the broadband internet access service business; and (d) unique competition and consumer protection issues associated with internet and online commerce. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0049.

(3) The identification and measurement of market power and entry barriers, and the evaluation of collusive, exclusionary, or predatory conduct or conduct that violates the consumer protection statutes enforced by the FTC, in markets featuring “platform” businesses.10 Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) Whether the platform business model has unique implications for antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement and policy; and (b) whether and how the presence of “network effects” should affect the Commission's analysis of competition and consumer protection issues in these markets. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0050.

(4) The intersection between privacy, big data, and competition.11 Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) Data as a dimension of competition, and/or as an impediment to entry into or expansion within a relevant market; (b) competition on privacy and data security attributes (between, for example, social media companies or app developers), and the importance of this competition to consumers and users; (c) whether consumers prefer free/ad-supported products to products offering similar services or capabilities but that are neither free nor ad-supported; (d) the benefits and costs of privacy laws and regulations, including the effect of such regulations on innovation, product offerings, and other dimensions of competition and consumer protection; (e) the benefits and costs of varying state, federal and international privacy laws and regulations, including the conflicts associated with those standards; and (f) competition and consumer protection implications of use and location tracking mechanisms. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0051.

(5) The Commission's remedial authority to deter unfair and deceptive conduct in privacy and data security matters. Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) The efficacy of the Commission's use of its current remedial authority; and (b) the identification of any additional tools or authorities the Commission may need to adequately deter unfair and deceptive conduct related to privacy and data security. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0052.

(6) Evaluating the competitive effects of corporate acquisitions and mergers. Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) The economic and legal analysis of vertical and conglomerate mergers; (b) whether the doctrine of potential competition is sufficient to identify and analyze the competitive effects (if any) associated with the acquisition of a firm that may be a nascent competitive threat; (c) the analysis of acquisitions and holding of a non-controlling ownership interest in competing companies; (d) the identification and evaluation of the exercise of monopsony power and buyer-power as arising from consolidation; (e) the identification and evaluation of differentiated but potentially competing technologies, and of disruptive or generational changes in technology, and how such technologies affect competitive effects analysis; and (f) empirical validation of the analytical tools used to evaluate acquisitions and mergers (e.g., models of upward pricing pressure, gross upward pricing pressure, net innovation pressure, critical loss analysis, compensating marginal cost reduction, merger simulation, natural experiments, and empirical estimation of demand systems). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0053.

(7) The evidence and analysis of monopsony power, including but not limited to, in labor markets. Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) The analytic framework applied to conduct and transactions that negatively or positively affect competition between employers as buyers in labor markets; (b) evidence regarding the existence and exercise of buyer monopsony or market power in properly defined markets, including by employers in labor markets; (c) the exercise of monopsony power through collusion, including in labor markets through employer collusion; and (d) the use of non-competition agreements and the conditions under which their use may be inconsistent with the antitrust laws. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0054.

(8) The role of intellectual property and competition policy in promoting innovation. The Commission has taken a dual-pronged approach to issues arising at the intersection of intellectual property and antitrust law: (1) Antitrust enforcement against harmful business conduct involving intellectual property; and (2) competition advocacy regarding the development of intellectual property law. The Commission has articulated its enforcement positions in a number of public documents, including the joint Commission and Department of Justice 2017 Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property 12 and 2007 Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights report.13 The Commission has engaged in substantial competition advocacy with respect to the legal and policy regime related to intellectual property rights, including its three “IP” reports: The 2003 To Promote Innovation 14 report, the 2011 Evolving IP Marketplace 15 report, and the 2016 Patent Assertion Entity Activity 16 report. Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) The adoption and utilization of novel business practices (beyond those addressed in the Commission's prior guidance and actions) 17 with respect to obtaining or enforcing intellectual property rights, where such practices may be inconsistent with the antitrust laws; (b) identification of contemporary patent doctrine that substantially affects innovation and raises the greatest challenges for competition policy; (c) evaluation of intellectual property litigation in competitive effects analysis; and (d) evaluation of efficiencies and entry considerations in technology markets in merger analysis. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0055.

(9) The consumer welfare implications associated with the use of algorithmic decision tools, artificial intelligence, and predictive analytics. Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) The welfare effects and privacy implications associated with the application of these technologies to consumer advertising and marketing campaigns; (b) the welfare implications associated with use of these technologies in the determination of a firm's pricing and output decisions; and (c) whether restrictions on the use of computer and machine learning and data analytics affect innovation or consumer rights and opportunities in existing or future markets, or in the development of new business models. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0056.

(10) The interpretation and harmonization of state and federal statutes and regulations that prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) Whether and to what extent other enforcement entities authorized to prosecute unfair or deceptive acts and practices apply FTC precedent in their enforcement efforts; and (b) whether the Commission can, and to what extent it should, take steps to promote harmonization between the FTC Act and similar statutes. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0057.

(11) The agency's investigation, enforcement and remedial processes. Of particular interest to the Commission: (a) Whether the agency's investigative process can be improved without diminishing the ability of the Commission to identify and prosecute prohibited conduct; (b) the extent to which the Commission's Part 3 process facilitates timely and efficient administrative litigation; (c) the efficacy of the Commission's current use of its remedial authority; and (d) willingness of affected parties to cooperate with the Commission in conducting post-investigation and enforcement retrospectives. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0058.

Public Comments: Interested parties may submit written comments on the topics listed above to the FTC. Electronic submission is preferred; comments in paper form are also accepted. FTC staff may use these comments in any subsequent reports or policy papers. Comments should refer to “Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Hearings, Project Number P181201.” If an interested party wishes to comment on multiple topics, we encourage filing a separate comment for each topic. If an interested party wishes to make general comments about the hearings, we encourage filing a comment in response to Topic 1, using this link: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0048. For this stage of the public comment process, comments will be accepted until August 20, 2018.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Hearings, Project Number P181201” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Because your comment may be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including, in particular, competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

If any entity has provided funding for research, analysis, or commentary that is included in a submitted public comment, such funding and its source should be identified on the first page of any submitted comment.

Visit the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. For this stage of the comment process, the Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before August 20, 2018.

The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, available at https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision/Renewal of a currently approved collection.

2. Title of the Collection—Subcontracting Plans.

3. Agency form number, if any: —— SF 294.

Written comments and suggestions from the public should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

This information collection requirement, OMB Control No. 9000-0007, currently titled “Summary Subcontract Report,” is proposed to be retitled “Subcontracting Plans,” due to consolidation with currently approved information collection requirement OMB Control No. 9000-0006, Subcontracting Plans/Individual Subcontract Report (SF 294) and ISRS, and 9000-0192, Utilization of Small Business Subcontractors.

This clearance covers the information that offerors and contractors must submit to comply with the requirements in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plans, regarding subcontracting plans as follows:

1. Subcontracting plan. In accordance with Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)), any contractor receiving a contract for more than the simplified acquisition threshold must agree in the contract that small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance. Further, 15 U.S.C. 637(d) imposes the requirement that contractors receiving a contract that is expected to exceed, or a contract modification that causes a contract to exceed, $700,000 ($1.5 million for construction) and has subcontracting possibilities, shall submit an acceptable subcontracting plan that provides maximum practicable opportunities for small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. Specific elements required to be included in the plan are specified in section 8(d) of the Small Business Act and implemented in FAR subpart 19.7 and the clause at 52.219-9.

2. Summary Subcontract Report (SSR). In conjunction with the subcontracting plan requirements, contractors with subcontracting plans must submit an annual summary of subcontracts awarded as prime and subcontractors for each specific Federal Government agency. Contractors submit the information in a SSR through the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). This is required for all contractors with subcontracting plans regardless of the type of plan (i.e., commercial or individual).

3. Individual Subcontract Report (ISR). In conjunction with the subcontracting plan requirements, contractors with individual subcontracting plans must submit semi-annual reports of their small business subcontracting progress. Contractors submit the information through eSRS in an ISR, the electronic equivalent of the Standard Form (SF) 294, Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts. Contracts that are not reported in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) in accordance with FAR 4.606(c)(5) do not submit ISRs in eSRS; they will continue to use the SF 294 to submit the information to the agency.

4. Written explanation for not using a small business subcontractor as specified in the proposal or subcontracting plan. Section 1322 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act), Public Law 111-240, amends the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(6)) to require as part of a subcontracting plan that a prime contractor make good faith effort to utilize a small business subcontractor during performance of a contract to the same degree the prime contractor relied on the small business in preparing and submitting its bid or proposal. If a prime contractor does not utilize a small business subcontractor as described above, the prime contractor is required to explain, in writing, to the contracting officer the reasons why it is unable to do so.

1. Subcontracting plan. Subcontracting plans are provided on a contract-by-contract basis for individual subcontracting plans. Individual subcontracting plans cover the entire contract period, including options. Commercial plans are provided on an entity basis and cover the fiscal year of the contractor. The time required for development of the plan (including commercial and individual plans) is estimated as follows:

Respondents: 4,350.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Total Annual Responses: 4,350.

Hours per Response: 5.

Total Burden Hours: 21,750.

2. Summary Subcontract Report (SSR). SSRs are submitted annually for all types of subcontracting plans. One SSR is submitted for each commercial subcontracting plan. For individual subcontracting plans, an SSR is required for every agency that funds work under the contract that the plan covers. Time required for reading, preparing information, and data entry into eSRS is estimated as follows:

3. Individual Subcontract Report (ISR). ISRs are submitted semi-annually for each contract with an individual subcontracting plan. The ISR consists of data for subcontracting under a given contract. ISRs are not required for commercial plans. Time required for reading, preparing information, and data entry into eSRS is estimated as follows:

4. Written explanation for not using a small business subcontractor as specified in the proposal or subcontracting plan. This explanation is submitted on a contract-by-contract basis. FPDS for FY 2017 identified 3,808 contracts with individual subcontracting plans and 542 entities awarded contracts with commercial plans, for a total of 4,350 plans for FY 2017. We estimate that at most 50%, or 2,175, of these contracts with subcontracting plans may have instances of the prime contractor not using a small business subcontractor to the same extent used in preparing the bid or proposal. We estimate two hours as the average time required to read and prepare information for this collection.

Respondents: 2,175.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Total Annual Responses: 2,175.

Hours per Response: 2.

Total Burden Hours: 4,350.

5. Summary.

Respondents: 30,312.

Total Annual Responses: 41,758.

Total Burden Hours: 92,010.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755.

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0007, Subcontracting Plans, in all correspondence.

A. Overview of Information Collection Description of the Information Collection

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision/Renewal of a currently approved collection.

2. Title of the Collection: Travel Costs.

3. Agency form number, if any: N/A.

Written comments and suggestions from the public should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

This information collection requirement, OMB Control No. 9000-0079, currently titled “Corporate Aircraft Costs,” is proposed to be retitled “Travel Costs,” due to consolidation with currently approved information collection requirement OMB Control No. 9000-0088, Travel Costs.

This information collection requirement pertains to information that a contractor must submit in response to the requirements in FAR 31.205-46:

1. FAR 31.205-46(a)(3)—In special or unusual situations, costs incurred by a contractor for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses, may exceed on a daily basis the per diem rates in effect as set forth in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) for travel in the conterminous 48 United States. The actual costs may be allowed only if the contractor provides the following:

a. FAR 31.205-46(a)(3)(ii)—A written justification for use of the higher amounts approved by an officer of the contractor's organization or designee to ensure that the authority is properly administered and controlled to prevent abuse.

b. FAR 31.205-46(a)(3)(iii)—Advance approval from the contracting officer if it becomes necessary to exercise the authority to use the higher actual expense method repetitively or on a continuing basis in a particular area.

c. FAR 31.205-46(a)(3)(iv)—Documentation to support actual costs incurred including a receipt for each expenditure of $75.00 or more.

2. FAR 31.205-46(c) requires firms to maintain and make available manifest/logs for all flights on company aircraft. As a minimum, the manifest/log must indicate:

a. Date, time, and points of departure;

b. Destination, date, and time of arrival;

c. Name of each passenger and relationship to the contractor

d. Authorization for trip; and

e. Purpose of trip.

The information required by (a) and (b) and the name of each passenger (required by (c)) are recordkeeping requirements already established by Federal Aviation Administration regulations. This information, plus the additional required information, is needed to ensure that costs of owned, chartered, or leased aircraft are properly charged against Government contracts and that directly associated costs of unallowable activities are not charged to Government contracts.

DoD, GSA and NASA analyzed the FY 2017 data from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) to develop the estimated burden hours for this information collection.

1. FAR 31.205-46(a)(3)—Actual travel costs.

Respondents: 3,247.

Responses Per Respondent: 10.

Total Annual Responses: 32,470.

Hours Per Response: 0.25.

Total Burden Hours: 8,118.

2. FAR 31.205-46(c)—Manifest/logs for flights on company aircraft.

Number of recordkeepers: 797.

Records per recordkeeper per year: 3.

Total annual records: 2,391.

Estimated hours per record: 2.0.

Total recordkeeping burden hours: 4,782.

3. Total (counting recordkeepers with respondents).

Recordkeepers and respondents: 4,044.

Responses: 34,861.

Hours (reporting and recordkeeping): 12,900.

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

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755.

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0079, Travel Costs, in all correspondence.

Government contracting officers may include Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.222-32, Construction Wage Rate Requirements—Price Adjustment (Actual Method), in fixed-price solicitations and contracts subject to the Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute under certain conditions. The conditions are that the solicitation or contract contains option provisions to extend the term of the contract and the contracting officer determines that the most appropriate method to adjust the contract price at option exercise is to use a computation method based on the actual increase or decrease from a new or revised Department of Labor Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute wage determination.

The clause requires that a contractor submit at the exercise of each option to extend the term of the contract, a statement of the amount claimed for incorporation of the most current wage determination by the Department of Labor, and any relevant supporting data, including payroll records, that the contracting officer may reasonably require. The information is used by Government contracting officers to establish the contract price adjustment for the construction requirements of a contract, generally if the contract requirements are predominantly services subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards statute.

A 60 day notice was published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 23278, on May 18, 2018. No comments were received.

The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) indicates that 5,309 construction contractors in FY 2017 could potentially have had contracts with recurring options. However, we believe there are only approximately 10% of these that would contain the subject clause, since most would not have a price adjustment clause, and there are other FAR prescribed price adjustment clauses.

The estimated total burden is as follows:

Respondents: 531.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Total Annual Responses: 531.

Hours per Response: 40.

Total Burden Hours: 21,240.

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

Frequency: Annually.

Obtaining Copies: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0154, Construction Wage Rate Requirements—Price Adjustment (Actual Method), in all correspondence.

Authority:

42 CFR 83.9-83.12.

Pursuant to 42 CFR 83.12, the initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

Facility: Superior Steel Company.

Location: Carnegie, Pennsylvania.

Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All workers who worked at all locations at the Superior Steel Co. in Carnegie, PA from January 1, 1952 through December 31, 1957.

Period of Employment: January 1, 1952 through December 31, 1957.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Nonclinical Testing of Orally Inhaled Nicotine-Containing Drug Products.” This document provides guidance on the nonclinical information FDA recommends to support development and approval of orally inhaled nicotine-containing drug products for smoking cessation and other chronic uses.

The recommended nonclinical assessment as outlined in the guidance addresses safety of novel components of the drug product formulation, novel chemicals generated from any component of the drug product formulation by the delivery system, and novel impurities. As used in the guidance, the phrase novel component of the formulation refers to active and inactive ingredients intentionally added to the drug product that have not been approved in drugs at an equal or greater dose, for an equal or greater duration of use, or by a relevant route of administration sufficient to characterize toxicity via local and systemic exposure. FDA expects that in many cases use of the delivery system will generate novel chemicals (e.g., heat-generated products).

Orally inhaled nicotine-containing drug products developed for smoking cessation and other chronic uses are expected to involve continuous use or chronic intermittent use resulting in 6 months or more exposure over a lifetime. Because of the duration of use, the nonclinical assessment for marketing approval should include general toxicity studies, developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, an assessment of carcinogenic potential, and supporting toxicokinetic and pharmacokinetic studies.

FDA is aware of the serious risk associated with smoking and is committed to facilitating the development of therapies to support smoking cessation efforts. This guidance focuses on novel components of the drug product formulation, heat-generated products, and impurities that are generally not well characterized. Orally inhaled nicotine-containing tobacco products, including electronic nicotine delivery systems currently marketed in the United States, have already been associated with toxicity concerns (Refs 1-4). An adequate nonclinical assessment, as described in this guidance, can address the potential toxicity of chemicals from orally inhaled nicotine-containing drug products. As noted in the guidance, sponsors can use an alternative approach if that approach provides adequate safety information.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on nonclinical testing of orally inhaled nicotine-containing drug products. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information resulting from special protocol assessments have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0470.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

The following reference marked with an asterisk (*) is on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it also is available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. References without asterisks are not on display because they have copyright restriction, or they are available as published articles and books. Please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule a date to inspect references without asterisks.

Christian Kreipke, Ph.D., Wayne State University: ORI issued a charge letter enumerating findings of research misconduct and proposing HHS administrative actions. Dr. Kreipke (“Respondent”) subsequently requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Departmental Appeals Board to dispute these findings. A hearing before the ALJ was held on July 10-12, 2017. On May 31, 2018, the ALJ issued his recommended decision, finding that Respondent recklessly caused or permitted twenty-three (23) instances of research misconduct in his three (3) grant applications, two (2) articles on which he was the first listed author, and two (2) posters on which he was the first listed author. The ALJ held that appropriate administrative actions included a five-year debarment from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States and from eligibility for or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States referred to as “covered transactions.” 2 CFR parts 180 and 376. The ALJ held it was an appropriate administrative action to also impose a five-year prohibition from serving in any capacity to the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), including but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, or peer review committee, or as a consultant. The ALJ noted that ORI also had proposed that the publisher of certain articles be notified of the need to retract those articles and that retraction had already occurred by the time of his recommended decision.

Under the regulation, the ALJ's recommended decision went to the Assistant Secretary for Health, who did not modify it and forwarded it to the HHS Debarring Official, who is the deciding official for the debarment. The ALJ decision constituted the findings of fact to the HHS Debarring Official in accordance with 2 CFR 180.845(c). On July 13, 2018, the HHS Debarring Official issued a final notice of debarment to begin on July 13, 2018, and end on July 12, 2023.

Respondent's grant applications, articles, and posters in question examined the differential effects of endothelin receptor antagonists on traumatic brain injury-induced hypoperfusion of cerebral blood flow, neuronal cell injury, and cognition in rat animal models.

Respondent recklessly included falsely described images in the following grant applications:

Respondent recklessly included falsely described images in the following publications and posters:

• “Differential effects of endothelin receptor A and B antagonism on cerebral hypoperfusion following traumatic brain injury.” Neurological Research 32(2):209-14, 2010 Mar (“NR2010”). Retracted in Neurological Research 39(5):472, 2017 May.

• “Clazosentan, a novel endothelin A antagonist, improves cerebral blood flow and behavior after traumatic brain injury.” Neurological Research 33(2):208-13, 2011 Mar (“NR2011-1”). Retracted in Neurological Research 39(5):472, 2017 May.

• 2009 poster for a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) presentation: “Using endothelin-A antagonists to ameliorate hypoperfusion and cognitive deficits following brain trauma: towards a clinical trial” (“VA2009”).

• 2010 poster for a VA presentation: “Endothelin-1 receptor A antagonists improve neurologic and cognitive outcome following TBI” (“VA2010”).

The following findings of research misconduct were proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent recklessly included:

Thus, the research misconduct findings set forth above became effective, and the following administrative actions have been implemented for a period of five (5) years, beginning on July 13, 2018:

(1) Dr. Kreipke is debarred from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376) of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (2 CFR part 180); and

(2) Dr. Kreipke is prohibited from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGC Coast Guard Cutter EIS Environmental Impact Statement FR Federal Register NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PIBs Polar Icebreakers U.S.C. United States Code II. Background and Purpose

The U.S. Coast Guard's current fleet of polar icebreakers (PIBs) consists of two heavy icebreakers, Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) POLAR STAR and CGC POLAR SEA, and one medium icebreaker, CGC HEALY. The U.S. Coast Guard's heavy icebreakers have both exceeded their designed 30 year service life. CGC POLAR STAR was commissioned in 1976 and CGC POLAR SEA in 1978. CGC POLAR STAR began reactivation in 2010 and completed a service life extension in 2013 to allow CGC POLAR STAR to operate for an additional seven to ten years. CGC POLAR SEA has remained out of service since 2010 and is not expected to be reactivated. The current PIB program acquisition strategy is approved to construct up to three heavy PIBs and may (at a future date) potentially expand to include up to three medium icebreakers, with planned service design lives of 30 years each. The first of these new PIBs is expected to delivered in 2023. Because the first new PIB would not be operational in the Polar Regions until at least 2023, new information may become available after the completion of this EIS. In that case, supplemental NEPA documentation may, as appropriate, be prepared in support of individual proposed actions. Examples of new information may include, but are not limited to, changes to a species listing status or any other applicable laws and directives, and information regarding mission, training, homeporting, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of the new PIBs.

A new PIB would be designed to carry out the U.S. Coast Guard's primary missions supported by the current polar icebreaker fleet. Expected missions include Ice Operations, Defense Readiness, Aids to Navigation, Living Marine Resources, Marine Safety, Marine Environmental Protection, Other Law Enforcement, Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security, and Search and Rescue.

In executing its various missions, the U.S. Coast Guard protects the public, the environment, and U.S. economic and security interests in any maritime region, including international waters and the Nation's coasts, ports, and inland waterways, as required to support national security. Legislation and executive orders assign the U.S. Coast Guard a wide range of responsibilities applicable to Polar Regions. The U.S. Coast Guard derives its authority for the use of icebreaking from several statutes governing execution of its missions. These include 14 U.S.C. 81 (Coast Guard establishment, maintenance, and operation of aids to navigation), 14 U.S.C. 88 (Coast Guard saving of life and property), 14 U.S.C. 89 (Coast Guard law enforcement), 14 U.S.C. 90 (Arctic maritime transportation), 14 U.S.C. 91 (controlling anchorage and movement of vessels), 14 U.S.C. 94 (conduct oceanographic research), and 14 U.S.C. 141 (cooperation with agencies, States, territories, and others). In addition, Executive Order 7521 (Use of Vessels for Icebreaking in Channels and Harbors), 1 FR 2184, Dec. 24, 1936, directs the U.S. Coast Guard to assist in keeping channels and harbors open to navigation by means of icebreaking operations.

The U.S. Coast Guard proposes to conduct polar icebreaker operations and training exercises to meet Coast Guard mission responsibilities in the U.S. Arctic and Antarctic Regions of operation, in addition to vessel performance testing post-dry dock in the Pacific Northwest near the current polar icebreaker homeport of Seattle, Washington. The exact location for future homeporting has not been determined, but the current fleet of polar icebreakers is homeported in Seattle, Washington.

Polar Regions are becoming increasingly important to U.S. national interests. The changing environment in these regions could lead to a rise in human activity and increased commercial ship, cruise ship, and naval surface ship operations, as well as increased exploration for oil and other resources, particularly in the Arctic. One of the U.S. Coast Guard's highest priorities is safety of life at sea. This entails the Artic responsibilities described above as well as assisting with Antarctica logistics at McMurdo Station. Long-term projected increases in U.S. Coast Guard mission demand in the Polar Regions would require additional support from PIBs. A lack of infrastructure, polar environmental conditions, and long distances between operating areas and support bases all influence the U.S. Coast Guard's ability to provide comparable service and presence in Polar Regions as compared to that provided in other non-polar areas of operation with existing Coast Guard assets.

This EIS will analyze the potential impacts of up to six new PIBs, as this is the maximum number anticipated to be operational in the Polar Regions under the current PIB program acquisition strategy; A lesser number of icebreakers is expected to result in a similar or reduced impact than what will be discussed and evaluated in this EIS. Potential environmental stressors include acoustic (underwater acoustic transmissions, vessel noise, icebreaking noise, aircraft noise, and gunnery noise), and physical (vessel movement, aircraft or in-air device movement, in-water device movement, icebreaking, and marine expended materials).

The U.S. Coast Guard conducted scoping in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the NEPA (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) through public comment and public meetings. A summary of the scoping process can be found in the draft EIS.

We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final EIS is published.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

The Board will meet on Monday, August 27, and Tuesday, August 28, 2018. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.

The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States Fire Administrator, on the operation of the Academy and any improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine whether these programs further the basic missions that are approved by the Administrator of FEMA, examines the physical plant of the Academy to determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits a written annual report through the United States Fire Administrator to the Administrator of FEMA. The report provides detailed comments and recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.

On Monday, August 27, 2018, there will be five sessions, with deliberations and voting at the end of each session as necessary:

1. The Board will conduct a swearing in of new Board members and will then select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for Fiscal Year 2019.

2. The Board will receive annual ethics training and will tour the campus facility.

3. The Board will discuss deferred maintenance and capital improvements on the National Emergency Training Center campus and Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request/Budget Planning.

4. The Board will deliberate and vote on recommendations on Academy program activities, including:

• Fire and Emergency Services Higher Education (FESHE) Recognition Program update, a certification program acknowledging that a collegiate emergency services degree meets the minimum standards of excellence established by FESHE development committees and the Academy;

• The National Professional Development Summit Report held on June 13-16, 2018, which brought national training and education audiences together for their annual conference and support initiatives;

• The Managing Officer Program progress report, a multiyear curriculum that introduces emerging emergency services leaders to personal and professional skills in change management, risk reduction, and adaptive leadership;

• Program application selection results;

• The Executive Fire Officer (EFO) Program Symposium held April 6-8, 2018, an annual event for alumni which recognizes outstanding applied research completed by present EFO Program participants, recognizes recent EFO Program graduates, provides high-quality presentations offered by private and public sector representatives, facilitates networking between EFO Program graduates, promotes further dialog between EFO Program graduates and U.S. Fire Administrator and National Fire Academy faculty and staff;

• The EFO Program review initiative;

• Curriculum development and revision updates for Academy courses;

• Discussion on the approval process for state-specific courses;

• Online mediated instruction program update;

• Distance learning program update;

• Staffing update.

5. The Board will receive activity reports on the National Fire Incident Reporting System Subcommittee, the Professional Development Initiative Subcommittee, and four EFO Program Subcommittees: Admissions, Curriculum, Delivery and Design, and Evaluations and Outcomes.

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, the Board will receive updates on U.S. Fire Administration data, research, and response support initiatives and will conduct classroom visits. The Board will also engage in an annual report writing session. Deliberations or voting may occur as needed during the report writing session.

There will be a 10-minute comment period after each agenda item and each speaker will be given no more than 2 minutes to speak. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact Deborah Gartrell-Kemp to register as a speaker. Meeting materials will be posted at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/training/nfa/about/bov.html by August 17, 2018.

Why do we conduct 5-year reviews?

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we maintain lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species (referred to as the Lists) in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for wildlife) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species under active review. For additional information about 5-year reviews, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/recovery-overview.html.

This notice announces our active 5-year reviews of the species in the following table.

A 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review of each species, such as:

A. Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;

B. Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;

C. Conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species;

D. Threat status and trends (see the five factors under How Do We Determine Whether A Species Is Endangered or Threatened?); and

E. Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

We request any new information concerning the status of any of these 42 species. Information submitted should be supported by documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.

We expect we could conduct a species status assessment (SSA) for some of these species under review. An SSA is a biological risk assessment to aid decision makers who must use the best available scientific information to make policy decisions under the ESA. The SSA provides decisionmakers with a scientifically rigorous characterization of a species' status, and of the likelihood that the species will sustain populations, along with key uncertainties in that characterization.

It presents a compilation of the best available information on a species, as well as its ecological needs, based on environmental factors. An SSA also describes the current condition of the species' habitat and demographics, and probable explanations for past and ongoing changes in abundance and distribution within the species' range. Finally, it forecasts the species' response to probable future scenarios of environmental conditions and conservation efforts. Overall, an SSA uses the conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (collectively known as the “3 Rs”) to evaluate the current and future condition of the species. As a result, the SSA characterizes a species' ability to sustain populations in the wild over time based on the best scientific understanding of current and future abundance and distribution within the species' ecological settings.

A. Species means any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate which interbreeds when mature.

B. Endangered means any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

C. Threatened means any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the following five factors:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

C. Disease or predation;

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

To do any of the following, contact the person associated with the species you are interested in under the table in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. To get more information on a species;

B. To submit information on a species; or

C. To review information we receive, which will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the listed addresses.

Comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

All completed status reviews under the ESA are available via the Service website, at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html.

We publish this document under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

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

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

2. Title of the Form/Collection: The National Forensic Laboratory Information System Collection of Drug Analysis Data.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Medical Examiner/Coroner Office Survey; National Forensic Laboratory Information System Drug Survey of Drug Laboratories; and Toxicology Laboratory Survey for the component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Affected public (Primary): Forensic Science Laboratory Management.

Abstract: The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) collections provide the DEA with national databases on analyzed drug samples from law enforcement activities, antemortem toxicology samples (toxiciology laboratories), and post-mortem toxicology samples (medical examiner/coroner offices (MECs) from federal, state, and local laboratories. Specifically, NFLIS-Drug data provide DEA current, precise, and representative estimates of drugs seized by law enforcement and analyzed by forensic laboratories. Since 2001, DEA has had case and drug report estimates for all drugs reported in NFLIS that are statistically representative of the nation and of census regions. The estimates, which are made possible by updating the laboratory profiles through the survey effort (see draft survey in Appendix), have given DEA the ability to track national and regional drug trends; a clearer national picture of illicit or diverted drug availability; additional information about the temporal changes in drug availability by geographic region; and the ability to detect new or emerging drugs. Information from NFLIS is combined with other existing databases to develop more accurate, up-to-date information on abused drugs. This database represents a voluntary, cooperative effort on the part of participating laboratories and MECs to provide a centralized source of analyzed drug data. Existing federal drug abuse databases do not provide the type, scope, timeliness, or quality of information necessary to effectively estimate the actual or relative abuse potential of drugs as required under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811(b)) and international treaties in a timely and efficient manner. For example, much of the trafficking data for federal drug scheduling actions is presently obtained on a case-by-case basis from state and local laboratories. Occasionally scientific personnel from the DEA's Diversion Control Division, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, have contacted specific laboratories and requested files. In addition, some DEA field offices routinely subpoena MEC records for use in case work. The development of the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) greatly enhances the collection of such data. Submission of information for this collection is voluntary. DEA is not mandating this information collection.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The DEA estimates that 140 persons annually for this collection at 1.6 hour per respondent, for an annual burden of 218 hours.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the proposed collection: The DEA estimates that this collection takes 218 annual burden hours.

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

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: New collection.

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: Survey of State Attorneys General Offices (SSAGO)—Human Trafficking.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: SSAGO-2. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office of Justice Programs.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Respondents will be state attorneys general or deputy attorneys within the state and territory attorneys general offices who work on human trafficking matters. Abstract: Among other responsibilities, the Bureau of Justice Statistics is charged with collecting data regarding the prosecution of crimes by state and federal offices. This survey will be directed towards state and territory attorneys general offices regarding their jurisdiction over civil and criminal human trafficking matters. This is BJS's second survey of state attorney general offices, but the first survey from the Survey of State Attorneys General Offices (SSAGO) program. The survey collects data on the staffing of state attorneys general offices, including the total number of deputy attorneys general and access to support staff. The survey also collects information on the types and numbers of human trafficking matters referred to the state attorneys general offices, the sources of the referrals of human trafficking matters, the estimates of labor and sex trafficking cases, the types of victims in labor and sex trafficking cases, the types of offenders of labor and sex trafficking cases, the manner in which criminal and civil human trafficking cases were closed in court, and state attorneys general offices' participation in state and federal human trafficking task forces.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An agency-level survey will be sent to approximately 56 state and territory attorneys general offices. The expected burden placed on these respondents is about 25 minutes per respondent, with an additional 5 minutes to locate any additional persons within the office necessary to complete the survey.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total respondent burden is approximately 28 burden hours for the 56 respondents.

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

This matter is before the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) on motion of Multigroup Claimants (MGC) for entry of a consent order adopting the distribution shares proposed by the Settling Devotional Claimants (SDC) and ordering a final distribution of cable and satellite television royalty funds to be allocated to the Devotional Claimants category in conformity with those agreed shares.1 The SDC do not oppose the final percentage distribution.

The Judges find that the parties' agreement regarding the final percentage distribution ends any remaining controversy with regard to the subject funds over which the Judges have jurisdiction and that neither party retains a significant interest related to this proceeding. Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of a final distribution determination relating to the subject funds.

The Judges therefore order that the royalty shares proposed in the SDC's Written Direct Statement (Dec. 29, 2017) are adopted, and that final distribution of the cable and satellite royalty funds allocated to the Devotional category shall be in accordance with the following relative shares.

The Judges further order that, as the parties have presented this as an agreed determination, they have waived their rights to seek rehearing.

The Judges further order that this final distribution determination is without prejudice to the parties' right to appeal the Judges' interlocutory ruling in this consolidated proceeding with regard to both cable and satellite claims issues.

Upon issuance of this final determination, the Register of Copyrights (Register) shall have 60 days to conduct a statutory review. The Librarian of Congress shall review and cause this final determination, and any correction thereto by the Register, to be published in the Federal Register no later than the conclusion of the 60-day review period.

So ordered.