Federal Register Vol. 83, No.219,

Title: Servicing Minor Program Loans.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0230.

Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

Type of Request: Extension.

Abstract: Section 331(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONTACT, 7 U.S.C. 1981(b)), in part, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to modify, subordinate and release terms of security instruments, leases, contracts, and agreements entered by FSA. That section also authorizes transfers of security property, as the Secretary deems necessary, to carry out the purpose of the loan or protect the Government's financial interest. Section 335 of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1985) provides servicing authority for real estate security; operation or lease of realty; disposition of property; conveyance of real property interest of the United States; easements; and condemnations.

The information collection relates to a program benefit recipient or loan borrower requesting action on security they own, which was purchased with FSA loan funds, improved with FSA loan funds or has otherwise been mortgaged to FSA to secure a Government loan. The information collected is primarily financial data not already on file, such as borrower asset values, current financial information and public use and employment data. There are no changes to the burden hours since the last OMB approval.

For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hour is the estimated average time per responses hours multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.

Estimate of Annual Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .64 hours per response.

Type of Respondents: Individuals, associations, partnerships, or corporations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 58.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual of Responses: 58.

Estimated Average Time per Responses: 0.64 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 37 hours.

We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us:

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

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

(3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.

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

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

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

Public Call Information: Dial: 855-719-5012, Conference ID: 5202137.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

Census tracts are relatively permanent small-area geographic divisions of a county or statistically equivalent entity 1 defined for the tabulation and presentation of data from the decennial census and selected other statistical programs. The Census Bureau is publishing this notice in the Federal Register to announce final criteria for defining census tracts for the 2020 Census. Census tracts defined by these criteria will also be used to tabulate and publish estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2 and potentially data from other Census Bureau censuses and surveys.

In addition to providing final criteria for census tracts, this notice contains a summary of comments received in response to proposed criteria published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6941) as well as the Census Bureau's response to those comments. After publication of final criteria in the Federal Register, the Census Bureau will offer designated governments or organizations an opportunity to review and, if necessary, suggest updates to the boundaries and attributes of the census tracts in their geographic area through the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The program also encompasses the review and update of census block groups, census designated places, and census county divisions.

In 1905, Dr. Walter Laidlaw originated the concept of permanent, small geographic areas as a framework for studying change from one decennial census to another in neighborhoods within New York City. For the 1910 Census, eight cities—New York, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis—delineated census tracts (then termed “districts”) for the first time. No additional jurisdictions delineated census tracts until just prior to the 1930 Census, when an additional ten cities chose to do so. The increased interest in census tracts for the 1930 Census is attributed to the promotional efforts of Howard Whipple Green, who was a statistician in Cleveland, Ohio, and later the chairman of the American Statistical Association's Committee on Census Enumeration Areas. For more than twenty-five years, Mr. Green strongly encouraged local citizens, via committees, to establish census tracts and other census statistical geographic areas. The committees created by local citizens were known as Census Tract Committees, later called Census Statistical Areas Committees.

After 1930, the Census Bureau saw the need to standardize the delineation, review, and updating of census tracts and published the first set of census tract criteria in 1934. The goal of the criteria has remained unchanged; they assure comparability and data reliability through the standardization of the population thresholds for census tracts, as well as requiring that tracts' boundaries follow specific types of geographic features that do not change frequently. The Census Bureau began publishing census tract data as part of its standard tabulations beginning with the 1940 Census. Prior to that time, census tract data were published as special tabulations.

For the 1940 Census, the Census Bureau began publishing census block 3 data for all cities with 50,000 or more people. Census block numbers were assigned, where possible, by census tract, but for those cities that had not yet delineated census tracts, “block areas,” called “block numbering areas” (BNAs) in later censuses, were created to assign census block numbers.

Starting with the 1960 Census, the Census Bureau assumed a greater role in promoting and coordinating the delineation, review, and update of census tracts. For the 1980 Census, criteria for BNAs were changed to make them more comparable in size and shape to census tracts. For the 1990 Census, all counties contained either census tracts or BNAs.

Census 2000 was the first decade in which census tracts were defined in all counties. In addition, the Census Bureau increased the number of geographic areas whose boundaries could be used as census tract boundaries. It also allowed tribal governments of federally recognized American Indian tribes with a reservation and/or off-reservation trust lands to delineate tracts without regard to state and/or county boundaries, provided the tribe had a 1990 Census population of at least 1,000.

For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau adopted changes to census tract criteria that recognized their utility as a framework of small geographic areas for presenting and analyzing statistical and other data for a variety of communities, settlement patterns, and landscapes. The Census Bureau augmented its minimum, maximum, and optimum population threshold with housing unit thresholds for use in defining census tracts for seasonal communities that have no or low population on census day (April 1). The Census Bureau formalized criteria for census tracts defined for employment centers, airports, parks, large water bodies, and other special land uses that had been permitted in previous decades, but never specified within the criteria. The Census Bureau also established tribal census tracts as a geographic framework defined within federally recognized American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands that is fully separate from the standard census tracts defined within counties.

The Federal Register published on February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6941) requested comment on the proposed census tract criteria for the 2020 Census. The proposed criteria were unchanged from the final criteria adopted for the 2010 Census.

The Census Bureau received comments from 16 individuals or groups of individuals on topics related to (1) use of non-visible political boundaries when defining census tracts; (2) use of employment data to define census tracts encompassing areas with substantial amounts of commercial, industrial, or other non-residential activity for the purpose of transportation planning; (3) maintaining historical comparability; and (4) accounting for statistical data reliability and quality when developing census tract criteria and defining individual census tracts. Commenters represented state and local government agencies, regional planning organizations and councils of governments, state data centers, non-governmental organizations, and academic researchers. Comments received by the Census Bureau are summarized below, as well as the Census Bureau's response to these comments.

The Census Bureau received three comments from individuals in Michigan noting that non-visible minor civil division (MCD) boundaries in Michigan should be permitted to be census tract boundaries for the 2020 Census as was the case in the past. The commenters correctly noted that in Table 1, Acceptable Minor Civil Division and Incorporated Place Boundaries, the proposed criteria were in error with regard to Michigan. The Census Bureau has corrected the table in the final criteria.

The Census Bureau received 14 comments related to defining census tracts encompassing areas with concentrations of employment and jobs or other types of non-residential uses to improve the utility of census tracts for transportation and journey-to-work analysis and planning. Eleven commenters suggested adoption of a minimum threshold of 1,200 workers/jobs (and no maximum or optimum thresholds) to be applied as an alternative to the existing minimum population or housing unit threshold or in combination with population or housing unit thresholds. One commenter supported the use of worker/job counts when defining census tracts, but did not specify a minimum threshold. Two commenters expressed support for modifying criteria for special use census tracts primarily to improve identification of census tracts encompassing areas with concentrations of employment. One commenter noted that applying employment thresholds was not necessary as the sample design for the American Community Survey (which is the source for much of the demographic data used in journey-to-work analysis) focused on residential population concentrations rather than employment concentrations. This commenter suggested that changes to the special use census tract land area criteria could achieve the result desired by commenters proposing employment thresholds and could provide greater flexibility when defining census tracts.

Based on consideration of the comments received on this topic and further discussion with stakeholders in the transportation community, the Census Bureau will change its criteria for defining special use census tracts to no longer specify minimum land area requirements. Special use census tracts should be comparable in land area size to surrounding census tracts to assure data reliability and quality when reporting on workplace-related data and to avoid data disclosure issues. The Census Bureau also recommends that, when defining special use census tracts encompassing employment centers and areas with concentrations of jobs, PSAP participants should strive for a minimum threshold of 1,200 workers/jobs.

One commenter noted the importance of maintaining historical boundaries of census tracts for chronicling change in the sociodemographic characteristics of neighborhoods. The commenter noted that, while adherence to specified population thresholds (particularly the optimum and maximum population thresholds, which factor in decisions to split census tracts) is an important characteristic of census tracts, comparability over time also is a critical characteristic. Further, allowing census tracts to exceed the optimum and maximum thresholds will help mitigate issues related to the large sampling error associated with small geographic areas. The commenter suggested that by leaving census tract boundaries unchanged (i.e., by not splitting census tracts), local governments will be able to aggregate census tracts more easily to the neighborhood level, allowing for comparability over time as well as more reliable data. The commenter further suggested that if census tracts must be merged in order to meet the minimum population threshold, then an effort should be made to align the boundaries for block groups within the new census tract with the boundaries of the former census tracts.

The Census Bureau agrees with the sentiments expressed by this commenter and will continue to allow individual PSAP participants to avoid splitting census tracts if they are more concerned about historical comparability or statistical data reliability or both. We also agree with the suggestion to align block group boundaries with the boundaries of former census tracts in those instances in which census tracts have been merged and will update the final criteria accordingly.

One comment, submitted by a team of researchers, centered around the quality and reliability of statistical data for census tracts and other small geographic areas. Their concern was that the current methodology for updating and defining census tracts, with its focus on maintaining historical comparability as well as adherence to the optimum threshold of 4,000 persons, results in a framework of small geographic areas that may not meet current analytical and policy development needs for statistically reliable data. Similar to the sentiment expressed by the comment discussed above, this group of commenters suggested that in some places and contexts, the population size of census tracts should be allowed to increase beyond the maximum threshold, adding that these larger units would provide higher quality data because they would contain more responses from sample-based surveys. However, in their suggestion regarding adoption of explicit statistical data quality criteria, the commenters are proposing a fundamental change in the process for defining census tracts for data dissemination purposes; that is, if a census tract does not achieve the quality criterion for a given data release, it would be combined with an adjacent tract. The commenters suggest that through this combination, the margins of error on the estimates will be reduced, and data users will be able to obtain a more reliable estimate for a new larger “census tract” (encompassing multiple “sub-tracts”).

While this is an intriguing idea, the Census Bureau cannot implement it at this time. Through the 2020 PSAP, the Census Bureau works with participants to update census tract boundaries prior to the 2020 Census to define a stable geographic framework for tabulating and presenting decennial census and ACS data. As we understand it, the commenters' proposal would result in a framework of “preliminary” census tracts that would be combined, as necessary, to meet statistical data reliability criteria after data have been tabulated, but prior to final release. The Census Bureau needs more time than is available prior to the start of the 2020 PSAP delineation process to research this proposal and consider any potential data tabulation, data disclosure, and analytical implications, particularly if census tracts were combined in different ways depending on the specific mix of variables presented in a particular data tabulation.

1. The primary goal of the census tract is to provide a set of nationally consistent small, statistical geographic units, with stable boundaries, that facilitate analysis of data across time. A century of census tract use, along with ACS and the averaging of sample data for tracts over a five-year span, has shown that continuity and comparability in tracts and their boundaries over time are of considerable importance to data users. Pursuant to this goal, the Census Bureau requests that where a census tract must be updated, for example to meet the minimum or maximum population or housing unit thresholds, that the outer boundaries of the tract not be changed, but rather that a tract be split into two or more tracts, or merged with an adjacent tract. The Census Bureau discourages changes to tract boundaries (that is, “retracting”), except in specified circumstances, which the Census Bureau will review on a case-by-case basis.

2. In order to ensure a minimal level of reliability in sample data and minimize potential disclosures of sensitive information, a census tract should contain at least 1,200 people or at least 480 housing units at minimum, and 8,000 people or 3,200 housing units at maximum. PSAP participants should aim to create census tracts that meet the optimal population of 4,000 or 1,600 housing units and maintain the minimum thresholds unless it is flagged as a special use tract (discussed below), or is coextensive with a county with fewer than 1,200 people. The housing unit criterion is used to accommodate areas that are occupied seasonally and may otherwise show a discrepancy between decennial and ACS figures.4

3. The Census Bureau recognizes that there are significant geographic areas that are characterized by unique populations (e.g., prisons or universities) or not characterized by residential populations at all (e.g., National Parks, large bodies of water, or employment centers) which local participants may wish to exclude from populated census tracts for either analytical or cartographic purposes. These areas may be designated as special use census tracts to distinguish them from standard populated census tracts. Special land and/or water use census tracts are not required, but if delineated they must be designated as a specific type of special use (discussed below), have an official name, ideally have no residential population or housing units or at least meet all minimum population or housing thresholds mention above, and must not create noncontiguous census tracts. While there are no longer minimum land area measurement thresholds for special use tracts in urban or rural areas, such census tracts should be comparable in size to surrounding census tracts, particularly if defined to encompass employment centers or other areas containing a greater concentration of jobs than residents. The Census Bureau recognizes that some special use areas not intended for residential population, such as parks, may contain some minimal population, such as caretakers or those experiencing homelessness. Since the primary purpose of census tracts is to help provide high-quality statistical data about the population, the participant and the Census Bureau must decide if a special use tract would be useful in such a situation.

4. To facilitate the analysis of data for American Indian tribes, and to recognize their unique governmental status, program participants are encouraged to merge, split, or redefine census tracts to avoid unnecessarily splitting American Indian reservations (AIRs) and off-reservation trust lands (ORTLs). Each contiguous AIR and/or ORTL should be included, along with any necessary territory outside the AIR and/or ORTL, within a single census tract or as few census tracts as possible for the 2020 Census. This is the only situation in which retracting is encouraged (Figure 1).

The criteria herein apply to the United States, including federally recognized AIRs and ORTLs, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas.5 The Census Bureau may modify and, if necessary, reject any proposals for census tracts that do not meet the published criteria. In addition, the Census Bureau reserves the right to modify the boundaries and attributes of census tracts as needed to meet the published criteria and/or maintain geographic relationships before or after the final tabulation geography is set for the 2020 Census.

The Census Bureau sets forth the following criteria for use in reviewing, updating, and delineating 2020 Census tracts:

5. Census tracts must not cross county or state boundaries.

This criterion takes precedence over all other criteria or requirements (except for tribal tracts on federally recognized AIRs and/or ORTLs).

6. Census tracts must cover the entire land and water area of a county.

7. Census tracts must comprise a reasonably compact and contiguous land area.

Noncontiguous boundaries are permitted only where a contiguous area or inaccessible area would not meet population or housing unit count requirements for a separate census tract, in which case the noncontiguous or inaccessible area must be combined within an adjacent or proximate tract. For example, an island that does not meet the minimum population threshold for recognition as a separate census tract should be combined with other proximate land to form a single, contiguous census tract. Each case will be reviewed and accepted at the Census Bureau's discretion.

8. Census tract boundaries should follow visible and identifiable features.

To make the location of census tract boundaries less ambiguous, wherever possible, tract boundaries should follow significant, visible, easily identifiable features. The use of visible features facilitates the location and identification of census tract boundaries in the field, both on the ground and in imagery. The selection of permanent physical features also increases the stability of the boundaries over time, as the locations of many visible features in the landscape tend to change infrequently. If census tract boundaries are changed, they should not be moved from a more significant feature (e.g., a highway or a major river) to a less significant feature (e.g., a neighborhood road or a small tributary stream). By definition, state and county boundaries must be used as census tract boundaries. The Census Bureau also permits the use of incorporated place and minor civil division (MCD) boundaries in states where those boundaries tend to remain unchanged over time (see Table 1).

The following features are preferred as census tract boundaries for the 2020 Census:

a. State and county boundaries must always be census tract boundaries. This criterion takes precedence over all other boundary criteria or requirements.

b. AIR and ORTL boundaries.

c. Visible, perennial, stable, relatively permanent natural and constructed features, such as roads, shorelines, rivers, perennial streams and canals, railroad tracks, or above-ground high-tension power lines.

d. Boundaries of legal and administrative entities in selected states. Table 1 identifies by state which MCD and incorporated place boundaries may be used as census tract boundaries.

e. Additionally, the following legally defined, administrative boundaries would be permitted as census tract boundaries:

i. Barrio, barrio-pueblo, and sub-barrio boundaries in Puerto Rico;

ii. Census subdistrict and estate boundaries in the U.S. Virgin Islands;

iii. County and island boundaries (both MCD equivalents) in American Samoa;

iv. Election district boundaries in Guam;

v. Municipal district boundaries in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and,

vi. Alaska Native Regional Corporation boundaries in Alaska, at the discretion of the Census Bureau, insofar as such boundaries are unambiguous for allocating living quarters as part of 2020 Census activities.

f. The boundaries of large parks, forests, airports, penitentiaries/prisons, and/or military installations, provided the boundaries are clearly marked or easily recognized in the field, in imagery, and on the ground.

g. When acceptable visible and governmental boundary features are not available for use as census tract boundaries, the Census Bureau may, at its discretion, approve other nonstandard visible features, such as major ridgelines, above-ground pipelines, intermittent streams, or fence lines. The Census Bureau may also accept, on a case-by-case basis, relatively short stretches of boundaries of selected nonstandard and potentially nonvisible features, such as cadastral and parcel boundaries or the straight-line extensions or other lines-of-sight between acceptable visible features.

The following are the population, housing unit, and area measurement threshold criteria for census tracts (as summarized in Table 2). The same population and housing unit thresholds apply to all types of non-special use census tracts, including census tracts delineated for AIRs and ORTLs, the Island Areas, and encompassing group quarters, military installations, and institutions.

a. 2010 Census population counts should be used in census tract review in most cases. Housing unit counts should be used for census tracts in seasonal communities that have little or no population on Census Day (April 1). Locally produced population and housing unit estimates can be used when reviewing and updating census tracts, especially in areas that have experienced considerable growth since the 2010 Census.

b. The housing unit thresholds are based on a national average of 2.5 persons per household. The Census Bureau recognizes that there are local and regional variations to this average, and will take this into consideration when reviewing all census tract proposals.

c. Any census tract with a population or housing unit count less than the minimum threshold should be merged with an adjacent census tract to form a single tract with at least 1,200 people or at least 480 housing units (Figure 2). The Census Bureau recognizes the complexity that exists between meeting the optimum population or housing unit threshold in a census tract and maintaining census tract comparability over time. For example, if the population or housing unit count based on 2010 Census data was below the minimum thresholds, but significant growth has occurred since 2010 or is expected before 2020 for a census tract, the census tract should not be merged with another census tract. Supporting evidence may be requested by the Census Bureau. However, if the census tract's population does not increase as expected and does not meet either the minimum population or housing unit thresholds for 2020, this may adversely affect the reliability and availability of any sample estimates for that census tract. For this reason, the Census Bureau suggests merging the census tract with another adjacent census tract if there is a possibility that anticipated growth will not be sufficient to meet minimum thresholds. When merging census tracts, the Census Bureau suggests retaining the former census tract boundaries as boundaries for block groups within the newly defined census tract to facilitate historical analysis.

d. For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will allow the delineation of special use census tracts, but they are not required. A special use census tract must be designated as a specific use type (e.g., state park), must have an official name (e.g., Jay Cooke State Park), have no (or very little) residential population or meet population or housing unit thresholds, and must not create a noncontiguous census tract. In some instances, multiple areas can be combined to form a single special use census tract if the land use or land management characteristics are similar, such as a special use census tract comprising an area with a concentration of employment or adjacent federal and state parks. Any resulting special use census tract should be at least as large in area as the surrounding standard, populated census tracts.

a. A census tract has a basic census tract identifier composed of no more than four digits and may have a two-digit decimal suffix.

b. The range of acceptable basic census tract identifiers for the 2020 Census is from 1 to 9989 (see 6.c. below for exceptions); special use census tracts delineated specifically to complete coverage of large water bodies will be numbered from 9950 to 9989 in each county.

c. Census tracts delineated within or to primarily encompass AIRs and/or ORTLs should be numbered from 9400 to 9499.

d. Census tract identifiers must be unique within each county.

e. Once used, census tract identifiers cannot be reused in a subsequent census to reference a completely different area within a county. If a census tract is split, each portion may keep the same basic 4-digit identifier, but each portion must be given a unique suffix. If a census tract that was suffixed for 2010 Census is split, each portion must be given a new suffix.

f. The range of acceptable census tract suffixes is .01 to .98.

Table 3 provides a summary of the types of census tracts (with their respective population, housing unit, and area measurement thresholds) that the Census Bureau will use for the 2020 Census.

Tribal census tracts are statistical geographic entities defined by the Census Bureau in cooperation with tribal officials to provide meaningful, relevant, and reliable data for small geographic areas within the boundaries of federally recognized AIRs and/or ORTLs. As such, they recognize the unique statistical data needs of federally recognized American Indian tribes. The delineation of tribal census tracts allows for an unambiguous presentation of census tract-level data specific to the federally recognized AIR and/or ORTL without the imposition of state or county boundaries, which might artificially separate American Indian populations located within a single AIR and/or ORTL. To this end, the American Indian tribal participant may define tribal census tracts that cross county or state boundaries, or both. For federally recognized American Indian tribes with AIRs and/or ORTLs that have more than 2,400 residents, the Census Bureau will offer the tribal government the opportunity to delineate tribal census tracts and other tribal statistical geography on their AIR and/or ORTL. For federally recognized tribes with an AIR and/or ORTL with fewer than 2,400 residents, the Census Bureau will define one tribal census tract coextensive with the AIR and/or ORTL. Tribal census tracts must be delineated to meet all other census tract criteria, and must be identified uniquely to clearly distinguish them from county-based census tracts. Tribal census tracts are conceptually similar and equivalent to census tracts defined within the standard state-county-tract geographic hierarchy used for tabulating and publishing statistical data.

In order to provide meaningful statistical geographic areas within the AIR and/or ORTL, as well as make meaningful and reliable data available for these areas and their populations, tribal census tract geography is maintained separately from standard county-based census tracts. This change was first introduced for the 2010 Census, creating standard, county-based census tracts nationwide and maintaining tribal census tracts as a completely separate set of geography from standard census tracts for both geographic and data presentation purposes. The change eliminated, in part, the reliability and availability data issues for the tribal census tracts and the derived standard census tracts that were present in Census 2000. 6

As with standard census tracts submitted through this program, the tribal census tracts are submitted to the Census Bureau, and are subject to review to ensure compliance with the published criteria. Detailed criteria pertaining to tribal census tracts will be published in a separate Federal Register notice pertaining to all American Indian areas, including statistical areas defined through the PSAP.

Alaska Native Regional Corporation (ANRC)—A corporate geographic area established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Pub. L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971)) to conduct both the business and nonprofit affairs of Alaska Natives. Twelve ANRCs cover the entire state of Alaska except for the Annette Island Reserve.

American Indian off-reservation trust land (ORTL)—An area of land located outside the boundaries of an AIR, whose boundaries are established by deed, and which are held in trust by the U.S. federal government for a federally recognized American Indian tribe or members of that tribe.

American Indian reservation (AIR)—An area of land with boundaries established by final treaty, statute, executive order, and/or court order and over which a federally recognized American Indian tribal government has governmental authority. Along with “reservation,” designations such as colonies, communities, pueblos, rancherias, and reserves apply to AIRs.

Census block—Census blocks are statistical areas bounded by visible features, such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and by non-visible boundaries, such as selected property lines and city, township, school district, and county limits and short line-of-sight extensions of streets and roads. Census blocks cover the entire territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas.

Conjoint—A description of a boundary line shared by two adjacent geographic entities.

Contiguous—A description of areas sharing common boundary lines, more than a single point, such that the areas, when combined, form a single piece of territory. Noncontiguous areas form disjoint pieces.

Group quarters—A location where people live or stay, in a group living arrangement, that is owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents. This is not a typical household-type living arrangement. These services may include custodial or medical care as well as other types of assistance, and residency is commonly restricted to those receiving these services. People living in group quarters are usually not related to each other. Group quarters include such places as college residence halls, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, correctional facilities, and workers' dormitories.

Incorporated place—A type of governmental unit, incorporated under state law as a city, town (except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), borough (except in Alaska and New York), or village, generally to provide governmental services for a concentration of people within legally prescribed boundaries.

Minor civil division (MCD)—The primary governmental or administrative division of a county in 28 states and the Island Areas having legal boundaries, names, and descriptions. The MCDs represent many different types of legal entities with a wide variety of characteristics, powers, and functions depending on the state and type of MCD. In some states, some or all of the incorporated places also constitute MCDs.

Nonvisible feature—A map feature that is not visible on the ground such as a city or county boundary through space, a property line, or line-of-sight extension of a road.

Retracting—Substantially changing the boundaries of a census tract so that comparability over time is not maintained.

Special use census tract—Type of census tract that must be designated as a specific use type (e.g., state park or large lake) and have an official name (e.g., Jay Cooke State Park or Lake Minnetonka), should have no (or very little) population or housing units, and must not create a noncontiguous census tract. If delineated in a densely populated, urban area, a special use census tract must have an area of at least one square mile. If delineated completely outside an urban area, a special use census tract must have an area of at least 10 square miles.

Visible feature—A map feature that can be seen on the ground and in imagery, such as a road, railroad track, major above-ground transmission line or pipeline, river, stream, shoreline, fence, sharply defined mountain ridge, or cliff. A nonstandard visible feature is a feature that may not be clearly defined on the ground (such as a ridge), may be seasonal (such as an intermittent stream), or may be relatively impermanent (such as a fence). The Census Bureau generally requests verification that nonstandard features used as boundaries for the PSAP geographic areas pose no problem in their location during field work.

Background

Census county divisions (CCDs) and equivalent entities are statistical geographic entities established cooperatively by the Census Bureau and officials of state and local governments in 21 states 1 where minor civil divisions (MCDs) either do not exist or have been unsatisfactory for reporting statistical data. The primary goal of the CCD program has been to establish and maintain a set of subcounty 2 units that have stable boundaries and recognizable names.

The Census Bureau is publishing this notice in the Federal Register to announce final criteria for defining CCDs for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau did not receive any comments in response to proposed criteria published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6932). After publication of final criteria in the Federal Register, the Census Bureau will offer designated governments or organizations an opportunity to review and, if necessary, suggest updates to the boundaries and attributes of CCDs in their geographic area under the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). In addition to CCDs, the program also encompasses the review and update of census tracts, block groups, and census designated places (CDPs).

When CCDs were introduced prior to the 1950 Census, few alternatives were available for the provision of statistical data related to relatively stable, subcounty geographic units. Census tracts were defined in only a subset of metropolitan area counties. MCDs existed in all counties, but in some states MCD boundaries changed frequently enough that they were not useful for comparing statistical data from one decade to another.

For much of the period from the 1950 Census through the 1980 Census, county subdivisions (MCDs and CCDs) provided the only subcounty unit of geography at which data users could obtain statistical data for complete coverage of counties nationwide. The introduction of block numbering areas (BNAs) in counties without census tracts for the 1990 Census offered an alternate subcounty entity for which data could be tabulated. For Census 2000, the Census Bureau introduced census tracts nationwide (in many counties, BNAs were simply relabeled as “census tracts”), increasing the dissemination of, and ability to analyze, data at the census tract level, and providing an alternative set of subcounty statistical geographic areas in each county in addition to MCDs and CCDs. Nevertheless, CCDs and MCDs remain useful for presenting subcounty statistics and, in less populous counties containing only one or two census tracts, can provide greater spatial resolution when analyzing the distribution of population and characteristics.

The Census Bureau's proposed criteria for the 2020 Census were unchanged from the final criteria used to delineate CCDs for the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau did not receive any comments in response to the proposed criteria published in the Federal Register published on February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6932). As a result, the proposed criteria are adopted as final criteria with only minor clarifying changes and an update for a population figure used as an example.

The criteria outlined herein apply to the United States,3 Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas.4

1. The primary goal of the CCD program is to establish and maintain a set of subcounty units that have stable boundaries and recognizable names. The boundaries of CCDs usually coincide with visible features or stable, significant legal boundaries, such as the boundary of an American Indian reservation (AIR), federally managed land, or conjoint incorporated places. CCDs have no legal status as statistical geographic entities and are defined only for the tabulation and presentation of statistical data.

2. A CCD usually represents a single contiguous area consisting of one or more communities, economic centers, or, in some instances, major land uses that are relatively compact in shape.

3. A CCD should have a relationship to existing census tracts, either encompassing one or more census tracts or having two or more CCDs nest within a single census tract. The boundaries of a CCD, or combination of nested CCDs, align with census tract boundaries. Note that a county with a population less than the optimum population for a census tract (less than 4,000 people) may contain more CCDs than census tracts. For example, McCone County, Montana, which has a 2017 estimated population of 1,718, contains only one census tract, but is divided into two CCDs.

4. Since the 1950s, the Census Bureau has worked with state and local officials to replace MCDs with CCDs for the collection, presentation, and analysis of Census Bureau data, particularly in states in which MCDs do not provide governmental services and functions, and in which MCD boundaries tend to change between decennial censuses. For the 2020 Census, CCDs are defined in 21 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. North Dakota adopted CCDs for use in tabulating and presenting data from the 1970 Census. Following the 1970 Census, North Dakota requested that the Census Bureau again use MCDs to tabulate and present statistical data. For the 2010 Census, Tennessee requested that the Census Bureau replace its CCDs with county commissioner districts, a type of legal, administrative MCD.

CCDs should (1) have community orientation, (2) have visible and/or stable boundaries, (3) maintain relationships with census tract boundaries, and (4) have recognizable names.

Each CCD should center on one or more places and encompass additional surrounding territory that together form a cohesive community area. The definition of community should take into account factors, such as production, marketing, consumption, and the integrating factor of local institutions.

The locality on which a CCD is centered usually is an incorporated place or an unincorporated community, which might be identified as a CDP. In some cases, the CCD may center on a major area of significantly different topography, land use, or ownership, such as a large military installation or AIR. A CCD should always comprise a reasonably compact, continuous land area, generally with road access to all areas within the CCD.

To make the location of CCD boundaries less ambiguous, the boundaries should follow, wherever possible, visible and identifiable features. The use of visible features makes it easier to locate and identify CCD boundaries over time, as the locations of most visible features in the landscape change infrequently, making data collection easier and more reliable, while reducing the possibility for data allocation errors. The Census Bureau requires that CCDs follow state and county boundaries, conform to census tract boundaries, and allows CCDs to follow the boundaries of federally recognized AIRs, and federal, state, or locally managed land.

The following features are acceptable:

a. County boundaries (always a CCD boundary);

b. Census tract boundaries, which usually follow visible, perennial, natural, and cultural features, such as roads, rivers, canals, railroads, or above-ground, high-tension power lines;

c. Legally defined, federally recognized AIR boundaries;

d. The boundaries of federal, state, or locally managed land, such as national parks, national monuments, national forests, other types of large parks or forests, airports, marine ports, prisons, military installations, or other large facilities;

e. Conjoint city limits (in certain situations, such as city limits that change infrequently); and,

f. When the above types of features are not available for use as CCD boundaries, the Census Bureau may, at its discretion, approve other nonstandard, visible features, such as ridge lines, above-ground pipelines, streams, or fence lines. The Census Bureau may also accept, on a case-by-case basis, the boundaries of selected nonstandard and potentially nonvisible features, such as the boundaries of cemeteries, golf courses, glaciers, or the straight-line extensions of visible features and other lines-of-sight.

Whenever possible, a CCD should encompass one or more contiguous census tracts, or multiple CCDs should constitute a single census tract. Therefore, CCD boundaries should be consistent with census tract boundaries. Population size is not as important a consideration with CCDs as it is with census tracts. For CCDs that do not meet the thresholds for a census tract, the Census Bureau encourages creating one or more block groups within a census tract that encompass a CCD. Historically, CCDs have ranged from a few hundred people (in selected situations) to more than one million. However, data quality and availability may be factors that local governments and planners should consider in defining statistical geographic areas. As a general rule, period estimates of demographic characteristics of small population areas from the American Community Survey will be subject to higher variances than comparable period estimates for areas with larger populations. In addition, the Census Bureau's disclosure rules may have the effect of restricting the availability and amount of data for areas with small populations.

a. The names of existing CCDs shall not be changed unless a compelling reason is provided, such as when the name from which the CCD was derived has changed, as in the case of Bainbridge Island, Washington, when the name of the city (Winslow) changed;

b. A new CCD usually is named after the largest population center or historically central place within it (e.g., Taos, Hobbs, or Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico);

c. Where a CCD contains multiple centers with relatively equal importance, a CCD name may represent the two or three centers (e.g., Mount Pleasant-Moroni, Utah);

d. A CCD may be named after the AIR (e.g., Hualapai, Arizona or Nez Perce, Idaho) or a prominent land use area (e.g., Federal Reservation, Washington or Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming) in which it is significantly or wholly located;

e. A CCD may be named after a prominent physical feature (e.g., Mount Rainier, Washington) or a distinctive region within the county (e.g., Death Valley, California; Everglades or Lower Keys, Florida); and,

f. If there is no clear cultural focus or topographic name that can be applied, a CCD name shall consist of the county name and a compass direction to indicate the portion of the county in the CCD or a place name and a compass direction to give the CCD location relative to the place. The directional indicator precedes a county name (e.g., Northeast Cobb, Georgia). If a place name is used, the directional indicator follows it (e.g., Del Rio Northwest, Texas).

In all cases, the objective is to clearly identify the extent of the CCD by means of an area name since CCD names always should be meaningful to data users. Any name used as a CCD name must also be recognized by the Board on Geographic Names for federal use and appear in the Geographic Names Information System maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey. This includes any individual names combined to make a hyphenated CCD name.

American Indian reservation (AIR)— An area of land with boundaries established by final treaty, statute, executive order, and/or court order and over which a federally recognized American Indian tribal government has governmental authority. Along with “reservation,” designations such as colonies, communities, pueblos, rancherias, and reserves apply to AIRs.

Block group—A statistical subdivision of a census tract consisting of all census blocks whose numbers begin with the same digit in a census tract. A block group is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau normally tabulates sample data.

Census block—A geographic area bounded by visible and/or invisible features shown on a map prepared by the Census Bureau. A block is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau tabulates and publishes decennial census data.

Census county division (CCD)—Areas delineated by the Census Bureau in cooperation with state, tribal, and local officials for statistical purposes. CCDs have no legal function and are not governmental units. CCD boundaries usually follow visible features and usually coincide with census tract boundaries. The name of each CCD is based on a place, country, or well-known local name that identify its location.

Census designated place (CDP)—A statistical geographic entity equivalent to an incorporated place with a concentration of population, housing, and commercial and nonresidential structures that is identifiable by name, but is not within an incorporated place.

Census tract—A small, relatively permanent statistical geographic division of a county defined for the tabulation and publication of Census Bureau data. The primary goal of census tracts is to provide a set of nationally consistent, relatively small, statistical geographic units, with stable boundaries that facilitate analysis of data across time and between decennial censuses.

Conjoint—A description of a boundary line shared by two adjacent geographic entities.

Contiguous—A description of areas sharing common boundary lines, more than a single point, such that the areas, when combined, form a single piece of territory. Noncontiguous areas form disjoint pieces.

Federally managed land—Territory that is federally owned and/or administered by an agency of the U.S. federal government, such as the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, or Department of Defense.

Incorporated place—A type of governmental unit, incorporated under state law as a city, town (except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), borough (except in Alaska and New York), or village, generally to provide governmental services for a concentration of people within legally prescribed boundaries.

Minor civil division (MCD)—The primary governmental or administrative division of a county in 28 states and the Island Areas having legal boundaries, names, and descriptions. The MCDs represent many different types of legal entities with a wide variety of characteristics, powers, and functions depending on the state and type of MCD. In some states, some or all of the incorporated places also constitute MCDs.

Nonvisible feature—A map feature that is not visible on the ground and in imagery such as a city or county boundary through space, a property line, or line-of-sight extension of a road.

Visible feature—A map feature that can be seen on the ground and in imagery, such as a road, railroad track, major above-ground transmission line or pipeline, river, stream, shoreline, fence, sharply defined mountain ridge, or cliff. A nonstandard visible feature is a feature that may not be clearly defined on the ground (such as a ridge), may be seasonal (such as an intermittent stream), or may be relatively impermanent (such as a fence). The Census Bureau generally requests verification that nonstandard features used as boundaries for the PSAP geographic areas pose no problem in their location during field work.

I. Abstract

Sponsored primarily by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Health Resources Services Administration's Maternal and Child Health Bureau (HRSA MCHB), the National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) is designed to produce data on the physical and emotional health of children under 18 years of age who live in the United States. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and United States Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (HHS/CDC/NCBDDD) sponsor supplemental questions on the NSCH. The NSCH collects information on factors related to the well-being of children, including access to health care, in-home medical care, family interactions, parental health, school and after-school experiences, and neighborhood characteristics. The goal of the 2019 NSCH is to provide HRSA MCHB with the necessary data to support the production of national estimates yearly and state-based estimates with pooled samples on the health and well-being of children, their families, and their communities as well as estimates of the prevalence and impact of children with special health care needs.

We have made minor content revisions for the 2019 NSCH. We also plan to monitor the continued effectiveness of unconditional incentives (the relative benefit for reducing survey non-response by providing a $0, $1, $2, or $5 incentive as a token of appreciation) and modifications to data collection strategies based on modeled information about paper or internet response preference. We will test an envelope overprint, a short message and simple image printed to the outside of the invitation envelope, designed to encourage respondents to open and read the invitation and a modified design for the screener invitation letter. We will also conduct a small test of a new screener card, a mechanism to more efficiently screen address eligibility. We will select approximately 184,000 addresses as the 2019 NSCH sample; around 4,000 of those addresses will be randomly assigned to the screener card test. Results from prior year surveys were used to inform the decisions made regarding this 2019 survey project.

Based on the results from prior survey cycles and available funds, an unconditional cash incentive will be included with the initial mailing. Survey research indicates that incentives are a necessary and cost‐effective expense for achieving a response rate that minimizes nonresponse bias 1 . Our testing to date is consistent with this research. Evaluation of previous NSCH cycles showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the response rates when respondents received an incentive compared to those who were part of the control group that did not receive an incentive. The effect of the incentive was proportionately larger for household types that were less likely to respond in previous years, reducing nonresponse bias. There was a larger increase in response for households mailed a $5 incentive compared to those mailed a $2 incentive with their initial survey invite; both treatments proved effective at encouraging response and reducing nonresponse bias in 2018. We will continue to use $2 and $5 cash incentives going forward, and will include a test of a $1 cash incentive. A small group (20% or less) receiving no incentive will be included to monitor the effectiveness of the incentive in the initial mailing. For respondents who answer a paper screener interview and are mailed their first paper topical questionnaire, a $5 incentive will be used to reduce bias and gain cooperation for this critical second stage of paper questionnaire data collection.

In addition to testing incentives and developing materials, the 2019 NSCH will continue to serve as a platform to evaluate different nonresponse follow-up mailing strategies based on a household's likelihood to respond using a paper questionnaire. We assign a paper-preference probability to every address using American Community Survey (ACS) response mode choices, previous NSCH response mode choices, and small area geographic characteristics. The 30% of addresses with the highest paper-preference probability are assigned to the “High Paper” group and receive a paper questionnaire with the initial invitation. The other 70% of addresses are assigned to the “High Web” group and receive their first paper questionnaires in the second nonresponse follow-up screener invitation.

Since there continues to be a significant potential for cost savings for web data collection over paper data collection, we are working to refine and retest an internet response indicator for future NSCH production cycles based on the results from prior data collection efforts.

In 2019 and beyond, we will continue the use of a pressure-sealed reminder postcard. The reminder postcard will be mailed approximately one week after the initial survey invite mailing and the first nonresponse follow-up. We originally implemented this strategy because the time gap between mailings during the 2016 NSCH proved too long, and a significant dip in response flow was observed between mailings. The pressure-sealed postcard reminder proved effective in 2017 and 2018 at boosting response from the initial mailing and, in 2018, the first nonresponse follow-up. The ability to send reminders enclosed with a pressure-seal system allows us to include login information for the Centurion web instrument as well as specific information about the survey. The postcard also allows us to include a paragraph in Spanish that will direct the respondent to the Spanish web survey or the Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) line for assistance.

As in prior administration of the NSCH, the 2019 NSCH will have a TQA line available to respondents who experience technical problems with the web instrument, have questions about the survey, or need other forms of assistance. TQA staff will be able to answer respondent questions and concerns, and also collect survey responses over the phone—if the respondent calls in and would like to have interviewer assistance in completing the interview. Also, respondents can submit questions by email. Email Questionnaire Assistance (EQA) agents will monitor the email account inbox and respond promptly.

The 2018 NSCH tested a certified mail sticker, designed to encourage respondents to open the invitation envelope and respond to the NSCH. The sticker significantly increased response, but did not reduce nonresponse bias. The sticker also introduced logistical challenges that make current use as a treatment option untenable. Instead, we will test an envelope overprint, which is a short message on the outside of the envelope that can potentially encourage response and reduce nonresponse bias. Half of addresses (approximately 90,000) will receive the screener invitation in an envelope with the overprint; the other half of addresses will receive our standard white envelope. Packages can also include a modified version of the invitation letter designed to make the text more accessible, such as relocating some necessary information to a text box with a boundary.

In both internet and paper collection modes, the survey design for the 2019 NSCH focuses on first collecting information about the children in the household and basic special health care needs, and then selecting a child from the household for follow-up to collect additional detailed topical information. If there is more than one eligible child in a household, a single child will be selected based on a sampling algorithm that considers the age and number of children as well as the presence of children with special health care needs. We estimate that, from the original 180,000 selected addresses that are assigned to the primary production cycle (excluding the 4,000 addresses assigned to the screener card test), our target screener return rate of 40.5% will yield approximately 72,900 responses to the screener. We then estimate that 50% of households from the first phase of the screener will be eligible to receive a topical questionnaire (households with children), and 70% of these households with children will return the topical questionnaire, resulting in approximately 25,515 completed topical interviews.2 A household could be selected for one of three age-based topical surveys: 0-to-5-year-old children, 6-to-11-year-old children, or 12-to-17-year-old children.

For the 4,000 screener card test addresses, we anticipate that 50% (2,000 addresses) will return the screener card and 10% (400 addresses) will use the web instrument.

Census staff have developed a plan to select a production sample of approximately 184,000 households (addresses) from a Master Address File (MAF)-based sampling frame, with split panels to test mode of administration (i.e., high-web and low-web), and improvements to contact materials and strategies. Based on results of the prior NSCH incentive experiments, we plan to use small, unconditional cash incentives with a control group receiving no incentive to monitor the effectiveness of the incentive expenditures. For respondents who answer the paper screener and are mailed a paper topical questionnaire, an additional incentive is expected for that mailing. The recommendation for the amount of this secondary incentive will be based on the results of the 2016 NSCH and available funding. From prior cycles of the NSCH, using American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) definitions of response, we can expect an overall screener completion rate for the 2019 NSCH to be about 45% and a 31% overall topical completion rate.3 This is different from the total overall response rate, which we expect to be about 40.4%.4

The production 2019 NSCH plan for the web push data collection design includes 70% of the estimated 180,000 primary production addresses receiving an initial invite with instructions on how to complete an English or Spanish-language screening questionnaire via the web. Households that decide to complete the web-based survey will be taken through the screening questionnaire to determine if they screen into one of the three topical instruments. Households that list at least one child who is 0 to 17 years old in the screener are directed into a topical questionnaire immediately after the last screener question. If a household in the web push treatment group decides to complete the paper screener, the household may have a chance to receive an additional topical questionnaire incentive.

The production 2019 NSCH plan for the mixed-mode data collection design includes approximately 30% of the 180,000 primary production addresses receiving both an initial invite with a paper screening questionnaire and instructions on how to complete an English or Spanish language screening questionnaire via the web. Households that decide to complete the web-based survey will follow the same screening and topical selection path as the web push. Households that choose to complete the paper screener questionnaire rather than completing the survey on the internet and that have eligible children will be mailed a paper topical questionnaire upon receipt of their completed paper screener at the Census Bureau's National Processing Center. If a household in the mixed-mode group chooses to complete the paper screener instead of completing by internet, then the household may receive an additional topical questionnaire incentive.

Prior to Census administration of the survey, the NSCH was conducted by the Health Services Resources Administration's Maternal and Child Health Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics. As such, the survey information was sent to respondents under letterhead from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with the Director of NCHS signing the letters to the respondent.

In the 2016 NSCH, we tested both standard contact branding utilized for Census Bureau surveys, which included Census Bureau letterhead and the Census Director's signature, and an alternative sent with HRSA MCHB branding. The first follow-up mailing, sent to non-responding households approximately three-weeks after their initial invitation to respond to the survey by web, was split into two groups. The first group was sent a reminder to participate with their web login and password under standard Census Bureau letterhead. Response was higher from those addresses receiving the standard Census branding.

The “High Web” group will receive two web survey invitation letters requesting their participation in the survey prior to receiving their first paper screener questionnaire in the second follow-up mailing. The “High Paper” group will receive both a web survey invitation letter along with a mailed paper screener questionnaire with the initial invitation and each follow-up mailing. Once a household in the “High Web” group receives a paper screener questionnaire, it will then have the option to either complete the web-based survey or complete the mailed paper screener, similar to the “High Paper” group. If the household chooses to complete the mailed paper questionnaire, then they would then be considered part of the mailout/mailback paper-and-pencil interviewing treatment group. The paper-and-pencil treatment group receives a paper topical questionnaire, if there is at least one eligible child who is 0 to 17 years old listed on the screener. Nonresponse follow-up for the topical questionnaire will include up to one pressure-sealed postcard and up to three mailings including the paper topical questionnaire.

The 2019 NSCH will also include a small screener card test. The screener card is a single-page instrument designed to screen household eligibility for the NSCH. An additional 4,000 addresses will receive the screener card in place of the traditional screener instrument. They will have the option to report only if there are children present at the address or not. Respondents will also have the option to report using the web instrument. We anticipate that the screener card instrument will reduce respondent burden for households without children and allow us to more efficiently identify households with children.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0990.

Form Number(s): NSCH-S1 (English Screener), NSCH-T1 (English Topical for 0- to 5-year-old children), NSCH-T2 (English Topical for 6- to 11-year-old children), NSCH-T3 (English Topical for 12- to 17-year-old children), NSCH-S-S1 (Spanish Screener), NSCH-S-T1 (Spanish Topical for 0- to 5-year-old children), NSCH-S-T2 (Spanish Topical for 6- to 11-year-old children), NSCH-S-T3 (Spanish Topical for 12- to 17-year-old children), and NSCH-SC1 (Screener Card—perforated).

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Parents, researchers, policymakers, and family advocates.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 72,900 for the screener, 25,515 for the topical, 2,000 for the screener card, and 400 screener card respondents using the web instrument.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes per screener response, 33 minutes per topical response, 2 minutes per screener card response, and 38 minutes per screener card response using the web instrument.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 20,428 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 (This is not the cost of respondents' time, but the indirect costs respondents may incur for such things as purchases of specialized software or hardware needed to report, or expenditures for accounting or records maintenance services required specifically by the collection.)

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

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

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

Census designated places (CDPs) 1 are statistical geographic entities representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name. They are the statistical equivalents of incorporated places, with the primary differences being the lack of a legally defined boundary and an active, functioning governmental structure, chartered by the state and administered by elected officials. CDPs defined for the 2020 Census will also be used to tabulate American Community Survey, Puerto Rico Community Survey, and Economic Census data after 2020, and potentially data from other Census Bureau censuses and surveys.

The Census Bureau is publishing this notice in the Federal Register to announce final criteria for defining CDPs for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau did not receive any comments in response to proposed criteria published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6934). After publication of final criteria in the Federal Register, the Census Bureau will offer designated governments or organizations an opportunity to review and, if necessary, suggest updates to the boundaries and attributes of the CDPs in their geographic area under the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). In addition to CDPs, the program also encompasses the review and update of census tracts, block groups, and census county divisions.

The CDP concept and delineation criteria have evolved over the past seven decades in response to data user needs for place-level data. This evolution has taken into account differences in the way in which places were perceived, and the propensity for places to incorporate in various states. The result, over time, has been an increase in the number and types of unincorporated communities identified as CDPs. This also results in an increasing consistency in the relationship between the CDP concept and the kinds of places encompassed by the incorporated place category, or a compromise between localized perceptions of place and a concept that would be familiar to data users throughout the United States,2 Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas.3

Although not as numerous as incorporated places or municipalities,4 CDPs have been important geographic entities since their introduction for the 1950 Census (CDPs were referred to as “unincorporated places” from 1950 through the 1970 decennial censuses). For the 1950 Census, CDPs were defined only outside urbanized areas and were required to have at least 1,000 residents. For the 1960 Census, CDPs could also be identified inside urbanized areas outside of New England, but these were required to have at least 10,000 residents. The Census Bureau modified the population threshold within urbanized areas to 5,000 residents in 1970, allowed for CDPs in urbanized areas in New England in 1980, and lowered the threshold for CDPs within urbanized areas to 2,500 in 1990. In time, other population thresholds were adopted for identification of CDPs in Alaska, Puerto Rico, the Island Areas, and on American Indian reservations (AIRs). The Census Bureau eliminated all population threshold requirements for Census 2000, achieving consistency between CDPs and incorporated places, for which the Census Bureau historically has published data without regard to population size.

According to the 2010 Census, more than 38.7 million people in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas lived in CDPs. The relative importance of CDPs varies from state to state depending on laws governing municipal incorporation and annexation, but also depending on local preferences and attitudes regarding the identification of places.

The Census Bureau's proposed criteria for the 2020 Census were unchanged from the final criteria used to delineate CDPs for the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau did not receive any comments in response to the proposed criteria published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6934). As a result, the proposed criteria are adopted as final criteria without change.

The criteria outlined herein apply to the United States, including AIRs and off-reservation trust lands, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas. In accordance with the final criteria, the Census Bureau may modify and, if necessary, reject any proposals for CDPs that do not meet the established criteria. In addition, the Census Bureau reserves the right to modify the boundaries and attributes of CDPs as needed to maintain geographic relationships before the final tabulation geography is set for the 2020 Census.

The Census Bureau proposes the following criteria and guidelines for use in identifying the areas that will qualify for designation as CDPs for use in tabulating data from the 2020 Census, the American Community Survey, the Puerto Rico Community Survey, the Economic Census, and potentially other Census Bureau censuses and surveys.

1. A CDP constitutes a single, closely settled center of population that is named. To the extent possible, individual unincorporated communities should be identified as separate CDPs. Similarly, a single community should be defined as a single CDP rather than multiple CDPs with each part referencing the community name and a directional term (i.e., north, south, east, or west). Since a CDP is defined to provide data for a single, named locality, the Census Bureau generally will not accept combinations of places and hyphenated place names defined as a CDP. In the past, communities were often combined as a single CDP in order to comply with the Census Bureau's former minimum population requirements. The Census Bureau's elimination of population threshold criteria starting with Census 2000 made such combinations unnecessary. Other communities were combined because visible features were not available for use as boundaries for separate CDPs. The Census Bureau's policy to allow the use of some nonvisible boundaries so that participants can separate individual communities has dispensed with the need to have multi-place CDPs.

Multiple communities may only be combined to form a single CDP when the identities of these communities have become so intertwined that the communities are commonly perceived and referenced as a single place. For example, the communities of Arden and Arcade in California have grown together over time and residents commonly use the place name Arden-Arcade. Further, because of the intertwined identity, residents would have difficulty identifying a boundary between the separate, historical communities of Arden and Arcade. Multiple communities may also be defined as a single CDP when there are no distinguishable or suitable features in the landscape that can be used as a boundary between the communities, even if the two communities still have separate identities. For example, the CDP of Ashton-Sandy Spring in Maryland encompasses two communities that still maintain separate identities in common, daily usage. The two communities, however, have grown together to such an extent that a clear break between the two communities is no longer identifiable in the landscape. In general, when considering whether to combine multiple communities as a single CDP, the following questions should be taken into account:

• Do residents commonly perceive and refer to the communities as a single entity?

• Are there landscape elements, such as signs, that use a hyphenated name for the community?

• Can residents or other knowledgeable individuals identify clear, commonly accepted boundaries for the individual communities?

2. A CDP generally consists of a contiguous cluster of census blocks comprising a single piece of territory and containing a mix of residential, nonresidential, and commercial uses similar to that of an incorporated place of similar size. Some CDPs, however, may be predominantly residential; such places should represent recognizably distinct, locally known communities, but not typical suburban subdivisions. Examples of such predominantly residential communities that can be recognized as CDPs are colonias, small rural communities, and unincorporated resort and retirement communities.

3. A CDP may not be located, either partially or entirely, within an incorporated place or another CDP.

4. A CDP may be located in more than one county but must not cross state boundaries. It is important to note, however, that since county boundaries provide important demarcations for communities, CDPs that cross county lines should be kept to a minimum and identified only when the community clearly sees itself existing on both sides of a county boundary.

5. There are no minimum population or housing unit thresholds for defining CDPs; however, a CDP must contain some population or housing units or both. For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will not accept a CDP delineated with zero population and zero housing units. The Census Bureau recognizes that some communities, such as a resort or other kinds of seasonal communities, may lack population at certain times of the year. Nevertheless, there should be some evidence, generally in the form of houses, barracks, dormitories, commercial buildings and/or other nonresidential structures, providing the basis for local perception of the place's existence. The Census Bureau will review the number of housing units within the place, as reported in the previous decennial census or as seen in imagery, and consider whether additional information is needed before recognizing the CDP. Participants submitting boundaries for places with less than ten housing units may be asked to provide additional information attesting to the existence of the CDP.

6. CDP boundaries should follow visible features, except in those circumstances when a CDP's boundary is coincident with the nonvisible boundary of a state, county, minor civil division (in the six New England states, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), or incorporated place. CDP boundaries may follow other nonvisible features in instances where reliance upon visible features would result in overbounding of the CDP in order to include housing units on both sides of a road or street feature. Such boundaries might include parcel boundaries and public land survey system lines; fence lines; national, state, or local park boundaries; ridgelines; or drainage ditches.

7. The CDP name should be one that is recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community. Because unincorporated communities generally lack legally defined boundaries, a commonly used community name and the geographic extent of its use by local residents is often the best identifier of the extent of a place, the assumption being that if residents associate with a particular name and use it to identify the place in which they live, then the CDP's boundaries can be mapped based on the use of the name. There should be features in the landscape that use the name, such that a non-resident would have a general sense of the location or extent of the community; for example, signs indicating when one is entering the community; highway exit signs that use the name; or businesses, schools, or other buildings that make use of the name. It should not be a name developed solely for planning or other purposes (including simply to obtain data from the Census Bureau) that is not in regular daily use by the local residents and business establishments.

8. A CDP may not have the same name as an adjacent or nearby incorporated place. If the community does not have a name that distinguishes it from other nearby communities, then the community is not a distinct place. The use of directional terms (“north”, “south”, “east”, “west”, and so forth) to merely differentiate the name of a CDP from a nearby municipality where this name is not in local use is not acceptable. For example, the name “North Laurel” would be permitted if this name were in local use. The name “Laurel North” would not be permitted if it were not in local use. Again, this has much to do with the way in which people typically refer to the places in which they live. It is permissible to change the name of a 2010 CDP for the 2020 Census if the new name provides a better identification of the community.

American Indian off-reservation trust land—An area of land located outside the boundaries of an AIR, whose boundaries are established by deed, and which are held in trust by the U.S. federal government for a federally recognized American Indian tribe or members of that tribe.

American Indian reservation (AIR)—An area of land with boundaries established by final treaty, statute, executive order, and/or court order and over which a federally recognized American Indian tribal government has governmental authority. Along with “reservation,” designations such as colonies, communities, pueblos, rancherias, and reserves apply to AIRs.

Census block—A geographic area bounded by visible and/or invisible features shown on a map prepared by the Census Bureau. A block is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau tabulates and publishes decennial census data.

Coextensive—A description of two or more geographic entities that cover exactly the same area, with all boundaries shared.

Colonia—A small, generally unincorporated community located in one of the states on the U.S.-Mexico border where residents often build or provide their own housing and that usually lacks utilities, paved roads, and other infrastructure typically found other similarly sized communities.

Comunidad—A CDP in Puerto Rico that is not related to a municipio's seat of government, called an aldea or a ciudad prior to the 1990 Census.

Contiguous—A description of areas sharing common boundary lines, more than a single point, such that the areas, when combined, form a single piece of territory. Noncontiguous areas form disjoint pieces.

Housing unit—A house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, or a group of rooms or a single room occupied as a separate living quarter or, if vacant, intended for occupancy as a separate living quarter. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other residents of the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall.

Incorporated place—A type of governmental unit, incorporated under state law as a city, town (except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), borough (except in Alaska and New York), or village, generally to provide governmental services for a concentration of people within legally prescribed boundaries.

Minor civil division (MCD)—The primary governmental or administrative division of a county in 28 states and the Island Areas having legal boundaries, names, and descriptions. The MCDs represent many different types of legal entities with a wide variety of characteristics, powers, and functions depending on the state and type of MCD. In some states, some or all of the incorporated places also constitute MCDs.

Municipio—A type of governmental unit that is the primary legal subdivision of Puerto Rico. The Census Bureau treats the municipio as the statistical equivalent of a county.

Nonvisible feature—A map feature that is not visible on the ground and in imagery such as a city or county boundary through space, a property line, or line-of-sight extension of a road.

Statistical geographic entity—A geographic entity that is specially defined and delineated, such as block group, CDP, or census tract, so that the Census Bureau may tabulate data for it. Designation as a statistical entity neither conveys nor confers legal ownership, entitlement, or jurisdictional authority.

Urbanized area (UA)—An area consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent urban fringe that together have a minimum residential population of at least 50,000 people and generally an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. The Census Bureau uses published criteria to determine the qualification and boundaries of UAs at the time of each decennial census.

Visible feature—A map feature that can be seen on the ground and in imagery, such as a road, railroad track, major above-ground transmission line or pipeline, river, stream, shoreline, fence, sharply defined mountain ridge, or cliff. A nonstandard visible feature is a feature that may not be clearly defined on the ground (such as a ridge), may be seasonal (such as an intermittent stream), or may be relatively impermanent (such as a fence). The Census Bureau generally requests verification that nonstandard features used as boundaries for the PSAP geographic areas pose no problem in their location during field work.

Zona urbana—In Puerto Rico, the settled area functioning as the seat of government for a municipio. A zona urbana cannot cross a municipio boundary.

Background

Block groups are statistical geographic subdivisions of a census tract defined for the tabulation and presentation of data from the decennial census and selected other statistical programs. Block groups also will be used to tabulate and publish estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) 1 after 2020 and potentially data from other Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) censuses and surveys.

The Census Bureau is publishing this notice in the Federal Register to announce final criteria for defining block groups for the 2020 Census. In addition to providing final criteria for block groups, this notice also contains a summary of comments received in response to proposed criteria published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6937), as well as the Census Bureau's response to those comments. After publication of this final criteria in the Federal Register, the Census Bureau will offer designated governments or organizations an opportunity to review and, if necessary, suggest updates to the boundaries and attributes of the block groups in their geographic area under the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). In addition to block groups, the program also encompasses the review and update of census tracts, census designated places, and census county divisions. The Census Bureau published a notice, explaining PSAP process and participation, in the Federal Register on November 28, 2017 (82 FR 56208).

The Census Bureau first delineated block groups as statistical geographic divisions of census tracts for the 1970 Census, comprising contiguous combinations of census blocks for data presentation purposes. At that time, census block groups only existed in urbanized areas in which census blocks were defined. Block groups were defined without regard to political and administrative boundaries, with an average population of 1,000, and to be approximately equal in area.

As use of census block, block group, and census tract data increased among data users, the Census Bureau expanded these programs to cover additional geographic areas while redefining the population threshold criteria to more adequately suit data users' needs. The 1990 Census was the first in which census blocks and block groups were defined throughout the entirety of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas. For the 2000 Census, as with census tracts, the Census Bureau increased the number of geographic areas whose boundaries could be used as block group boundaries, and allowed tribal governments of federally recognized American Indian tribes with a reservation and/or off-reservation trust lands to delineate tribal block groups without regard to state and/or county boundaries, provided the tribe had a 1990 Census population of at least 1,000.

For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau adopted changes to block group criteria that recognized their utility as a framework of small geographic areas and established tribal block groups as a geographic framework for presenting and analyzing statistical and other data for a variety of communities, settlement patterns, and landscapes. The Census Bureau augmented its minimum and maximum population threshold with housing unit thresholds for use in defining block groups for seasonal communities that have no or low population on census day (April 1). In addition, the Census Bureau formalized criteria for block groups defined for employment centers, airports, parks, large water bodies, and other special land uses that had been permitted in previous decades, but never specified within the criteria. The Census Bureau also established tribal block groups as a geographic framework defined within federally recognized American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands that is fully separate from the standard block groups defined within counties.

The Federal Register notice published on February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6937) requested comment on the proposed block group criteria for the 2020 Census. The proposed criteria were unchanged from the final criteria adopted for the 2010 Census.

The Census Bureau received comments from 16 individuals on one or more topics related to (1) use of non-visible political boundaries when defining block groups, (2) use of employment data to define block groups encompassing areas with substantial amounts of commercial, industrial, or other non-residential activity for the purpose of transportation planning, and (3) defining block groups to align with former census tract boundaries when census tracts are merged. Commenters represented state and local government agencies, regional planning organizations and councils of governments, state data centers, and non-governmental organizations. Comments received by the Census Bureau are summarized below, as well as the Census Bureau's response to these comments.

The Census Bureau received three comments from individuals in Michigan noting that all minor civil division (MCD) boundaries in Michigan should be permitted to be block group boundaries for the 2020 Census as was the case in the past. The commenters correctly noted that in Table 1, Acceptable Minor Civil Division and Incorporated Place Boundaries, the proposed criteria were in error with regard to Michigan. The Census Bureau has corrected the table in the final criteria.

The Census Bureau received 14 comments related to defining block groups encompassing areas with concentrations of employment and jobs or other types of non-residential uses to improve the utility of block groups for transportation and journey-to-work analysis and planning. Eleven commenters suggested adoption of a minimum threshold of 600 workers/jobs (and no maximum or optimum thresholds) to be applied as an alternative to the existing minimum population or housing unit threshold or in combination with population or housing unit thresholds. One commenter supported the use of worker/job counts when defining block groups, but did not specify a minimum threshold. Two commenters expressed support for modifying criteria for special use block groups primarily to improve identification of block groups encompassing areas with concentrations of employment. One of these commenters noted that applying employment thresholds was not necessary as the sample design for the American Community Survey (which is the source for much of the demographic data used in journey-to-work analysis) focused on residential population concentrations and not employment concentrations. Changes to the special use block group criteria could achieve the result desired by commenters proposing employment thresholds and could also provide greater flexibility when defining block groups.

Based on consideration of the comments received on this topic and further discussion with stakeholders in the transportation community, the Census Bureau will change its criteria for defining special use block groups to no longer specify minimum land area requirements. Special use block groups should be comparable in land area size to surrounding block groups so as to assure data reliability and quality when reporting on workplace-related data and to avoid data disclosure issues. The Census Bureau also recommends that, when defining special use block groups encompassing employment centers and areas with concentrations of jobs, PSAP participants should strive for a minimum threshold of 600 workers/jobs.

One commenter proposed that, when census tracts are merged, an effort should be made to align the boundaries for block groups within the new census tract with the boundaries of the former census tracts that were merged. The commenter noted that this would facilitate historical comparisons of data, particularly when chronicling change in the sociodemographic characteristics of neighborhoods, allowing data users to use block group data to bridge back to previous decades' census tracts.

The Census Bureau agrees with the sentiments expressed by this commenter. We also agree with the suggestion to align block group boundaries with the boundaries of former census tracts in those instances in which census tracts have been merged and will update both the final block group and final census tract criteria accordingly.

1. Block groups are statistical geographic subdivisions of a census tract and are the smallest geographic areas for which the Census Bureau provides sample data, primarily from the ACS 5-year period estimates.

2. Block groups form the geographic framework within which census blocks are numbered.

3. In order to ensure a minimal level of reliability in sample data and minimize potential disclosures of sensitive information, a block group should contain either at least 600 people or at least 240 housing units at minimum, and 3,000 people or 1,200 housing units at maximum. The housing unit criterion is used to accommodate areas that are occupied seasonally and may otherwise show a discrepancy between decennial and ACS figures. 2 For the ACS, block groups are not designed to be used individually, rather they provide a smaller geographic area than census tracts that allow data users to combine them to create larger geographic areas that may be more meaningful for their specific use.

4. The Census Bureau also recognizes that there are significant geographic areas that are characterized by unique populations (e.g., prisons or universities) or not characterized by residential populations at all (e.g., National Parks or large bodies of water) which local participants may wish to exclude from populated block groups for either analytical or cartographic purposes. These areas may be designated as special use block groups to distinguish them from standard populated block groups. Special land and/or water use block groups are not required, but if delineated they must be designated as a specific type of special use (discussed below), have an official name, ideally have no residential population or housing units or at least meet all minimum population or housing thresholds mention above, and must not create noncontiguous block groups. While there are no longer minimum land area measurement thresholds for special uses block groups in urban or rural areas, such block groups should be comparable in size to surrounding block groups, particularly if defined to encompass employment centers or other areas containing a greater concentration of jobs than residents. The Census Bureau recognizes that some special use areas not intended for residential population, such as parks, may contain some minimal population, such as caretakers or the homeless, but since the primary purpose of block groups is to help provide high-quality statistical data about the population, the participant and the Census Bureau must decide if a special use block group would be useful in such a situation.

The criteria herein apply to the United States, including federally recognized American Indian reservations (AIRs) and off-reservation trust lands (ORTLs), Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas. 3 The Census Bureau may modify and, if necessary, reject any proposals for block groups that do not meet the published criteria. In addition, the Census Bureau reserves the right to modify the boundaries and attributes of block groups as needed to meet the published criteria and/or maintain geographic relationships before or after the final tabulation geography is set for the 2020 Census.

The Census Bureau sets forth the following criteria for use in reviewing, updating, and delineating 2020 Census block groups:

1. Block groups must not cross census tract boundaries.

This criterion takes precedence over all other criteria or requirements. By definition, because census tracts cannot cross county 4 and state boundaries, neither can block groups. It is only permissible to define a block group with fewer than 600 people in a county that has a population less than 600, coextensive with a special use census tract, or as a special use block group delineated within a standard census tract.

2. Block groups must cover the entire land and water area of each census tract.

Because census tracts must cover the entire area of a county, by definition, block groups also must cover the entire area of each census tract within each county.

3. A block group must comprise a reasonably compact and contiguous land area.

Noncontiguous boundaries are permitted only where a contiguous area or inaccessible area would not meet population or housing unit count requirements for a separate block group, in which case the noncontiguous or inaccessible area must be combined within an adjacent or proximate block group. For example, an island that does not meet the minimum population threshold for recognition as a separate block group should be combined with other proximate land to form a single block group. Each case will be reviewed and accepted at the Census Bureau's discretion.

4. Block group boundaries should follow visible and identifiable features.

To make the location of block group boundaries less ambiguous, wherever possible, block group boundaries should follow significant, visible, easily identifiable features. The use of visible features facilitates the location and identification of block group boundaries in the field, both on the ground and in imagery. The selection of permanent physical features also increases the stability of the boundaries over time, as the locations of many visible features in the landscape tend to change infrequently. If block group boundaries are changed, they should not be moved from a more significant feature (e.g., a highway or a major river) to a less significant feature (e.g., a neighborhood road or a small tributary stream). The Census Bureau also requires the use of state and county boundaries in all states to be used as census tract and block group boundaries. The Census Bureau also permits the use of incorporated place and minor civil division (MCD) boundaries in states where those boundaries tend to remain unchanged over time (see Table 1).

The following features are preferred as block group boundaries for the 2020 Census:

a. State, county, and census tract boundaries must always be block group boundaries. This criterion takes precedence over all other boundary criteria or requirements.

b. AIR and ORTL boundaries.

c. Visible, perennial, stable, relatively permanent natural and constructed features, such as roads, shorelines, rivers, perennial streams and canals, railroad tracks, or above-ground high-tension power lines.

d. Boundaries of legal and administrative entities in selected states. Table 1 identifies by state which MCD and incorporated place boundaries may be used as block group boundaries.

e. Additionally, the following legally defined, administrative boundaries are permitted as block group boundaries:

i. Barrio, barrio-pueblo, and subbarrio boundaries in Puerto Rico;

ii. Census subdistrict and estate boundaries in the U.S. Virgin Islands;

iii. County and island boundaries (both MCD equivalents) in American Samoa;

iv. Election district boundaries in Guam;

v. Municipal district boundaries in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and

vi. Alaska Native Regional corporation boundaries in Alaska, at the discretion of the Census Bureau, insofar as such boundaries are unambiguous for allocating living quarters as part of 2020 Census activities.

f. The boundaries of large parks, forests, airports, penitentiaries/prisons, and/or military installations, provided the boundaries are clearly marked or easily recognized in the field in imagery and on the ground.

g. When acceptable visible and governmental boundary features are not available for use as block group boundaries, the Census Bureau may, at its discretion, approve other nonstandard visible features, such as major ridgelines, above-ground pipelines, intermittent streams, or fence lines. The Census Bureau may also accept, on a case-by-case basis, relatively short stretches of boundaries of selected nonstandard and potentially nonvisible features, such as cadastral and parcel boundaries or the straight-line extensions or other lines-of-sight between acceptable visible features.

The following are the population, housing unit, and area measurement threshold criteria for block groups (as summarized in Table 2). The same population and housing unit thresholds apply to all types of non-special use block groups, including those delineated for AIRs and ORTLs, the Island Areas, and encompassing group quarters, military installations, and institutions.

a. 2010 Census population counts should be used in census block group review in most cases. Housing unit counts should be used for block groups in seasonal communities that have little or no population on Census Day (April 1). Locally produced population and housing unit estimates can be used when reviewing and updating block groups, especially in areas that have experienced considerable growth since the 2010 Census.

b. The housing unit thresholds are based on a national average of 2.5 people per household. The Census Bureau recognizes that there are regional variations to this average, and will take this into consideration when reviewing all census block group proposals.

c. For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will allow the delineation of special use census tracts, and special use block groups will be created coextensive with these special use census tracts, but they are not required. A special use census tract, and hence a special use block group, must be designated as a specific use type (e.g., state park), must have an official name (e.g., Jay Cooke State Park), have no (or very little) residential population or meet population or housing unit thresholds, and must not create a noncontiguous census tract/block group. In some instances, multiple areas can be combined to form a single special land use census tract/block group if the land management characteristics are similar, such as a special land use census tract/block group comprising an area with a concentration of employment or adjacent federal and state parks. Any resulting special use census tract/block group should be at least as large in area as the surrounding adjacent standard, populated census tracts/block groups.

a. A block group encompasses a cluster of census blocks. Each standard block group is identified using a single-digit number that will correspond to the first digit in the number of each census block encompassed by the block group. For example, block group 3 includes all census blocks numbered in the 3000 range within a single census tract.

b. The range of acceptable standard block group numbers is 1 through 9.

c. Block group numbers must be unique within a census tract.

Table 3 provides a summary of the types of block groups (with their respective population, housing unit, and area measurement thresholds) that the Census Bureau will use for the 2020 Census.

Tribal block groups are statistical geographic entities defined by the Census Bureau in cooperation with tribal officials to provide meaningful, relevant, and reliable data for small geographic areas within the boundaries of federally recognized AIRs and/or ORTLs. As such, they recognize the unique statistical data needs of federally recognized American Indian tribes. The delineation of tribal block groups allows for an unambiguous presentation of statistical data specific to the federally recognized AIR and/or ORTL without the imposition of state or county boundaries, which might artificially separate American Indian populations located within a single AIR and/or ORTL. To this end, the American Indian tribal participant may define tribal block groups that cross county or state boundaries, or both. For federally recognized American Indian tribes with AIRs and/or ORTLs that have fewer than 1,200 residents, the Census Bureau will define one tribal census tract and one tribal block group coextensive with the AIR and/or ORTL. Tribal block groups must be delineated to meet all other census block group criteria, and must be identified uniquely so as to clearly distinguish them from county-based block groups. The Census Bureau will address the type of identifiers required for tribal block groups in more detail in a separate Federal Register notice pertaining to all American Indian areas, including statistical areas defined through PSAP. Tribal block group boundaries will be held as census block boundaries. Census blocks, however, will be numbered uniquely within county-based block groups, and thus there will not be a direct relationship between a tribal block group identifier and the census block numbers. Tribal block groups are conceptually similar and equivalent to census block groups defined within the standard state-county-tract-block group geographic hierarchy used for tabulating and publishing statistical data.

In order to provide meaningful statistical geographic areas within the AIR and/or ORTL, as well as make meaningful and reliable data available for these areas and their populations, tribal block group geography is maintained separately from standard, county-based block groups. This change was first introduced for the 2010 Census, creating standard block groups nationwide and maintaining tribal block groups as a completely separate set of geography from standard block groups for both geographic and data presentation purposes, and eliminates, in part, the reliability and availability data issues for the tribal block groups and the derived standard block groups that were present in Census 2000.5

As with standard block groups submitted through this program, the tribal block groups are submitted to the Census Bureau, and are subject to review to ensure compliance with the published criteria. Detailed criteria pertaining to tribal block groups will be published in a separate Federal Register notice pertaining to all American Indian areas, including statistical areas defined through PSAP.

Alaska Native Regional Corporation (ANRC)—A corporate geographic area established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Pub. L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971)) to conduct both the business and nonprofit affairs of Alaska Natives. Twelve ANRCs cover the entire state of Alaska except for the Annette Island Reserve.

American Indian off-reservation trust land (ORTL)—An area of land located outside the boundaries of an AIR, whose boundaries are established by deed, and which are held in trust by the U.S. federal government for a federally recognized American Indian tribe or members of that tribe.

American Indian reservation (AIR)—An area of land with boundaries established by final treaty, statute, executive order, and/or court order and over which a federally recognized American Indian tribal government has governmental authority. Along with “reservation”, designations such as colonies, communities, pueblos, rancherias, and reserves apply to AIRs.

Conjoint—A description of a boundary line shared by two adjacent geographic entities.

Contiguous—A description of areas sharing common boundary lines, more than a single point, such that the areas, when combined, form a single piece of territory. Noncontiguous areas form disjoint pieces.

Group quarters—A location where people live or stay in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents. This is not a typical household-type living arrangement. These services may include custodial or medical care as well as other types of assistance, and residency is commonly restricted to those receiving these services. People living in group quarters are usually not related to each other. Group quarters include such places as college residence halls, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, correctional facilities, and workers' dormitories.

Incorporated place—A type of governmental unit, incorporated under state law as a city, town (except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), borough (except in Alaska and New York), or village, generally to provide governmental services for a concentration of people within legally prescribed boundaries.

Minor civil division (MCD)—The primary governmental or administrative division of a county in 28 states and the Island Areas having legal boundaries, names, and descriptions. The MCDs represent many different types of legal entities with a wide variety of characteristics, powers, and functions depending on the state and type of MCD. In some states, some or all of the incorporated places also constitute MCDs.

Nonvisible feature—A map feature that is not visible on the ground and in imagery such as a city or county boundary through space, a property line, or line-of-sight extension of a road.

Retracting—Substantially changing the boundaries of a census tract so that comparability over time is not maintained.

Special use census tract/block group—Type of census tract or block group that must be designated as a specific use type (e.g., state park or large lake) and have an official name (e.g., Jay Cooke State Park or Lake Minnetonka), should have no (or very little) population or housing units, and must not create a noncontiguous census tract/block group. If delineated in a densely populated, urban area, a special use census tract/block group must have an area of at least one square mile. If delineated completely outside an urban area, a special use census tract/block group must have an area of at least 10 square miles.

Statistical geographic entity—A geographic entity that is specially defined and delineated, such as block group, CDP, or census tract, so that the Census Bureau may tabulate data for it. Designation as a statistical entity neither conveys nor confers legal ownership, entitlement, or jurisdictional authority.

Visible feature—A map feature that can be seen on the ground and in imagery, such as a road, railroad track, major above-ground transmission line or pipeline, river, stream, shoreline, fence, sharply defined mountain ridge, or cliff. A nonstandard visible feature is a feature that may not be clearly defined on the ground (such as a ridge), may be seasonal (such as an intermittent stream), or may be relatively impermanent (such as a fence). The Census Bureau generally requests verification that nonstandard features used as boundaries for the PSAP geographic areas pose no problem in their location during field work.

Background

In accordance with sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on September 21, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) and its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of GNA Products from China.1 On October 31, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports and subsidized imports of GNA Products from China, within the meaning of sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.2

The scope of the orders covers all grades of sodium gluconate, gluconic acid, liquid gluconate, and glucono delta lactone (GDL) (collectively GNA Products), regardless of physical form (including, but not limited to substrates; solutions; dry granular form or powders, regardless of particle size; or as a slurry). The scope also includes GNA Products that have been blended or are in solution with other product(s) where the resulting mix contains 35 percent or more of sodium gluconate, gluconic acid, liquid gluconate, and/or GDL by dry weight.

Sodium gluconate has a molecular formula of NaC6H11O7. Sodium gluconate has a Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number of 527-07-1, and can also be called “sodium salt of gluconic acid” and/or sodium 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 pentahydroxyhexanoate. Gluconic acid has a molecular formula of C6H12O7. Gluconic acid has a CAS registry number of 526-95-4, and can also be called 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 pentahydroxycaproic acid. Liquid gluconate is a blend consisting only of gluconic acid and sodium gluconate in an aqueous solution. Liquid gluconate has CAS registry numbers of 527-07-1, 526-95-4, and 7732-18-5, and can also be called 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-pentahydroxycaproic acid-hexanoate. GDL has a molecular formula of C6H10O6. GDL has a CAS registry number of 90-80-2, and can also be called d-glucono-1,5-lactone.

The merchandise covered by the scope of the orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 2918.16.1000, 2918.16.5010, and 2932.20.5020. Merchandise covered by the scope may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2918.16.5050, 3824.99.2890, and 3824.99.9295. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of GNA Products that are sold in the United States at LTFV. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this antidumping duty order. Because the ITC determined that imports of GNA Products from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of GNA Products from China. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of GNA Products from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 10, 2018, the date of publication of the AD Preliminary Determination. 3

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on entries of subject merchandise from China. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amount indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below. Commerce has made no adjustments to the antidumping cash deposit rate because Commerce has made no findings in the countervailing duty investigation that any of the programs are export subsidies.4

The weighted-average antidumping duty margin is as follows:

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing GNA Products is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of GNA Products from China.6 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this countervailing duty order. Because the ITC determined that imports of GNA Products from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to assessment of countervailing duties.

Commerce directed CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of GNA Products entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 23, 2018, the date of publication of the CVD Preliminary Determination. 7 However, section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than 120 days. Therefore, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of GNA Products from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after September 20, 2018, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register.

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on all entries of GNA Products from China, as further described below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the subsidy rates listed below. The all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed below, as appropriate.

This notice constitutes the AD and CVD orders with respect to GNA Products from China pursuant to sections 736(a) and 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find an updated list of orders currently in effect by either visiting http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

These orders are published in accordance with sections 706(a), 736(a), and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

Background

On January 4, 2018, and April 26, 2018, Commerce published the CVD and AD orders on biodiesel from Argentina.1 On September 21, 2018, the GOA, joined by Vicentin S.A.I.C. (Vicentin) and LDC Argentina (LDC), requested that Commerce initiate a CCR of the AD order, and the GOA requested that Commerce initiate a CCR of the CVD order, in order to adjust the cash deposit rates established in the AD and CVD investigations to reflect changes to Argentina's export tax regime.2 On October 1, 2018, the National Biodiesel Board Fair Trade Coalition (petitioner) filed comments requesting that Commerce deny the GOA's request.3 On October 11, 2018, the GOA, Vicentin and LDC filed comments responding to the petitioner's October 1, 2018 comments.4 On October 15, 2018, the petitioner submitted information and data illustrating the improvements in the domestic industry since the imposition of the orders, and on October 23, 2018, the petitioner submitted further comments opposing the CCRs.5 Between September 26, 2018, and October 19, 2018, Commerce met with the GOA and the petitioner to discuss their submissions to the record.6

The product covered by the Orders is biodiesel from Argentina. For a complete description of the scope of the Orders, see the appendix to this notice.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(d), Commerce will conduct a CCR of an AD or CVD order when it receives information concerning, or a request from an interested party which demonstrates, changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review. However, section 751(b)(4) of the Act also provides that Commerce may not conduct a CCR of an investigation determination within 24 months of the date of the investigation determination in the absence of “good cause.”

In its request for initiation, the GOA explains that there are changed circumstances sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the AD and CVD final determinations. Regarding changed circumstances, the GOA provided information indicating that, since the Orders, there have been changes in the export tax regime, which was a key element in Commerce's analysis of: (1) The soybeans for less than adequate remuneration program in the CVD investigation; and (2) the particular market situation finding concerning the cost of soybean input prices in the AD investigation.7 In particular, the GOA attached three legislative decrees effecting changes across its export tax regime, including changes to the export taxes applied to soybeans, soybean oil, soymeal, and biodiesel. Decrees 793/2018 and 486/2018, issued after the investigations were finalized, in May and September 2018, respectively, decreased significantly the export tax on soybeans and other commodities in the soybean value chain (e.g., soybean oil, soymeal), and imposed a new biodiesel export tax. According to the decrees themselves, such changes were “necessary to continue fostering the convergence between the export tax applicable to {soybeans, soybean oil, soymeal} and that applicable to biodiesel,” 8 and “in order to, among other objectives, implement the monetary, exchange or foreign trade policy, to stabilize internal prices and to address public financial needs.” 9 Additionally, Decree 793/2018, in addition to decreasing the export tax on soybeans, imposes new, temporary taxes on “all products” exported from Argentina. The decree's preamble references an underlying statutory regime, as well as the GOA's 2018 national budget, noting concerns with ensuring “fiscal convergence, an efficient tax policy and the gradual reduction of the tax burden.” 10 The GOA suggests that such changes indicate a revised focus on fiscal policy, and not the development of particular industries. The GOA documented that these changes are not merely theoretical or prospective but have been in full effect as of September 2018. Furthermore, the GOA submitted information to support its claim that, since the imposition of the Orders, Argentine exporters have effectively been unable to ship biodiesel to the United States in light of combined AD and CVD cash deposit rates.11 According to the GOA, this alleged inability to ship to the United States prevents the conduct of administrative reviews through which Commerce would typically reexamine findings from investigations.12

Additionally, the GOA provided two correlating reasons for satisfying the “good cause” requirement pursuant to section 751(b)(4) of the Act. First, the GOA explained that the changes it has made to its export tax system, discussed above, have virtually eliminated the export tax differential among products in the soybean value chain. Specifically, prior to the issuance of the CVD order, in December 2017, products in the soybean value chain (except biodiesel) were subject to an export tax of 27 to 30 percent, while biodiesel was subject to an export tax rate of zero percent.13 As of September 2018, the export tax on soybean products has been reduced to 18 percent, and the export tax on biodiesel has been increased to 15 percent, reducing the export tax differential from approximately 30 percent to 3 percent.14 The GOA also noted its belief that the remaining three percent differential is offset by the Most-Favored Nation tariff of 4.6 percent applied to U.S. biodiesel imports.15 Second, the GOA notes that the imposition of the AD and CVD rates (ranging from 60.44 percent to 86.23 percent, and 71.45 percent to 72.28 percent, respectively) has completely closed the U.S. market for Argentine biodiesel, reducing Argentina's biodiesel exports to the United States from approximately $1.2 billion in 2016 to zero in 2018.16 The GOA notes the combined AD and CVD rates total at least 130 percent, depending on the producer and exporter.

In considering the GOA's request for a CCR, we note that Commerce has initiated CCRs to address a wide variety of issues, some of which otherwise may or may not be addressed in the context of an annual administrative review. 17 Here, although the issues raised by the GOA may be considered in the context of an administrative review under section 751(a) of the Act, there have been no shipments which could be the subject of an administrative review. Thus, under Commerce's normal administrative review procedures, we otherwise would not have an opportunity to review the substantial changes that the GOA has made to its export tax regime, which formed the basis for certain of our findings in the AD Final Determination and CVD Final Determination. These changes, as discussed in greater detail above, include legislative decrees that significantly reduced the export tax on soybeans and other soybean products which were examined in the underlying investigations, and imposed new export taxes on biodiesel and other goods which were not previously in place at the time of the investigations. In light of the above, including the information submitted by the GOA regarding a complete cessation of shipments of biodiesel from Argentina to the United States and the unique nature of the substantial changes to the GOA's export tax regime since the imposition of the Orders, we find that there is sufficient information and “good cause” to initiate CCRs.

Therefore, we are initiating CCRs pursuant to sections 751(b)(1) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(c) and (d) to assess the impacts of the GOA's revised export tax regime on the AD Final Determination and CVD Final Determination, as discussed above.

We intend to publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of the AD and CVD CCRs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed based on these results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. We will issue the final results of review no later than 270 days after publication of this notice of initiation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e).

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3) of the Act.

The Committee was established pursuant to Section 11 of the NCST Act (Pub. L. 107-231, codified at 15 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.). The Committee is currently composed of six members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Construction Safety Teams. The Committee advises the Director of NIST on carrying out the NCST Act; reviews the procedures developed for conducting investigations; and reviews the reports issued documenting investigations. Background information on the NCST Act and information on the NCST Advisory Committee is available at https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/national-construction-safety-team-ncst/advisory-committee.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NCST Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, November 27, 2018 from 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public and will be held via teleconference. There will be no central meeting location. Interested members of the public will be able to participate in the meeting from remote locations by calling into a central phone number. The primary purpose of this meeting is to finalize the Committee's annual report due to Congress. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST website at https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/national-construction-safety-team-ncst/advisory-committee-meetings.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to items on the Committee's agenda for this meeting are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately fifteen minutes will be reserved at the beginning of the meeting for public comments. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. All those wishing to speak must submit their request by email to the attention of Melissa Banner [email protected], by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Friday, November 23, 2018. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend are invited to submit written statements to the NCST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8604, or electronically by email to [email protected].

Anyone wishing to participate in this meeting must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Friday, November 23, 2018. To register please submit your first and last name, email address, and phone number to Melissa Banner at [email protected] or (301) 975-8912. After registering, participants will be provided with detailed instructions on how to join the meeting remotely.

December 11, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. —Call to Order —Adoption of Agenda —Consideration of 163rd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions —Executive Director's Report —Island-Based Fishery Management Plans —Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements —Puerto Rico —St. Thomas/St. John —St. Croix —Review Action 7 (Accountability Measures) of Draft Environmental Impact Statements and Choose Preferred Alternative(s) —Review Other Actions, Additions, or Changes, as Appropriate —Council Decision on Publication of DEIS for Public Comment —Review Timeline for Completion of IBFMPs —Project Events Update—Graciela García-Moliner —GIS PR/USVI —Connectivity Report —EFH 3-Year Review —Okeanos Explorer Visit Public Comment Period (5-minute presentations) December 11, 2018, 5 p.m.-6 p.m. —Administrative Issues —Closed Session December 12, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. °Strategic Reorientation of the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC)—Ms. Warner Kramer —Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Initiative Update —Data Compilations and Integrations—Mallory Brooks —Risk Assessment Framework and Application to Conceptual Model—Tauna Rankin —Request to Council to Convene DAPs and SSC for Risk Analysis Exercise —Engagement Strategy—Alida Ortiz —Outreach and Education Report—Alida Ortiz —USVI Recreational Fishery Data Project Update—Ruth Gomez —Exempted Fishing Permit Application Updates —Clean Ocean Initiative —Puerto Rico DNER —NOAA/NMFS Panama City Laboratory —Any Other Applications Received Prior to this Meeting —Enforcement Issues: —Puerto Rico-DNER —USVI—DPNR —U.S. Coast Guard —NMFS/NOAA —Meetings Attended by Council Members and Staff —Other Business —Spiny Lobster Data Collection Project Update—Marcos Hanke Public Comment Period—(5-minute presentations) °Next Meeting

The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on December 11, 2018 at 9 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.

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Respondents will be commercial fishing industry individuals, partnerships, and corporations which entered into Capital Construction Fund (CCF) agreements with the Secretary of Commerce allowing deferral of Federal taxation on fishing vessel income deposited into the fund for use in the acquisition, construction, or reconstruction of fishing vessels. Deferred taxes are recaptured by reducing an agreement vessel's basis for depreciation by the amount withdrawn from the fund for its acquisition, construction, or reconstruction. The Capital Construction Fund Agreement and Certificate Family of Forms is required pursuant to 50 CFR part 259.2, 50 CFR part 259.9 and Public Law 115-97 (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017). The deposit/withdrawal information collected from agreement holders is required pursuant to 50 CFR part 259.7 and Public Law 115-97. The information collected from applicants for the CCF Agreement is used to determine their eligibility to participate in the CCF Program. The information collected from agreement holders for the Certificate Family of Forms is used to identify their program eligible vessels, their program projects and to certify the cost of a project at completion. The information collected on the deposit/withdrawal report form is required to ensure that agreement holders are complying with fund deposit/withdrawal requirements established in program regulations and properly accounting for fund activity on their Federal income tax returns. The information collected on the deposit/withdrawal report must also be reported semi-annually to the Secretary of Treasury in accordance with the Tax Reform Act.

The information will be collected on forms submitted electronically, by mail or by fax.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0041.

Form Number(s): NOAA Form 34-82, NOAA Form 88-14.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: NOAA Form 34-82, 20 minutes; NOAA Form 88-14, 3.5 hours for agreements and 1 hour for certificate.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,917.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $15,320 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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

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

Background

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. 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 incidental take authorization may be provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings.

The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

On September 28, 2015, we received a request from the POK for authorization of the taking, by Level B harassment only, of marine mammals incidental to the construction associated with the Port of Kalama Expansion Project, which involved construction of the Kalama Marine Manufacturing and Export Facility including a new marine terminal for the export of methanol, and installation of engineered log jams, restoration of riparian wetlands, and the removal of existing wood piles in a side channel as mitigation activities. The specified activity is expected to result in the take of three species of marine mammals (harbor seals, California sea lions, and Steller sea lions). A final version of the application, which we deemed adequate and complete, was submitted on December 10, 2015. We published a notice of a proposed IHA and request for comments on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 715064). After the public comment period and before we issued the final IHA, POK requested that we issue the IHA for 2017 instead of the 2016 work season. We subsequently published the final notice of our issuance of the IHA on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89436), effective from September 1, 2017-August 31, 2018. In-water work associated with the project was expected to be completed within the one-year timeframe of the IHA.

On June 21, 2018, POK informed NMFS that work relevant to the specified activity considered in the MMPA analysis for the 2017-2018 IHA was postponed and would not be completed. POK requested that the IHA be issued to be effective for the period from 2018—2019. In support of that request, POK submitted an application addendum affirming that no change in the proposed activities is anticipated and that no new information regarding the abundance of marine mammals is available that would change the previous analysis and findings. A notice for the proposed incidental take authorization was published on July 25, 2018 (83 FR 35220), and a corrected notice was published on August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40257). Therefore, comments were received until September 13, 2018. Please refer to the Comments and Responses section below for information on the comments received during the comment periods for the proposed IHA.

The 2017-2018 IHA covered the incidental take of marine mammals due to construction of a marine terminal and dock/pier for the export of methanol, and associated compensatory mitigation activities for the purposes of offsetting habitat effects from the action. The marine terminal will be approximately 45,000 square feet in size, supported by 320 concrete piles (24-inch precast octagonal piles to be driven by impact hammer) and 16 steel piles (12 × 12-inch and 4 × 18-inch anticipated to be driven by vibratory hammer, and impact hammering will only be done to drive/proof if necessary). The compensatory mitigation includes installation of eight engineered log jams (ELJs), which will be anchored by untreated wooden piles driven by impact hammer at low tides (not in water). The compensatory mitigation also includes removal of approximately 157 untreated wooden piles from an old trestle in a nearby backwater area. The piles will be removed either by direct pull or vibratory extraction. Finally, the compensatory mitigation includes wetland restoration and enhancement by removal of invasive species and replacement with native wetland species.

Since no changes have been made to the planned activities reflected in the proposed IHA, NMFS refers the reader to the documents related to the 2017-2018 IHA for more detailed description of the project activities. These previous documents include the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2017-2018 IHA for the POK's Port of Kalama Expansion Project (81 FR 89436, December 12, 2016), the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (81 FR 15064, March 21, 2016), POK's application (and 2018 application addendum), and all associated references, which can be found at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.

NMFS published a notice of receipt of POK's updated application addendum and proposed IHA in the Federal Register on July 25, 2018 (83 FR 35220), with a comment response date of August 24, 2018. However, during the public review period for this notice, it was noted that instructions for submitting comments were lacking. Therefore, a second notice of the proposed IHA was published on August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40257), which included full instructions for submittal of comments. Comments were accepted on this corrected notice until September 13, 2018. NMFS received two comments during the review of the first notice. One comment was from a private citizen and one comment was received from the Columbia Riverkeeper, stating that instructions for submitting comments was not clear and voicing their concern with the use of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for our action. During public review of the corrected notice, NMFS received four additional comments. Two of these additional comments were from the same private citizen who commented on the first notice; one was from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC); and one was from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Copies of the full comments received are available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. Additionally, all comments received on both notices are summarized and responses are provided below:

Comment: Three comments were received from the same private citizen (Jean Public) expressing opposition to the project and concern regarding any government authorization to kill birds, seals, and sea lions in the Columbia River. One of these comments also suggested charging the POK (terminal builders) $100,000 for every seal they kill.

Response: NMFS has issued an IHA to the POK for the incidental take, by Level A and Level B harassment only, of marine mammals due to in-water construction activities associated with the POK expansion project. Mortality is not expected or authorized by the IHA.

Comment: The MMC concurred with NMFS's findings and recommended that NMFS issue the IHA subject to inclusion of the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures discussed in the notice of the Proposed IHA.

Response: NMFS thanks the MMC for their comment and concurs with the recommendation. NMFS has issued the IHA to the Port of Kalama subject to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures that were included in the notice of the Proposed IHA.

Comment: The MMC recommended that NMFS revise the Level A harassment zones for harbor seals during impact driving of concrete piles and vibratory driving of steel piles based on eight hours of activities, or eight piles/day, because harbor seals may be present in the project area for longer periods than California or Steller sea lions and therefore accumulate more sound energy.

Response: NMFS agrees that it is possible that harbor seals may be present in the general project area for longer periods than California or Steller sea lions. However, NMFS feels that it is unreasonable to assume that seals would remain within the area for a full eight hours, as they may be transiting between two sites (one approximately one mile upstream and one approximately 3.5 miles downstream) where they are known to forage and/or haul out. In addition, it is not reasonable to assume that pile driving activities would occur for eight consecutive hours daily, and is more likely that these activities would occur for an hour to two hours at a time, and would be broken up by time needed to set up new piles. However, NMFS has determined it is reasonable to assume that seals would be present for double the amount of time as sea lions (assuming a two-hour duration versus a one-hour duration due to the fact that they may be transiting the area twice if they move from one site to the other and return again) results in a Level A harassment threshold distance of 63 m for impact driving of concrete piles and 26 m for vibratory driving of steel piles.

As noted in the notice for the proposed IHA, Level A harassment takes proposed for authorization did not rely on calculated takes, and were qualitatively proposed for authorization out of an abundance of caution in the event that some seals may be undetected before entering the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, the amount of Level A harassment takes authorized has not changed as a result of reconsidering the Level A harassment zone and only results in a revision of the Level A harassment monitoring area. Therefore, the requirement for monitoring and shut down distance to avoid Level A harassment take has been revised to 63 m and 26 m to correspond to a two-hour duration for impact driving of concrete piles and vibratory driving of steel piles, respectively.

Comment: The MMC recommended that NMFS further investigate appropriate timeframes over which sound exposure levels should be accumulated when estimating Level A harassment zones, and recommended that NMFS make this a priority to resolve in the near future. MMC further recommended that NMFS consult with its own and external scientists and acousticians to determine appropriate accumulation times.

Response: NMFS considers this a priority and has recently formed a group to work on the issue of accumulation time.

Comment: The Commission expressed continuing concern with NMFS's notice that one-year renewals could be issued in certain circumstances without additional public notice and comment requirements. The Commission also suggested that NMFS should discuss the possibility of renewals through a more general route, such as abbreviated notices such as was done in this instance. The Commission further recommended that if NMFS did not pursue renewals solely using abbreviated notices, that the agency provide a legal analysis supporting our conclusion that this process is consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.

Response: As stated in previous responses to this comment from the Commission, the process of issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass the public notice and comment requirements of the MMPA. The Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA expressly notified the public that under certain, limited conditions an applicant could seek a renewal IHA for an additional year. The notice describes the conditions under which such a renewal request could be considered and seeks public comment on those circumstances. Importantly, such renewals would be limited to circumstances where: The activities are identical or nearly identical to those analyzed in the proposed IHA or the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and renewal would allow completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section; monitoring does not indicate impacts that were not previously analyzed and authorized; and the mitigation and monitoring requirements remain the same, all of which allow the public to comment on the appropriateness and effects of a renewal at the same time the public provides comments on the initial proposed IHA. NMFS has, however, modified the language to clarify that all IHAs, including renewal IHAs, are valid for no more than one year and that the agency would consider only one renewal for a project at this time. In addition, notice of issuance or denial of a renewal IHA would be published in the Federal Register, as they are for all IHAs. The option for issuing renewal IHAs has been in NMFS's implementing regulations for the incidental take provisions of the MMPA (Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D)) since 1996.

Comment: The Columbia Riverkeeper (Riverkeeper) submitted a comment expressing concern with NMFS's use of a CE for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the issuance of our IHA to the POK for incidental take of marine mammals from construction activities associated with the POK expansion project. The Riverkeeper stated that use of the CE would be counter to NOAA's NEPA guidance, citing language in the Companion Manual to NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A that says a CE may only be applied when the proposed action is not part of a larger action and can therefore be reviewed independently from other actions under NEPA. In addition, the Riverkeeper asserted that use of the CE would be a waste of agency time and resources since the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the overall construction project. The Riverkeeper suggested that NMFS should participate in USACE's ongoing NEPA process and base its IHA decision on the USACE NEPA document. In addition, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) submitted a comment stating they were in agreement with the Riverkeeper comment.

Response: The application of a CE for NMFS's action (issuance of an IHA) is entirely consistent with NOAA's NEPA guidance and practices. The issuance of an IHA is not part of a larger NMFS action that would be segmented for the purposes of NEPA (i.e., NMFS's action would not be segmented for purposes of NEPA such that several CEs would be required for a larger project, as the only action NMFS has would be the issuance or denial of the IHA for the incidental take of marine mammals due to in-water construction work associated with the POK expansion). Further, as stated in the notice of the proposed IHA, NMFS had previously prepared its own EA for the issuance of the previous IHA, which resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Based on this past analysis, as well as an Administrative Record justifying the use of the CE (CE B4) for similar types of activities, NMFS has determined that the use of the CE for this action is well supported. While we appreciate that the USACE must prepare a NEPA document for its own action (issuance of a permit, or permits, for the larger construction project), relying on the NEPA analysis for this larger project would be of no benefit for NMFS's purposes due to the fact that the majority of the larger project construction activities would be associated with upland areas with no potential for the incidental take of marine mammals associated with NMFS's action.

Comment: The CBD commented that their primary concern is that the scope of the authorization is arbitrarily narrow in light of the Project's recognized impacts on marine mammals. More specifically, the CBD states that NMFS previously considered the Project and concluded in its biological opinion that the Project would adversely affect blue, humpback, fin, and sperm whales, yet none of these species are considered in the applicant's request. The Biological Opinion also concluded the Project would adversely affect several species of Chinook salmon and critical habitat, yet the applicant did not consider the resulting impacts to the critically endangered Southern Resident killer whales that feed on those salmon.

Response: The two statutes (Endangered Species Act (ESA) and MMPA) are different both substantively and procedurally, with different analyses and potentially involving different scopes. The Biological Opinion was prepared pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA due to the requirement for consultation on the effects of the proposed action by a federal action agency, in this case the USACE, to issue permits for the construction of the Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility on the Columbia River and to Northwest Pipeline LLC for construction of the Kalama Lateral Project.1 The Biological Opinion evaluates the effects of the USACE issuance of permits that would authorize the construction project for the marine export facility, which is a component of the overall Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility project. The ESA consultation (Biological Opinion) evaluates the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, together with interrelated and interdependent actions such as the manufacturing/production facility, into the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the ESA consultation broadly evaluated the effects of the agency action. The Biological Opinion determined that the project is likely to indirectly affect several species of marine mammals including blue, humpback, fin, and sperm whales, based on increased vessel traffic (including increased potential for ship strike and noise associated with OGVs and supertankers) from the long-term operation of the facility.

The Biological Opinion does not identify potential effects of pile driving/in-water construction in regard to any ESA-listed marine mammal species, as none are anticipated to be present in the area of pile driving activities. The Biological Opinion did determine adverse effects to salmon as a result of in-water construction/pile driving but also concluded that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect southern resident killer whales.

The IHA was issued pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, which requires NMFS to authorize the incidental (but not intentional) take from a specified activity (in this case, in-water construction work associated with the Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility) in a specified geographic region for a one-year period if the relevant statutory standards are satisfied. The applicant for an IHA describes the specified activity for which the IHA is requested, and need not be a federal action agency. The IHA does not evaluate interrelated and interdependent activities of the specified activity. As Steller sea lions, California sea lions, and harbor seals are the only marine mammal species anticipated to occur in the specified area, these are the appropriate species considered for the IHA.

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities is found in the previous documents referenced above, which remain applicable to this IHA as well. In addition, NMFS has reviewed recent Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and recent scientific literature. Since the submittal of the 2015 IHA application, the USACE has published updated data on pinniped presence at the Bonneville Dam (Tidwell et al., 2017). This information reveals that in both 2016 and 2017 the numbers of pinnipeds present at Bonneville Dam were within the range of historical variability. The latest USACE data does not suggest a trend that would require a modification to the take estimates or to the effects analysis (see Table 1 below for a summary of monitoring data by year from Tidwell et al., 2017). Therefore, NMFS has determined that the updated information does not affect our analysis of impacts for the 2018-2019 IHA.

A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat is found in the previous documents referenced above, and remain applicable to this proposed IHA. There is no new information on potential effects that would change our analyses or determinations under the 2018-2019 IHA.

A description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take anticipated to occur and, ultimately, the take that was authorized is found in the previous documents referenced above. The methods of estimating take for this IHA are identical to those used in the 2017-2018 IHA, as is the density of marine mammals. The source levels, also remain unchanged from the 2017-2018 IHA, and NMFS's 2016 Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS 2016) was used to address new acoustic thresholds in the notice of issuance of the 2017-2018 IHA (see Table 2 for NMFS User Spreadsheet inputs). As stated above, since the submittal of the application for the 2017-2018 IHA (in effect from September 1, 2017 through August 31, 2018), the USACE has published updated data on pinniped presence at the Bonneville Dam, and this data does not suggest a trend that would require a modification to the take estimates or effects analysis. Consequently, the authorized Level B harassment take for this 2018-2019 IHA is identical to the 2017-2018 IHA, as presented in Table 3 below. However, the originally issued IHA did not authorize any Level A harassment take. As harbor seals are smaller and may be more difficult to detect at larger Level A harassment zones, and to account for the potential that they may be unseen or linger longer than expected, a small number of takes by Level A harassment is now authorized. Finally, the pile driving duration informing the calculation of Level A harassment zone sizes has changed from the notice of the proposed IHA as a result of a public comment received. As seals are not transiting to the Bonneville Dam similar to sea lions, and may spend more time in the project vicinity, the duration has been doubled for these species for impact driving of concrete piles and for vibratory driving of steel piles. For impact driving of steel piles, the duration was kept at the original one hour due to the fact that impact driving of these piles would only occur briefly (for proofing) if at all.

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. The NOAA Commissioned Corps is the uniformed component of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a bureau of the Department of Commerce. Officers serve under Senate-confirmed appointments and Presidential commissions (33 U.S.C. chapter 17, subchapter 1, sections 853 and 854). The NOAA Corps provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines, who are dedicated to the service of their country and optimization of NOAA's missions to ensure the economic and physical well-being of the Nation.

NOAA Corps officers serve in assignments throughout NOAA, as well as in each of NOAA's Line Offices (National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Ocean Service, National Weather Service, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and Office of Planning, Programming and Integration).

Persons wishing to be considered for a NOAA Corps Commission must submit a complete application package, including NOAA Form 56-42, at least three letters of recommendation, and official transcripts. A personal interview must also be conducted. Eligibility requirements include a bachelor's degree with at least 48 credit hours of science, engineering or other disciplines related to NOAA's mission, excellent health, and normal color vision with uncorrected visual acuity no worse than 20/400 in each eye (correctable to 20/20).

Applicants must utilize the E-recruit electronic application process (https://cpc.omao.noaa.gov/erecruit/login.jsp) and then submit paper forms via mail. An in-person interview is also required.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0047.

Form Number(s): NOAA 56-42 and NOAA 56-42A.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 150.

Estimated Time per Response: Written applications, 5 hours; interviews, 90 minutes; references, 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,088.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $10,875 in recordkeeping, recording and travel costs.

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

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

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: This is the first meeting of the Council for Fiscal Year 2019 (FY2019). During this meeting subject matter experts will present information to the Council concerning the Delivery of Service and Family Member Programs Tailored to Millennials, one of the focus areas chosen by the Council for FY2019.

Agenda: Opening Remarks, Status Updates, Administrative Issues, Review of Written Public Submissions, Effective Digital Communication Strategies to Reach Millennials, Installations of the Future-What Today's Millennials Want on Tomorrow's Installations, Marine Corps Community Services Innovation Effort, Military Community Outreach and Messaging to Millennials and Families, Questions and Answers and Council Member Discussion, Closing Remarks. Note: exact order may vary.

Meeting Accessibility: This meeting is open to the public. Members of the public who are interested in attending this meeting must RSVP online to [email protected] no later than December 4, 2018. Meeting attendee RSVPs should indicate if an escort is needed to the meeting location (non-CAC Card holders need an escort) and if handicapped accessible transportation is needed. All visitors without CAC cards that are attending the MFRC must pre-register prior to entering the Pentagon. RSVPs to the MFRC mailbox needing escort to the meeting will be contacted by email from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) with instructions for registration. Please follow these instructions carefully. Otherwise, members of the public may be denied access to the Pentagon on the day of the meeting. Members of the public who are approved for Pentagon access should arrive at the Pentagon Visitors Center waiting area (Pentagon Metro Entrance) no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting to allow time to pass through security check points and to be escorted to the meeting location. Contact Eddy Mentzer, (571) 372-0857 (Voice), (571) 372-0884, (Facsimile) if you have any questions about your RSVP.

Written Statements: Persons interested in providing a written statement for review and consideration by Council members attending the December 11, 2018 meeting must do so no later than close of business Tuesday, November 27, 2018, through the Council mailbox at [email protected]. Written statements received after this date will be provided to Council members in preparation for the second MFRC meeting of FY2019. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) will review all timely submissions and ensure submitted written statements are provided to Council members prior to the meeting that is subject to this notice. Written statements must not be longer than two type-written pages and should address the following details: Issue or concern, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Those who make submissions are requested to avoid including personally identifiable information (PII) such as names of adults and children, phone numbers, addresses, social security numbers and other contact information within the body of the written statement. Links or supporting documentation may also be included, if necessary, to provide brief appropriate historical context and background information.

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on November 6, 2018 of the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

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

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, on academic and administrative matters critical to the full accreditation and successful operation of USU. These actions are necessary for USU to pursue its mission, which is to educate, train and comprehensively prepare uniformed services health professionals, officers, scientists and leaders to support the Military and Public Health Systems, the National Security and National Defense Strategies of the United States, and the readiness of our Uniformed Services.

Agenda: The actions scheduled to occur include recommendations regarding the awarding of associate, baccalaureate and graduate degrees; recommendations regarding the approval of faculty appointments and promotions; and recommendations regarding award nominations. The USU President will provide a report on recent actions affecting academic and operational aspects of USU. Member reports will include an Academics Summary consisting of reports from the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute; the Registrar; the Assistant Vice President for Accreditation and Organizational Assessment; and the Faculty Senate. Member Reports will also include a Finance and Administration Summary consisting of reports from the Senior Vice President, Southern Region; the Senior Vice President, Western Region; the Vice President for Finance and Administration; and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine. There will be reports from each of the deans from the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, the Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing, the Postgraduate Dental College, and the College of Allied Health Sciences. A closed session will be held, immediately following the open session, to discuss active investigations and personnel actions.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to Federal statutes and regulations (5 U.S.C., Appendix, 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165) and the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to approximately 11:15 a.m. Seating is on a first-come basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting should contact Joshua Barricklow at the address and phone number noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2, 5-7), the DoD has determined that the portion of the meeting from 11:20 a.m. to 11:50 a.m. shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in consultation with the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that this portion of the Board's meeting will be closed as the discussion will disclose sensitive personnel information, will include matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the agency, will involve allegations of a person having committed a crime or censuring an individual, and may disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes.

Written Statements: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 41 CFR 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Board about its approved agenda pertaining to this meeting or at any time regarding the Board's mission. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Board may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at the planned meeting, then these statements must be received prior to the meeting, otherwise, the comments may not be provided to or considered by the Board until a later date. The Designated Federal Officer will compile all timely submissions with the Board's Chair and ensure such submissions are provided to Board Members before the meeting.

The following patents are available for licensing: Patent No. 10,101125 (Navy Case No. 200366): PRECISION ENGAGEMENT SYSTEM//Patent No. 10,106,880 (Navy Case No. 200332): MODIFYING THE SURFACE CHEMISTRY OF A MATERIAL//Patent No. 10,109,915 (Navy Case No. 103078): PLANAR NEAR-FIELD CALIBRATION OF DIGITAL ARRAYS USING ELEMENT PLANE WAVE SPECTRA//Patent No. 10,091,664 (Navy Case No. 200240): SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR UNOBTRUSIVELY AND RELOCATEABLY EXTENDING COMMUNICATION COVERAGE AND SUPPORTING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) ACTIVITIES//Patent No. 10,094,866 (Navy Case No. 103206): PORTABLE MULTI-FUNCTION CABLE TESTER//Patent No. 10,095,193 (Navy Case No. 200284): HIGH SPEED, HIGH VOLTAGE (HV) CAPACITOR SYSTEM (HVCS) CONTROL SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS FOR HVCS CHARGE/DISCHARGE UPON ACTIVATION/DEACTIVATION OF A HV MAIN POWER SYSTEM (MPS) OR SYSTEM FAULT EVENT INCLUDING A FIRST AND SECOND TIMING SEQUENCE FOR MPS MAIN RELAY(S) AND HVCS RELAY(S) OPERATION//Patent No. 10,101,106 (Navy Case No. 200388): PORTABLE PART OR CONSUMABLE ITEM CARRIER WITH ANTI-JAM FEED SYSTEM WITH EXEMPLARY CONSUMING ITEM SYSTEMS//Patent No. 10,107,858 (Navy Case No. 200360): DIGITAL TEST SYSTEM//Patent No. 10,109,924 (Navy Case No. 200393): METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING A MULTI-ELEMENT APPARATUS USING A RECONFIGURABLE ASSEMBLY APPARATUS//and Patent No. 10,114,127 (Navy Case No. 200238): AUGMENTED REALITY VISUALIZATION SYSTEM.

Members of the public may submit relevant written statements to the Board of Advisors with respect to the meeting no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, November 23, 2018. Statements may be sent via email at [email protected], via standard mail addressed to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1335 East-West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or by fax at 301-734-3108.

This conference call will be open to the public.

Program activities will ensure compliance the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-5155; (2) Information Collection Request Title: “Historic Preservation for Energy Efficiency Programs”; (3) Type of Review: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; (4) Purpose: To collect information on the status of Weatherization Assistance Program, State Energy Program, and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program activities; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 275; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 275; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 662; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Statutory Authority: Title V, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-665 as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).

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

Abstract: The Emission Guidelines for Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) Units (40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF) apply to any air quality program in either a state or a United States protectorate with one or more existing OSWI units or air curtain incinerators that commenced construction either on or before December 9, 2004. The affected OSWI units include two sub-categories: Very small municipal waste combustion (VSMWC) units that combust less than 35 tons per day of waste and institutional waste incineration (IWI) units. This Subpart does not directly affect incineration unit owners and operators; however, they must comply with the state's plan that was developed by the air quality program administrator to implement the emission guidelines. In general, all emission guidelines require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: OSWI units, which include two subcategories—VSMWC units that combust less than 35 tons per day of waste and IWI units.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF).

Estimated number of respondents: 99 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and annually.

Total estimated burden: 70,200 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $8,190,000 (per year), which includes $495,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years, and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.

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

Abstract: The Acid Rain Program was established under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to address acid deposition by reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). This ICR addresses the burden and costs associated with developing and modifying permits, complying with NOX permitting requirements, monitoring emissions, transferring allowances, participating in the annual allowance auctions, and participating in the program as an opt-in source.

Form Numbers: Agent Notice of Delegation #5900-172; Certificate of Representation #7610-1; General Account Form #7610-5; Allowance Transfer Form #7610-6; Retired Unit Exemption #7610-20; Allowance Deduction #7620-4; Acid Rain Permit Application #7610-16; Acid Rain NOX Compliance Plan #7610-28; Acid Rain NOX Averaging Plan #7610-29; New Unit Exemption #7610-19; Opt-In Permit Application #7610-26; Opt-In Utilization Report #7620-9; Letter of Credit #7610-7A; EPA Allowance Auctions—Additional Information for Certified Checks or Wire Transfers #7610-7; SO2 Allowance Offer Form #7610-8; Thermal Energy Plan #7610-27; Notification For Distribution of Proceeds From EPA Auctions #7610-11; Opt-In Reduction from Improved Efficiency Confirmation Report #7620-8; Thermal Energy Compliance Report #7620-10.

Respondents/affected entities: Electricity generating plants, industrial sources, and other persons.

Respondents' obligation to respond: Voluntary and mandatory (Clean Air Act sections 403, 407, 408, 410, 412, and 416).

Estimated number of respondents: 1,234 (total); includes 1,184 sources and 50 non-source entities participating in allowance trading activities.

Frequency of response: On occasion, quarterly, and annually.

Total estimated burden: 1,873,880 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $276,159,952 (per year), includes $139,339,770 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 249,525 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The decrease is principally due to source retirements, which have both reduced the estimated overall number of affected sources and shifted the estimated mix of monitoring methodologies used. The other factors contributing to the decrease in burden are reductions in the estimated numbers of allowance transfer and deduction submissions, expected opt-in sources, and allowance auction bids.

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

Abstract: This information collection request (ICR) consolidates and updates recordkeeping and reporting burden and cost estimates related to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program into one, consistent, and easy-to-understand format. This consolidation will assist interested parties in better understanding all the information collection activities associated with RFS.

Under the RFS program, a certain volume of renewable fuel is required to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. Obligated parties under the RFS program are refiners or importers of gasoline or diesel fuel. Obligated parties, and exporters of renewable fuel, must meet an annual Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO). Parties meet their RVO by blending renewable fuels into transportation fuel or by obtaining credits called Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). EPA calculates and establishes RVOs every year through rulemaking, based on the CAA volume requirements and projections of gasoline and diesel production for the coming year. The standards are converted into a percentage and obligated parties must demonstrate compliance annually. RINs are used to demonstrate compliance with the standard and are generated by producers and importers of renewable fuels and traded by various parties. To track compliance with the RFS program, various parties involved with the production and blending of renewable fuels, and who generate, trade or use RINs, must register with EPA and submit various types of compliance reports related to the activity they engage in under the program. Recordkeeping requirements under the RFS program include product transfer documents (PTDs) and retention of records.

Recordkeeping and reporting are based upon the activity the party engages in under the regulations. A party may be registered in more than one activity. For example, a single party may be both an obligated party and a RIN generator. Such a party would register once, but would submit registration information describing both activities they plan to engage in under the program. The party would then submit reports based upon which activities they actually engaged in during the compliance (calendar) year. Basing the recordkeeping and reporting upon a party's activities ensures that parties must sustain only the recordkeeping and reporting burden necessary to implement the RFS program.

This ICR will supersede and replace several existing ICRs, including: RFS2 Voluntary RIN Quality Assurance Program, OMB Control Number 2060-0688; Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer Reporting, OMB Control Number 2060-0707; Renewable Fuels Standard Program (RFS2-Supplemental), OMB Control Number 2060-0637; Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) Program, OMB Control Number 2060-0640; Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: 2011 Renewable Fuel Standards—Petition for International Aggregate Compliance Approach, OMB Control Number 2060-0655; and Production Outlook Report for Unregistered Renewable Fuels Producers, OMB Control Number 2060-0660.

Form Numbers: RFS0104: RFS Activity Report, RFS0303: RFS Annual Compliance Report, RFS0601: RFS Renewable Fuel Producer Supplemental Report, RFS0701: RFS Renewable Fuel Producer Co-Products Report, RFS0801: RFS Renewable Biomass Report, RFS0901: RFS Production Outlook Report, RFS1400: Reporting Fuels under 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(T), RFS1500: Reporting Fuels under 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(T)—Finished Fuel Blending, RFS1600: Reporting Fuels under 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(T)—Blender Contact, RFS2000: Batch Verification, RFS2100: Aggregate RIN Verification, RFS2200: On-Site Audit Report, RFS2300: List of Potentially Invalid RINs, RFS2400: Mass Balance, RFS2500: RFS Efficient Producer Data Report, and RFS2700: RFS Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Questionnaire.

Respondents/affected entities: RIN Generators (producers and importers of renewable fuels), Obligated Parties (refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel transportation fuels), RIN Owners, Renewable Fuel Exporters, QAP Providers, and petitioners under the international aggregate compliance approach.

Respondent's obligation to respond: The RFS program assigns mandatory reporting that is based upon activity.

Estimated number of respondents: 19,542.

Frequency of response: On occasion, quarterly, annual.

Total estimated burden: 566,665 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $57,457,330 (per year), which includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

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

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Secondary Lead Smelter Industry apply to existing facilities and new facilities that operate furnaces to reduce scrap lead metal and lead compounds to elemental lead. Specifically, the rule applies to secondary lead smelters that use blast, reverberatory, rotary, or electric smelting furnaces to recover lead metal from scrap lead, primarily from used lead-acid automotive-type batteries. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR 63, subpart X.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Secondary lead smelters.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart X).

Estimated number of respondents: 12 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually and annually.

Total estimated burden: 21,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $2,630,000 (per year), which includes $251,000 annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the total estimated burden and the number of responses from the most recently approved ICR due to several adjustments: (1) The overall number of sources decreased; and (2) there were several missing burden line items and inaccurate assumptions that were corrected since the previous renewal. In addition, the previous renewal had not accounted for any burden for dioxin/furan testing since that burden occurs every six years, which was added to this renewal. Third, this renewal includes time for each affected facility to review rule requirements each year. There is a decrease in the O&M costs from the most recently approved ICR due to an adjustment in the number of sources.

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

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries were proposed on June 11, 1973, promulgated on March 8, 1974, and amended on both September 12, 2012 and December 1, 2015. The 2015 amendment finalized technical clarifications to improve consistency and clarity and to address issues related to a 2008 industry petition for reconsideration. The 2012 amendment allowed the option for affected sources to comply with Subpart J by following the applicable provisions in the NSPS Subpart Ja rule. The affected sources are: (1) Fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) catalyst regenerator or fuel gas combustion device (FGCD) other than a flare that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification after June 11, 1973 and on/or before May 14, 2007; (2) FGCD that is also a flare that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification after June 11, 1973 and on/or before June 24, 2008; or (3) any Claus sulfur recovery plant with a design capacity of more than 20 long tons per day sulfur feed which commenced construction, reconstruction or modification after October 4, 1976 and on/or before May 14, 2007.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum refineries.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart J).

Estimated number of respondents: 149 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 15,800 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $2,500,000 (per year), which includes $826,000 annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in labor hours from the most-recently approved ICR due to an adjustment. The total hours include an hour allowance to allow each source to familiarize themselves with the requirements each year. Finally, there is slight increase in the O&M costs, as costs were adjusted from $2,005.00 to $2,016.00 using the Chemical Engineering Index.

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. This board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointment authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

Members of the 2018 EPA Performance Review Board are:

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

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Engine Test Cells/Stands (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP) apply to either new or reconstructed engine test cells/stands located at major source facilities that are being used for testing internal combustion engines. An engine test cell/stand is any apparatus used for testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive) engines. A plant site that is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) or more per year or any combination of HAPs at a rate of 25 tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per year. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of engine test cells/stands located at major source facilities that are being used for testing internal combustion engines.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP).

Estimated number of respondents: 19 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 2,150 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $204,000 (per year), which includes $6,200 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the total estimated burden, number of responses, and Capital and O&M costs from the most-recently approved ICR due to several adjustments. First, based on consultations with internal Agency experts, there is an increase in the estimated number of new sources. This renewal reflects burden for an increase in the total number of sources and incorporates burden for one-time requirements for the new source. Second, this renewal includes time for each affected facility to review rule requirements each year.

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

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Primary Lead Smelting apply to existing and new facilities engaged in producing lead metal from ore concentrates. The category includes, but is not limited to, the following smelting processes: Sintering, reduction, preliminary treatment, refining and casting operations, process fugitive sources, and fugitive dust sources. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTT.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Facilities engaged in primary lead processing.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart TTT).

Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 6,270 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $855,000 (per year), which includes $169,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase of 5 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to rounding of the total estimated burden to three significant digits.

The Commission will also provide audio coverage of the meeting. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Request for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau @ (202) 418-0530 (voice) (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Please allow at least five days advance notice for accommodation requests; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.

Members of the public may submit comments to the NANC in the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, ECFS, at www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Comments to the NANC should be filed in CC Docket No. 92-237.

More information about the NANC is available at https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/general/north-american-numbering-council. You may also contact Marilyn Jones, DFO of the NANC, at [email protected], or (202) 418-2357, Michelle Sclater, Alternate DFO, at [email protected], or (202) 418-0388; or Carmell Weathers, Special Assistant to the DFO, at [email protected], or (202) 418-2325.

This is a summary of the Commission's document in CC Docket No. 92-237, DA 18-1118 released October 31, 2018. The complete text in this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the internet at http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is available on the Commission's website at http://www.fcc.gov.

* The Agenda may be modified at the discretion of the NANC Chairman with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).

Title: Red Flags Rule, 16 CFR 681.1; Card Issuers Rule, 16 CFR 681.2; Address Discrepancy Rule, 16 CFR part 641.

OMB Control Number: 3084-0137.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Abstract: The Red Flags Rule requires financial institutions and certain creditors to develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs. The Card Issuers Rule requires credit and debit card issuers to assess the validity of notifications of address changes under certain circumstances. The Address Discrepancy Rule provides guidance on what covered users of consumer reports must do when they receive a notice of address discrepancy from a nationwide consumer reporting agency. Collectively, these three anti-identity theft provisions are intended to prevent impostors from misusing another person's personal information for a fraudulent purpose.

The Rules implement sections 114 and 315 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.

The Commission received no relevant public comments on the Rules' information collection requirements and FTC staff's associated PRA burden analysis and estimates that appeared in an August 8, 2018 Federal Register Notice.2 That Notice discusses in greater detail staff's methodology behind the estimates restated here in summary form, while also providing an overview of the Rules and the statutes that underlie them.3

Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing a second opportunity for the public to comment on:

(1) Whether the disclosure requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information.

Estimated Annual Burden (1,385,290 hours; $66,185,200, labor costs)

A. Section 114: Red Flags and Card Issuers Rules:

(1) Red Flags:

(2) Card Issuers Rule:

(3) Combined Labor Cost Burden: $65,112,327

B. Section 315—Address Discrepancy Rule:

(1) Estimated Number of Respondents: 121,000 9

(2) Estimated Hours Burden: 56,467 hours 10

(3) Estimated Labor Cost Burden: $1,072,873 11

C. Capital/Non-Labor Costs for Sections 114 and 315.

FTC staff believes that the Rules impose negligible capital or other non-labor costs, as the affected entities are likely to have the necessary supplies and/or equipment already (e.g., offices and computers) for the information collections described herein.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before December 13, 2018. Write “Red Flags Rule, PRA Comment, Project No. P095406” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public FTC website, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.

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, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/RedFlagsPRA2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. When this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that website.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Red Flags Rule, PRA Comment, Project No. P095406” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 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 J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Because your comment will 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 by 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.

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. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before December 13, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy. For supporting documentation and other information underlying the PRA discussion in this Notice, see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/PRA/praDashboard.jsp.

Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead can also be sent by email to [email protected].

The NIOSH Coal Workers' Health Surveillance Program was authorized by the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), to detect dust-induced interstitial lung disease (black lung or coal workers' pneumoconiosis) and prevent its progression in individual miners, and obtain information about temporal and geographic trends across the population of coal miners. Through the Program, coal miners are offered periodic health screenings, including chest x-rays and spirometry examinations, at no cost to them. These screenings can potentially detect early signs of black lung. NIOSH has administered the Program since 1970. Since that time, the prevalence of radiographic evidence of pneumoconiosis among participating coal miners reached its lowest level in the late 1990s, but has steadily increased since 2000 and is now at a 25-year high. In the Appalachian coal mining states of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, as many as one in five underground coal miners with more than 25 years' tenure are thought to have radiographic evidence of pneumoconiosis.1 Participation by coal miners in the CWHSP is voluntary, and about 35 percent of active coal miners participate in health screenings offered by the Program.2

Greater participation in the Program would provide more opportunities for early detection of pneumoconiosis in coal miners, providing those with early disease the ability to take action to reduce the chance for progression to severe lung disease. In order to identify ways to improve participation in the Program, NIOSH is seeking information from all interested parties, especially active coal miners, as well as miner advocates, unions, industry stakeholders, and healthcare providers of screening services for the CWHSP, to learn about the factors that keep miners from participating in the health screening examinations that are available to them.

NIOSH is particularly interested in receiving information about the following questions:

1. Are coal miners aware that periodic health screenings are available, at no cost to them, through the Coal Workers' Health Surveillance Program?

2. Is lack of convenience of the screening—for example, screening locations or hours of availability—a barrier to participation? If yes, please describe those factors that may prevent miners from accessing CWHSP screenings.

3. NIOSH's mobile surveillance unit travels to different locations to provide free black lung screenings, including chest x-rays and spirometry tests.3 Does the mobile unit provide a useful supplement to services offered by approved healthcare facilities engaged by mine operators? If yes, please explain why mobile outreach is a useful supplement. If no, or if mobile outreach could be improved, please provide recommendations on how it could become more useful to the coal mining community.

4. Do coal miners receive encouragement to participate (or discouragement from participating) in the CWHSP screenings from others such as employers, unions, or co-workers? If so, please describe.

5. Are scheduling issues, such as the need to take unpaid time off from work or use vacation hours or non-work hours for health screenings, a barrier to miners' participation in health screenings? If yes, please explain the scheduling issue that is a barrier and provide recommendations for how it could be overcome.

6. Does concern about the confidentiality of medical information pose a barrier to participation? If this is a barrier, then please provide recommendations or suggestions for how it can be overcome.

7. Does concern that the early identification of dust-related lung disease might adversely affect a miner's career (e.g., prevent career advancement or the ability to get a new coal mining job) pose a barrier to participation? If this is a barrier, then please provide recommendations or suggestions for how it can be overcome.

8. Does concern that early identification of dust-related lung disease might affect subsequent eligibility for compensation through Federal or State programs pose a barrier to participation? If this is a barrier, then please describe the specific compensation programs and how eligibility for them can be affected by early detection of dust-related lung disease. Please also provide recommendations or suggestions for how this barrier could be overcome.

9. Does concern that personal finances will require a miner to continue working despite early identification of dust-related lung disease pose a barrier to participation? If this is a barrier, please provide recommendations or suggestions for how it can be overcome.

10. Are there any other barriers to participation that NIOSH should be aware of?

Interested parties may participate in this activity by submitting written views, opinions, recommendations, and data. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you do not wish to be disclosed. Although your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments will be on public display, NIOSH will review all submissions and may choose to redact or withhold submissions containing private or proprietary information such as Social Security numbers, medical information, and/or inappropriate language. Comments may be submitted on any topic related to this action. All public comments will be posted in the docket for this action at https://www.regulations.gov.

The CMS Administrator issued a Final Administrative Order to set forth the revised payment methodology that applies to the Basic Health Program for 2018 only (HHS Revised BHP Payment Methodology). The Administrative Order is an agency action under 5 U.S.C. 551(13), issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 555(b) and (e).

The HHS Revised BHP Payment Methodology modifies the existing methodology for 2018, which is set forth in the payment notice entitled “Basic Health Program; Federal Funding Methodology for Program Years 2017 and 2018” (81 FR 10091, February 29, 2016) (February 2016 Payment Notice). The modification involves the application of a Premium Adjustment Factor (PAF) that considers the premium increases in other states that became effective after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), an operating division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), discontinued payments to issuers for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) provided to enrollees in qualified health plans (QHPs) offered on health insurance Exchanges.

On July 6, 2018, pursuant to an amended stipulated order issued in State of New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 18-cv-00683 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 26, 2018), CMS issued a Draft Administrative Order on which New York and Minnesota (the States) had an opportunity to comment. The States each submitted comments on August 6, 2018. CMS considered those comments in issuing the Final Administrative Order, which adopts the HHS Revised BHP Payment Methodology for 2018 as set forth in the Draft Administrative Order.

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) is not required.

We are publishing the Final Administrative Order as an addendum to this Notice.

The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Drug Development Tool (DDT) provisions in section 507 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 357) were added in December 2016 by section 3011 of the Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255). FDA's DDT programs include the Animal Model Qualification Program, the Biomarker Qualification Program, and the Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program. These programs are designed to facilitate drug and biological product development by allowing FDA to qualify DDTs based on certain foundational scientific information, thereby minimizing duplication of research and development efforts. FDA committed to meet certain performance goals under PDUFA VI. This reauthorization, part of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 signed by the President on August 18, 2017, includes a number of performance goals and procedures that are documented in the PDUFA VI Commitment Letter, which is available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM511438.pdf. These goal commitments were developed in consultation with patient and consumer advocates, healthcare professionals, and other public stakeholders, as part of negotiations with regulated industry. Section I.J.6.b. of the commitment letter, “Enhancing Drug Development Tools Qualification Pathway for Biomarkers,” states that FDA will convene a public meeting to discuss taxonomy for biomarkers used in drug development and a framework with appropriate standards and scientific approaches to support biomarkers under the taxonomy, including scientific criteria to determine acceptance of a biomarker qualification submission and essential elements of a formal biomarker qualification plan. Since there are overlapping deliverables between the Cures Act and PDUFA VI, this public meeting will address and fulfill those deliverables.

FDA is convening a public meeting to discuss and seek public input regarding the DDT qualification pathway for animal models, biomarkers, and clinical outcome assessments. This public meeting will describe the qualification process under section 507 of the FD&C Act and will discuss taxonomy used in drug development, which will include the scientific criteria to determine the acceptance of a qualification submission and essential elements of a full qualification plan. In addition, we will discuss ongoing activities to develop general evidentiary standards to support qualification by the three qualification programs.

Registration: To register for the public meeting, please visit the following website: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/drug-development-tool-process-under-the-21st-century-cures-legislation-tickets-50528044742. Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, and telephone.

Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public meeting must register by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 30, 2018. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization.

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact [email protected] no later than Friday, November 30, 2018, by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.

Requests for Oral Presentations: There will be time allotted during the public meeting for open public comment. Signup for this session will be on a first-come, first-served basis; there will be a time limit on the day of the workshop. Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their presentations and request time for a joint presentation. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented or distributed at the public meeting.

Webcast Information: FDA plans to provide a free, live webcast of this public meeting. The link to the public meeting is https://collaboration.fda.gov/r7zu2p7t3ab, which will not be accessible until 45 minutes prior to the meeting.

FDA plans to post archived webcasts after the meeting; archived webcasts will be available.

If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit https://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. FDA has verified the website addresses in this document, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the public meeting is available, it will be accessible at https://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES).

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

In Fiscal Year 2017, FDA published guidance on communications between FDA review staff and drug sponsors during the IND phase of drug development. As part of PDUFA VI, FDA committed to a third-party assessment of current IND-phase communication practices, which should reflect this guidance. The contractor for the assessment of IND communication practices is Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

Therefore, in accordance with the PDUFA VI Commitment Letter, FDA proposes to have ERG conduct surveys and interviews with sponsors of up to 150 active commercial INDs as follows:

• For each formal meeting between FDA review staff and active commercial IND sponsors during the assessment period, send a survey to the sponsor to solicit specific feedback about communication practices employed for that meeting. For the purpose of this assessment, formal meetings are Type A, B, B (End of Phase), and C meetings during the IND phase of drug development.

• For each active commercial IND in the assessment, conduct an interview with the sponsor to obtain broader feedback about all communications with FDA review staff during the study period, including telephone and email interactions in addition to meetings.

The purpose of this information collection is to understand active commercial IND sponsor perspectives on communication during drug development with a focus on what is working well, ongoing challenges and pain points, lessons learned, and opportunities for improvement. The contractor will develop anonymized aggregated summaries of survey and interview responses, analyze this information to identify common themes, consider these results along with IND data and feedback from FDA review staff to develop a set of findings and recommendations, and prepare a report to be published on FDA's website. The contractor will keep information collected private; ERG will not disclose personally identifying information to FDA or any other party.

In the Federal Register of August 16, 2018 (83 FR 40771), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

The number of commercial INDs with activity is approximately 4,000 per year. ERG will interview 1 to 3 sponsor representatives at a time for up to 150 INDs during the annual assessment period.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

FDA estimates that it will take each IND sponsor a maximum of 10 minutes to complete a survey. Up to 150 respondents will take part in the survey, yielding a maximum burden of 25.5 hours. FDA estimates that it will take each IND sponsor up to 90 minutes to respond to requests for interviews and participate in interviews. Up to 450 respondents will take part in interviews, yielding a maximum burden of 675 hours. FDA's burden estimates are based on experience with information collections for similar types of PDUFA-related assessments.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

The United States exports a large volume and variety of foods in international trade. For certain food products, foreign governments may require assurances from the responsible authority of the country of origin of an imported food that the processor of the food is in compliance with applicable country of origin regulatory requirements. Some foreign governments establish additional requirements with which exporters are required to comply and ask for additional assurances from the responsible authority. When requested, FDA may provide this information in the form of lists which are provided to the foreign governments.

For products subject to importing country listing requirements, FDA has historically maintained certain export lists of manufacturers/processors that: (1) Have expressed interest in exporting their products to these countries; (2) are subject to FDA's jurisdiction; and (3) are not the subject of a pending enforcement action (e.g., an injunction or seizure) or pending administrative action (e.g., a warning letter).

FDA has generally published guidance documents for these lists under the authority of section 701(h) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(h)), which authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to develop guidance documents with public participation presenting the views of the Secretary on matters under the jurisdiction of FDA.

The guidance documents generally explain what information manufacturers/processors should submit to FDA to be considered for inclusion on the lists and what criteria FDA intends to use to determine eligibility for placement on the lists. The guidance documents also explain how FDA intends to update the lists and communicate any new information to the governments that requested the lists. Finally, the guidance documents note that the information is provided voluntarily by manufacturers/processors with the understanding that it may be posted on FDA's external website and that it will be communicated to, and possibly further disseminated by, the government that requested the list; thus, FDA considers the information on the lists to be information that is not protected from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

Application for inclusion on each list is voluntary. However, some foreign governments may require inclusion on the list for acceptance of imported products. FDA recommends that U.S. manufacturers/processors that want to be placed on the export lists send FDA the following information: (1) Country to which the food manufacturer/processor wants to export product; (2) type of food product facility; (3) the Food Facility Registration number (the information collected by this module is approved under OMB control number 0910-0502), FDA Establishment Identifier number, or Dun & Bradstreet number for the facility; (4) name and address of the firm and the manufacturing plant; (5) name, telephone number, and email address of the contact person; (6) information on the products intended for export; (7) identities of agencies that inspected the plant; (8) date of last inspection, plant number, and copy of last inspection notice; and (9) if other than an FDA inspection, copy of last inspection report. We request that this information be updated every 2 years.

In addition to the information above, some countries may require additional information such as documentation that the firm has been certified by a third-party certification body that it meets the requirements of the importing country. Other information may need to be submitted to be included on the lists depending on the requirements of the importing country. FDA plans to provide exporters with information about any such additional information required by a foreign country as a condition for entry and collect the other information to accommodate the importing countries' requirements.

We use the information submitted by firms to determine their eligibility for placement on the export lists, which may be published on our website. The purpose of the lists is to help CFSAN-regulated industries meet the import requirements of foreign governments.

FDA currently maintains export lists for the European Community and China covered under OMB control numbers 0910-0320 and 0910-0839, respectively. These export lists also serve to assist firms to meet the import requirements of foreign governments. OMB control numbers 0910-0509, 0910-0320, and 0910-0839 are very similar in that they allow FDA to collect information from firms for the purpose of establishing export lists for foreign governments that require these lists before allowing the subject goods to be imported. Thus, with this notice, FDA proposes to consolidate these collections of information for government efficiency and to allow the public to look to one OMB control number for all collections of information for CFSAN export lists. This collection of information is intended to cover all of CFSAN's existing export lists, as well as any additional export lists required by foreign countries.

In 2016, FDA launched the Dairy Listing Module, an electronic registry system (Form FDA 3972) to facilitate applications for inclusion on the dairy export lists. FDA has expanded this system to accommodate applications for inclusion on export lists for CFSAN-regulated products, affording all firms the efficiencies of submitting information electronically. The expanded system is called the Export Listing Module (ELM). The ELM has data fields that allow firms to input the information identified above that FDA recommends providing. In addition, the ELM contains data fields such as “Additional Information” and “Additional Documents” that allow firms to submit any additional data or information (such as third-party certifications) that foreign governments may require. Screenshots of the ELM are available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ImportsExports/Exporting/ucm496929.htm. If a firm is unable to submit an application via the ELM, it may contact CFSAN and request assistance.

Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of information include U.S. manufacturers/processors subject to FDA/CFSAN jurisdiction that wish to export to certain foreign countries that require inclusion on export lists.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The information collection reflects an increase in burden by 18,458 hours due to the consolidation of the information collections covered by OMB control numbers 0910-0839 and 0910-0320. Also, our current estimate of the number of foreign countries that may require us to establish lists in the next 3 years and the type of information they may require us to collect in order to maintain such lists has also resulted in an increase. At the same time, we have developed an electronic reporting portal that is expected to reduce the overall reporting time per submission. The portal will enhance the ability of firms to more efficiently request inclusion on export lists.

We base our estimate on the number of manufacturers/processors that have submitted new written requests, biennial updates, and occasional updates over the past 10 years. The estimate of the number of burden hours it will take a manufacturer/processor to gather the information needed to be placed on the list or update its information is based on our experience with manufacturers/processors submitting similar requests. We believe that the information to be submitted will be readily available to manufacturers/processors. This collection is incorporating additional information collected to maintain lists of eligible exporters of CFSAN-regulated products who wish to export to foreign markets, including the European Union, Chile and China under OMB control numbers 0910-0320, “Request for Information from U.S. Processors that Export to the European Community” and 0910-0839, “Establishing and Maintaining Lists of U.S. Manufacturers/Processors with Interest in Exporting CFSAN-Regulated Products to China. ”

We estimate that 1,460 firms will average 30 minutes (0.5 hour) to submit new requests for inclusion on the list, 2,505 firms will average 30 minutes (0.5 hour) to update their information every 2 years, and 300 firms will average 30 minutes (0.5 hour) to occasionally update their information in this system.

Some firms will need to provide documentation that they obtained third-party certification to certify that they have met the requirements of the importing country. Currently, only China has this requirement. Based on our experience with this program, 370 firms will spend about 21 hours to complete the third-party certification for a total of 7,770 burden hours. During the biennial update, we estimate that about half of the 1,110 manufacturers/processors for which the importing country requires third-party certification will be recertified, meaning that 555 manufacturers/processors (1110 manufacturers/processors × 0.5) will get recertified each year. We estimate that it will take each such manufacturer/processor about 21 hours to complete the certification process for a total of 11,655 burden hours (555 manufacturers/processors × 21 hours).

We calculate, therefore, that the total burden for this collection is 21,558 hours.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: Maternal and Child Health Bureau Performance Measures for Discretionary Grant Information System (DGIS), OMB No. 0915-0298—Revision

Abstract: This Information Collection Request is for continued approval of performance measures for HRSA's Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) discretionary grants, specifically, the continued use of reporting requirements for grant programs administered by MCHB in accordance with the “Government Performance and Results Act of 1993” (Pub. L. 103-62). This Act requires the preparation of an annual performance plan covering each program activity set forth in the agency's budget, which includes establishment of measurable goals that may be reported in an annual financial statement to support the linkage of funding decisions with performance. Performance measures for MCHB discretionary grants were initially approved in 2003, and the latest approval was obtained in 2016 for significant revisions. Continued approval from OMB is currently being sought to continue the use of performance measures with minor revisions. Most of these measures are specific to certain types of programs and are not required of all grantees. The measures are categorized by domains (Adolescent Health, Capacity Building, Child Health, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Lifecourse/Crosscutting, Maternal/Women Health, and Perinatal/Infant Health). In addition, there are some program-specific measures. Grant programs are assigned domains based on their activities. HRSA is proposing to make changes to the DGIS to more closely align data collection forms with current program activities. These revisions will facilitate more accurate reporting of descriptive information related to Long-term Trainees in Maternal and Child Health, as well as activities related to Technical Assistance for programs. Proposed changes include the following:

• Trainee Information (Long-term Trainees Only) form:

○ Changes will incorporate options and titles that were omitted from the final submission of the previous OMB package, providing clarification for the reporting of specific descriptive information about Long-term Trainees on the form.

○ Changes will list the following options for “Type”: “Non-Degree Seeking,” “Undergraduate,” “Masters,” “Doctoral,” Post-doctoral,” “Other.”

○ Changes will list the title “Student Status” next to the options for “Part-time student” and “Full-time student.”

• Technical Assistance/Collaboration form:

○ Add a field asking for the “Total number of TA recipients.” This change will allow for better alignment with this data that was previously collected by program, but omitted due to a DGIS paper form error.

○ Add an “Other” category to List B under “Topic of Technical Assistance/Collaboration.” This change would facilitate more accurate data reporting by providing programs an additional category to choose from if their current Technical Assistance activities do not closely align with the existing categories in List B.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The performance data collected through the DGIS serves several purposes, including grantee monitoring, program planning, performance reporting, and the ability to demonstrate alignment between MCHB discretionary programs and the Title V MCH Services Block Grant program. This revision will facilitate more accurate reporting of descriptive information related to Long-term Trainees in Maternal and Child Health, as well as activities related to Technical Assistance for programs.

Likely Respondents: The grantees for Maternal and Child Health Bureau Discretionary Grant Programs.

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

HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

When the NPDB Guidebook was last revised in April 2015, substantial updates altered the regulatory scope, content, and display of the Guidebook. The new Guidebook incorporates information and infographics that augment or further clarify existing Guidebook topics and does not include any significant policy changes. The new NPDB Guidebook is now available at www.npdb.hrsa.gov.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.